X Windows

I

IT_Architect

Verified User
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
1,089
We will be setting up a new server. Servers have a lot of power these days. I don't know the performance cost of X. Like most servers, 99% of the time nobody will be interacting with the GUI. I'm a command line guy, but NIX machines are PITA without a GUI. I can't even get a decent text editor without X. I've played with X based GUIs on other people's desktops, but I've never worked with one on a box of my own and never on a server that gets pounded.
 
You could use WinSCP to edit files if you want. There's nothing wrong with nano, vi or quick replaces with perl for that matter. Or use webmin if you really have to.

I don't see the benefit of having X on your server. A waste of resources if you'd ask me.
 
The problem with pico/nano is file size limitations and it hides typos if they are control characters. Then you end up in VI to find them.

WinSCP I would be open to if I could use it when logged in as wheel and super user. (FreeBSD) I don't know about file size limitations with it.

>waste of resources<

What kind of resources? If disk space I don't care. The average web site wastes more room than X will take. If it requires config changes that detract from the server's performance when X isn't loaded or being used, then I care.

Thanks!
 
You shouldnt be editing files on windows in anything but notepad anyways. Wordpad and anything else will add weird characters in it. If you want a gui then switch to windows 2003 and 2008. No respectable host will be running X windows lol.
 
>You shouldnt be editing files on windows in anything but notepad anyways. Wordpad and anything else will add weird characters in it.<

We're talking about editing on the server. I don't want to move multi-gig files back and forth to edit them. Pico and Nano are NIX editors, and they are not GUI editors. Notepad and Wordpad are Windows. They won't run on a ?NIX server without running an interpreter. Moreover, neither will do large files. LOL

>If you want a gui then switch to windows 2003 and 2008<

We're on FreeBSD because of our loads. The servers serve 10,000 dynamic pages in a minute. 1/3 of our traffic is inbound gathering information from around the world to generate the images that we present to customers. We needed features that Apache could give us that IIS could not. One of the critical features was added in 2008, which just came out. Moreover, 2008 may, or may not be able to handle the load. We may run into other areas where IIS is missing features that we require and Apache has. With the Windows servers that I do have, 2003, I have far and away more trouble with IIS than I do with Apache on NIX, and it always takes an order of a magnitude more time to fix them where there is a problem, usually caused by a security update. I need to prove 2008 will work for this environment first. You can run Apache on Windows too, no problem, except there is no control panel out there that will manage Apache on Windows and you lose many of the advantages of the Windows server.

>No respectable host will be running X windows lol.<

Oh? Why would that be? Then no respectable host would run Windows since it REQUIRES a GUI. Windows is about 30% of the web hosting market. Ed used X Windows code ideas to found CITRIX. No, whether Windows or ?NIX, the GUI is the only environment that I know of where you can get an unlimited size text editor, and a text editor that won't add non-printable characters.

Perhaps you could enlighten us about a product that would allow us to edit huge files on the servers, while logged in as wheel super user, that does not allow embedding non-printable characters, and does not require a GUI.

Thanks!
 
We're very happy with joe.

It takes a long time to load a huge file, and it will use memory and/or swap to hold the file while editing, so you do need a lot of memory or swap space (swap space will slow it down).

It may not work for you at all; it works well for us.

Jeff
 
jlasman said:
We're very happy with joe...It takes a long time to load a huge file, and it will use memory and/or swap to hold the file while editing, so you do need a lot of memory or swap space (swap space will slow it down). It may not work for you at all; it works well for us.Jeff
Click to expand...
I expect all of that of any editor that is not limited by available RAM. It definitely looks promising.

Thanks tons!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top