i have an old windows 98 machine. i was wondering if there was any way i could make it host photos?

I don't much about servers, But I'm sure someone will help you pretty soon, we have a bunch of IT guys on here that love server stuff .

Posted by Kbasa I don't much about servers, But I'm sure someone will help you pretty soon, we have a bunch of IT guys on here that love server stuff .

alright,awesome!

You can run a webserver on windows 98, but you would be much better off installing a more suitable operating system. FreeBSD or OpenBSD would be best, followed by Linix. I offer some advice on unix if you like.

If you don't like unix then Windows 2000 would be much better then 98 if the machine is powerful enough.

If you must stick with 98 you can install the Apache webserver.

Last resort, but simplest, is the included personal web server.

I'll be glad to help out with any of the above, let me know what you think would go best with your equipment / skill level.

Posted by Washu You can run a webserver on windows 98, but you would be much better off installing a more suitable operating system. FreeBSD or OpenBSD would be best, followed by Linix. I offer some advice on unix if you like. If you don't like unix then Windows 2000 would be much better then 98 if the machine is powerful enough. If you must stick with 98 you can install the Apache webserver. Last resort, but simplest, is the included personal web server. I'll be glad to help out with any of the above, let me know what you think would go best with your equipment / skill level.

well,as far as the machine goes,it isnt too bad for a 98 machine.

i dont know much as far as software and coding goes. my software knowledge goes about as far as playing games with secur-rom.

Posted by systemx29 well,as far as the machine goes,it isnt too bad for a 98 machine. i dont know much as far as software and coding goes. my software knowledge goes about as far as playing games with secur-rom.

If your not up to trying unix I would suggest installing 2000, XP or even 2003 if the machine is good enough. If it's 2000 or XP install the windows version of Apache. If 2003 then you can use IIS if you want something easier.

What are the specs of the machine?

Posted by Washu If your not up to trying unix I would suggest installing 2000, XP or even 2003 if the machine is good enough. If it's 2000 or XP install the windows version of Apache. If 2003 then you can use IIS if you want something easier. What are the specs of the machine?

i dont remember the specs off hand,but it might be able to run a SUPER dumbed down version of xp.

im not at all against unix,aslong as there a comprehensive guide or tutorial i can follow. infact,id love to run linux on it if possible.

Posted by systemx29 i dont remember the specs off hand,but it might be able to run a SUPER dumbed down version of xp. im not at all against unix,aslong as there a comprehensive guide or tutorial i can follow. infact,id love to run linux on it if possible.

Unfortunately, the problem you will run into is that any current "easy" version of Linux like Ubuntu will require better hardware then a minimal XP install.

While it won't hold your hands, FreeBSD is probably your best bet if you are willing to give unix a try. The documentation is very comprehensive. Take a look through the FreeBSD handbook and see if you would feel comfortable. http://www.freebsd...andbook/index.html

If not, get yourself a copy of Windows 2000 and Apache.

Posted by Washu If not, get yourself a copy of Windows 2000 and Apache.

Yes, simplicity at it's best. I've done this for many years with a PII 400 with 256mb running 2K and Apache. Simple, stable, fast. All I hosted was small jpegs. Now I moved to a real sever but only because I don't have to pay shit.

Depending on your ISP, you might need to point the browser to some random port because some ISPs block port 80 cause they don't really want you to run servers in your own home.

I would really recommand Unix as washu said, but you can get away just fine with 2000.

Well, anything but 98.

haha,well,ill look into putting windows 2000 on it,and get back to you guys

Ask Jared.

What kind of Interwebz do you have?

install an ubuntu LAMP (Linux+Apache+Mysql+Php) server on your old box. then install gallery2. its pretty easy to set up. keep in mind that gallery2 will work under apache for windows as well if you plan on going the windows route, but you will need something more than win98 to drive it.

Why not just get an account at DreamHost or something. You'll be paying the power bill to leave it on 24/7. You might as well pay a little bit more and buy a hosting service on their server.

defeats the purpose of recycling the win98 rig.

TL;DR Version:
Ignore all above posts about *NIX/Apache/etc. They are just bible-thumpers trying to convert you. Get HFS. It'll take 2 seconds to get, 15 seconds to install, and will run absolutely fine for what you want and much better than anything else mentioned so far.

These links will tell you everything, with pics:
Part 1 - How to Share Your HFS File Server with the World -
Part 2 - How to Give Your HFS File Server a Host Name with DynDNS -

-----
Original:

All of the suggestions above are absolutely ridiculous for someone in your position with lack of expertise and would end up with you having a dauntingly large and complicated complex set of programs you wouldn't understand without experience, coupled with huge 1000-lines-long text-based configuration files, on top of operating systems you ALSO have no experience with (and, even if they could be more secure, they wouldn't be, as you wouldn't know how to configure them).

Ignore every suggestion about Apache, UNIX, Linux, etc. Of course, they are better alternatives in a technological sense, offer far more features, etc - but who cares if you can't use them or benefit from those features. If, later on, you want to actually spend hours learning how to use them for a specific reason, that's fine, but a good and fast webserver that does everything you want should only take you 30 seconds to install.

Keep everything how it is, download (it's less than a tenth the size of Apache and 50x smaller than a standard package of Apache/MySQL/PHP/Perl) and install HFS in 15 seconds, point-and-click to set the maybe three options you might need, drag your files into it to serve them, done. Windows 2k is one of the best MS OSes and *way* better than 98 and can be had for 20$ or so easily, but HFS seems to run fine on 98 if you don't want to either buy it or run a pirate copy. It is fast, friendly, has hundreds of useful features all accessible through simple GUI menus, good and simple documentation (especially the FAQ) and works on basically anything - also it's free. Hell, it's so good that even if you want very fancy options such as to run an SSL-secured encrypted server, it only takes a glance at the guide linked from the FAQ and a good 15 seconds.

There are also many simple graphical set-up guides to get you going in 2 minutes. This one seems to be the best for a newb, and it explains the who Port Forwarding and DynDNS things I mention in the next paragraph with the same pages I mention and all. You'll be up and going with a simple domain name, accessable anywhere, with good security and performance before the commercial break ends.

Part 1 - How to Share Your HFS File Server with the World -
Part 2 - How to Give Your HFS File Server a Host Name with DynDNS -

This paragraph is fairly redundant since I found you two guides that explain it all, with full examples, and more details. Make sure the system is behind a router (one of those boxes that allows you to share internet on many home PCs) and use http://portforward.com/routers.htm to figure out how to "open a port" on your router so people can access stuff from the outside. You can also use a service like http://dyndns.org to get a free domain name (so people can go to example.dyndns.org instead of needing to ho to your IP address each time, especially when it often changes). The only other thing is that if you want it to be more "hidden", you chould change the "port number" from 80 to something unused like 30080 (both in the program on it's main screen and on the port forwarding). Then people would have to go to http://example.dyndns.org:30080 instead of just example.dyndns.org, but it keeps you a bit safer if a bug in the program is found.

---

Using Apache for this would be the equivalent of buying, staffing, and having to learn the better half of an engineering degree for a freighter when you just want to send a postcard. Most geeks will, however, still recommend LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) first and foremost in any situation it because it's awesome, not because it's more useful, safer, or better for you. If you DO want to learn it, that's something else, but all you asked for was how to share pics, and that you can do without hundreds of megs of mumbo jumbo and years of experience.

If you actually want to learn how to use Apache and such, you can still try that from Windows with XAMPP without having to learn *everything* all at once.

Not to mention performance - Apache2 takes 40-80MB of RAM for a stock install while idling. X-Windows (the Linux graphical subsystem), not counting any other stuff in use, needs at least 96MB RAM.

Ubuntu - Recommended minimum requirements # 700 MHz x86 processor # 384 MB of system memory (RAM) # 8 GB of disk space # Graphics card capable of 1024x768 resolution # Sound card # A network or Internet connection

Windows 2k boots with only 32 and runs fine with 64MB RAM, and HFS takes roughly 2MB of RAM when in use *with* 50+ files in a complicated RAM-based virtual filesystem (HFS supports a Virtual Filesystem that means the files that are shared can be anywhere on your drive and still show up in one folder and no one can ever simply access your actual hard drive, it uses it's own fake filesystem).

Windows 2000 Professional system requirements Before you install the Windows 2000 Professional desktop operating system, make sure that your computer meets the following minimum system requirements: • 133 MHz or more Pentium microprocessor (or equivalent). Windows 2000 Professional supports up to two processors on a single computer. • 64 megabytes (M of RAM recommended minimum. 32 MB of RAM is the minimum supported. 4 gigabytes (G of RAM is the maximum. • A 2 GB hard disk that has 650 MB of free space. If you are installing over a network, more free hard disk space is required. • VGA or higher-resolution monitor. • Keyboard. • Mouse or compatible pointing device (optional). For CD-ROM installation: • CD drive or DVD drive • High-density 3.5-inch disk drive, unless your CD drive supports starting the Setup program from a CD For network installation: • Windows 2000-compatible network adapter and related cable (See the Hardware Compatibility List (Hcl.txt) in the Support folder on the Windows 2000 Professional CD) • Access to the network share that contains the Setup files

700MHz vs 133MHz
384MB vs 64MB
8GB vs 2GB

If the system was made for Windows 98, then it probably has 450-600Mhz and 64-128MB ram, so there could be *huge* differences in performance - not just small delays for the images to load, but harsh "swap file" use which greatly reduces the life of your hard drive. Of course, minimal "server" versions of Linux compared to Ubuntu Desktop would be much leaner, faster, etc, but if you don't have a clue what you're doing at a linux command line, you're either in the hands of projects like FreeNAS (which is also not apt for what you want but could be easily hacked to do so) or screwed.



(I hate it when people tell you what *they* would want and not what *you* would want. Whenever someone says "Install *NIX" or "Get a Mac" or similar instead of actually helping you with an answer to your question, realise that it's a suggestion based only on emotions and personal preferences - not logic - and it isn't necessarily based, even the slightest, on what you want or even something that you could use. Of course both can be great systems in the right hands, but so can Win98 even though it sucks IMHO - trying to change a transparent medium for the same message is silly. Technological bible-thumpers. :/

I had the same thing yesterday with some retard recommending a seperate FreeBSD with BIND for a SO/HO Windows network instead of the limitless (better, easier, faster, more secure) possibilities of Posadis or even just SANS - hell, even running Djbdns under ANDlinux would've been better for them. One size does not fit all and it doesn't help anyone if one person switches to Linux/Apache/BIND/MASSIVE_APP only to find that they completely loose overview, have no idea what's going on, get frustrated quickly, and THEN find that there is a better application on their old platform. That isn't how you get people to switch, that's how you get people to hate whatever you want them to try. )

Posted by Washu Unfortunately, the problem you will run into is that any current "easy" version of Linux like Ubuntu will require better hardware then a minimal XP install. While it won't hold your hands, FreeBSD is probably your best bet if you are willing to give unix a try. The documentation is very comprehensive. Take a look through the FreeBSD handbook and see if you would feel comfortable. http://www.freebsd...andbook/index.html If not, get yourself a copy of Windows 2000 and Apache.

Not exactly. Ubuntu comes with a version specifically designed to run well on a 386 machine, it's called xubuntu. The full version will still run on less powerful hardware than Windows XP and the os will degrade gracefully as you throttle resources, unlike Windows.

Posted by Seventh Stage Not exactly. Ubuntu comes with a version specifically designed to run well on a 386 machine, it's called xubuntu. The full version will still run on less powerful hardware than Windows XP and the os will degrade gracefully as you throttle resources, unlike Windows.

You might actually want to check on Xubuntu's system requirements before making such a ridiculous claim. Run on a 386? Is that a joke? Xubuntu's system requirement's are higher than XPs:

* 500 MHz or better processor
* 1.5GB of available disk space
* 192MB of memory (RAM) for installation but only 128 MB of RAM to run from the installation CD
* CD-ROM drive
* Ethernet interface
* VGA graphics interface

XP only requires 233 MHz and 128 MB. With 128 MB it will be fine for a dedicated web server. It will actually run on 64 MB if you really need it to. Xubuntu won't even boot with on a PC with those specs.

Xubuntu only changes the GUI portion, the base system is still the same as regular Ubuntu along with its steep (by linux standards) system requirements. However, by changing the GUI Xubuntu loses all those nice GUI tools that make Ubuntu so easy. So Xubuntu is neither lightweight nor easy.

Finaly, your statement about degrading gracefully is outright false. Ubuntu/Xubuntu has no such capability. Other than compiz if your video card supports it, it runs the same no matter what your hardware. XP will adjust some of it's graphical settings and background services depdinging on your PC's specs.


There are nice lightweight linux distros, however none of the Ubuntu variants qualify.

I stand corrected, I was confusing the requirements of XUbuntu with Damn Small Linux. That distro is a compressed 50MB image, has a required minimum of a 486DX and 16MB of RAM, and it even comes loaded with a web server.

Finaly, your statement about degrading gracefully is outright false. Ubuntu/Xubuntu has no such capability. Other than compiz if your video card supports it, it runs the same no matter what your hardware. XP will adjust some of it's graphical settings and background services depdinging on your PC's specs.

I think you may have misunderstood me, I am not talking about application level adjustments, I am referring to how well the core components of the system can react when stressed. One example of why this is so is process scheduling. Linux has simple and consistent process scheduling based on priority, computation time, and io time. Windows 2000 has a less consistent model based more on thread priority that resolves starvation through a method called "priority inversion". This was described by Andrew Tanenbaum as a "big hack" (Modern Operating Systems, second edition).

I did a demonstration of this to a Linux users group I used to belong to. I had a dual boot computer, Windows XP and Ubuntu. On Windows I ran the game Max Payne 2 with the settings jacked up. On Linux I ran the game using an engine that performed real time translation of DirectXGraphics to OpenGL, DirectAudio to ALSA, and DirectInput to X11. On Linux, despite the extra overhead, the game ran faster and better.

The core components of Linux are simply better than Windows, that is why it is a better choice for older hardware.

Posted by Seventh Stage I think you may have misunderstood me, I am not talking about application level adjustments, I am referring to how well the core components of the system can react when stressed. One example of why this is so is process scheduling. Linux has simple and consistent process scheduling based on priority, computation time, and io time. Windows 2000 has a less consistent model based more on thread priority that resolves starvation through a method called "priority inversion". This was described by Andrew Tanenbaum as a "big hack" (Modern Operating Systems, second edition).

Sorry, as respectable as Mr Tanenbaum is, he is rather focused on his MINIX OS. He doesn't like Linux much either. Anyone who calls the NT kernel a "big hack" does not know what they are talking about. Of all the things MS does, the NT kernel is one of their best works. It is more focused on threading performance than Linux, but that doesn't make it bad, just different.

If the Linux scheduler is so "simple" why has it been changed and debated about so much?

Also "priority inversion" is not a scheduling method. It's a scheduling problem that can affect Linux just as much as Windows.

On Linux, despite the extra overhead, the game ran faster and better.

One anecdote does not fact make. There are lots of documented cases where Windows performs better than Linux.

The core components of Linux are simply better than Windows, that is why it is a better choice for older hardware.

If you are talking about the kernel then you are wrong. The NT kernel is a very good one. It just has different design goals than the Linux kernel.

Now, depending on what else you call "core" then yes, there are some areas where Linux is clearly superior to Windows. There are also areas where Windows is clearly better than linux.

I have used many Windows machines in the past and many Linux ones, it was always my impression that Linux worked better and the tests that I did proved that. What tests have you done?