Best Home Server OS?
Just as the name suggests, i'm looking for the best home server OS i can find.
This will be a server used to store data across a Workgroup, and through a shared folder/folders, i haven't decided whether i will be buying one or building one, that depends solely on the price at the time, which will be a while from now.
I originally considered Windows Server until i took the additional fees into consideration (Client Access Licenses, Per CPU/Core Licenses) and now i'm considering Ubuntu Server, however i'm not sure if there will be a Linux equivalent to all of the additional fees i mentioned, and with a small amount of research i did discover that you can connect Ubuntu to a Windows Workgroup, so the question is, which OS would be the best for my particular application?
I should also mention that i don't plan on using any services associated with Active Directory, DNS, DHCP, etc.
This will be a server used to store data across a Workgroup, and through a shared folder/folders, i haven't decided whether i will be buying one or building one, that depends solely on the price at the time, which will be a while from now.
I originally considered Windows Server until i took the additional fees into consideration (Client Access Licenses, Per CPU/Core Licenses) and now i'm considering Ubuntu Server, however i'm not sure if there will be a Linux equivalent to all of the additional fees i mentioned, and with a small amount of research i did discover that you can connect Ubuntu to a Windows Workgroup, so the question is, which OS would be the best for my particular application?
I should also mention that i don't plan on using any services associated with Active Directory, DNS, DHCP, etc.
Comments
If you want to buy something (hardware and software), then I'd recommend getting a Synology NAS. It doesn't have to be Synology, but they're one of my favorites.
Otherwise, if you want to build yourself, I'd recommend Ubuntu Server or Debian and setting up Samba.
As for licensing fees, there are none with Linux. So nothing to worry about there.
That's good to know. I was worried that Linux was one of those companies that hides fees. What are your thoughts Windows Server? (other than the RIDICULOUS price)
I have Windows Server 2012 on my home server, though I received this via the Microsoft DreamSpark program so there was no cost associated to it. For me it's been rock solid, though it's overkill really. If I didn't have that available and wanted to keep it legit with licensing, I'd be giving Ubuntu a go or try using the free Microsoft Hyper-V Server perhaps. While the price might seem expensive for us home users, you have to factor into the cost technical support that Microsoft provides should something go wrong. These versions are targeting the enterprise business environment after all. Microsoft's life cycle support is quite decent I think - Windows Server 2003 is still supported until April next year so overall cost of ownership over a span of 10 years is reasonably low in that respect. From what I've seen, most distributions of Linux are supported by asking questions on online forums, and networking with experienced users.
A NAS as BlueSun suggested is a good option if it's purely file sharing and you have say 2-4 TB of data to store. I went the home server option as I use up more storage (have 14TB of drives in a mirrored disk volume configuration in case a drive fails), and wanted to use Hyper-V virtualisation, SQL Server, etc.
I suggest you put things in ESXi/Hyper-V/KVM to run several OSes. So you can have one for a NAS (maybe attach a SAS controller with VT-d) and one for a web server and so on...
As previously stated there is no "one" company behind Linux, but numerous companies. Linux vendors like RedHat, Canonical (Ubuntu), SuSE, etc... make money off of sellling support contracts. Everyone can get community support but that's not provided with any guarentee and is provided by the free will, usually at no payment to them, of other community members. For enterprise users however that's usually not good enough, so they pay several thousand dollars for their vendor to provide support directly in a timely way.
There's certainly a lot of money in the Linux ecosystem (it gives me my hefty paycheck) but despite that the collective software is still free for you to use and modify.
It's overkill if all you're doing is file sharing. You could even get by with just a Windows 7 box sharing files if you had one laying around.
If you wanted to learn Windows Server, you get a 60 day evaluation period free before it starts complaining about not being genuine and then slightly limited functionality after that. Plus you can re-arm up to 3 times. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948472
Why not zoidberg? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Heh. Any opinions on the up and coming ReactOS? It's based on the same binary (currently) as Windows Server 2003, and I'm pretty sure it would be something to consider, when it gets released (or if it gets released, for that matter).
It also smells like Russia.
For now Ubuntu Server is my best bet, however I brought up ReactOS as it might be something to consider later on.
It's managed to stay in Alpha for years and make very little progress. I wouldn't consider it as a contender for any kind of actual use.
As of now, maybe not, however maybe 5+ years later, it might be worth checking back into it.
No I didn't, how long have they been basing it off of Windows Server 2003?
Thanks for the recommendation stitch. I'll have to find a lightweight Linux distro and get familiar with it
But slightly more back on topic: If you want to do vintage, may I suggest: Windows 3.1 running DEC PATHWORKS?, Artisoft Lantastic? Microsoft Lanmanger on OS/2? Or if you want a web server, here is a web server for a PCJr : http://www.brutman.com/PCjr/pcjr_web_server.html
I would recommend staying away from anything with systemd as the init system. Ubuntu wouldn't be a good option either because of security reasons. With the majority of distros out of the picture, Debian (version 7 or older) and Slackware are your only choices left. I would personally use Slackware because it is fast, stable, and secure.
I'm curious to know what security reasons you're talking about.
Besides which, we're talking about a file server which is likely on a private home network and probably not going to have outside access. While security should always be a concern, I think it's a bit less of a concern in this situation.
I second BlueSun's post, how exactly is Ubuntu insecure?
https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/334