Ever used Linux?

yes. debian is very good as long as it isn't ubuntu xD

neXus wrote:yes. debian is very good as long as it isn't ubuntu xD

Haha we were using ubuntu in the beginning xD

vega

ok thank you vega perhaps i will install Linux so !

Avallac'h

I wont i stay with my windows 8

vega

for the moment i stay with my Windows 7 on my computer and with my Windows 8 on my netbook ! Or perhaps i will make the two operating system ! Then i will have the choice !

Avallac'h

Haha indeed I used to have linux a few years ago but i moved back to windows idk why

vega

because ! ( it's only this explain i found )

Avallac'h

haha no its easier to use thats probably why

vega

ah ah ! Why why ? a lot of questions !

Avallac'h

Idk i just find windows easier to use

vega

Ok ok ! Just what mean IDK ?

Avallac'h

idk = i dont know

vega

Thank you !

Avallac'h

vega wrote:

neXus wrote:yes. debian is very good as long as it isn't ubuntu xD

Haha we were using ubuntu in the beginning xD

vega

:O bad thing to begin with. it's a total memory eater, even though it's based on debian
whereas debian is "vanilla" (stock, no additions) and is improved for lower memory use. it's good that you stay on debian for now
but in the future i'd recommend any Arch-based OS that has all drivers included (e.g. : Manjaro)

I'm not so sure about this memory eater thingy. My ubuntu server uses 167 MB memory at the moment, which isn't that much. Also there are lightweigth guis which you can use like xfce or lxde which are very memory friendly. Sometimes it can be handy that ubuntu supports more up to date packages than debian. E.g. ssds where supported in debian much later (at least without testing repository). Also a google search for problems will usually be a feel good experience with ubuntu whereas debian searches often tend to warp you in strange forum threads beginning with "did you try .."

Apart from that debian is certainly a good choice for a server & slackware really sounds interesting!

Are you running the server with a gui btw? Vega's search for dropbox made me think you might do so As far as I know this is considered not so good style for it uses more ressources and is also kind of a security issue.

An interesting read: http://www.linuxatemyram.com ... i figured just out that in fact I only use 128 MB at the moment.

Hm ... after further reading; 128MB is not really that efficient. There is an ubuntu minimal installation which should use less memory. Also debian probably really uses less. Kwakie - what's the memory usage on our server?

Kwakkie has found this: http://www.vandorp.biz/2012/01/installing-a-lightweight-lxdevnc-desktop-environment-on-your-ubuntudebian-vps/

Which is using almost nothing, it even didn't hve a text editor. Also i uninstalled dropbox but its back on it, did you do that kwakkie?

ps.: miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiic!

vega

Veeeegaaaaa! Or more general: eleeeemeeents! Long time no hear.
About the gui I also found:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ServerGUI
Though I admit that it's probably a theoretical discussion, and lxde should be fine.
Though I wanted to mention that some file managers let you include servers via ssh/scp ... as a result you can access the filesystem of the server / edit / copy files etc like usual with a gui on your local machine. Only commands, like creating new users, starting services, configuring firewall etc. would have to be done via command-line / shell. This way only the ports for ssh and nexuiz would have to be opened on the server.
Also btw. I figured out that it can be handy to change the ssh port (after allowing the new ssh port in the firewall . When I had servers running in the wild (internet) logwatch (a really cool tool for server administration) pointed out that there are quiet regular portscans on standard ports like 22 or 80.

so instead of port 13000 we need to take 22 or 80?

vega

Vega,

I did not install dropbox again. No idea what happend there.

What vega is saying, is that the ssh port (which u access by a putty) is normally prot 22. People who like to hack into systems scan on there kind of ports, and than try to hack in system. We could change to another port, but no issue i think.

In case of hack, we just reinstall :-)

Cheers

kwak

(dang somehow my reply - which was very profound - got lost!!!)

But exactly kwak! Probably no neet to worry. But changing ssh port is a thing of 2 minutes. Also you could - in case you use ufw - set "ufw limit ssh" which blocks an IP after too many login attempts per minute.

The thing is that many automated checks take place on common ports like 22 or 80, so no human interaction needed. I used to have at least one or two per day when my server was running.

Thx mic,

I changed port. Vega... if u log in with putty port has changes from 22 to six + 4 2's :-)

bb kwak