View Full Version : Linux Dedicated Server
10-05-2001, 01:06 PM
(Apologies if this has been discussed before but I cannot get the search to work)
Does anyone know if there is _Definitely_ going to be a linux dedicated server? Please don't respond saying "Well considering it's the Quake 3 engine there should be". I expect this too but there still seem to be developers around who haven't learnt anything from valve and id and continue to release games with poor multiplayer, and lack of dedicated server ( Operation Flashpoint, Red Faction for example ). Has there been any Official word?
10-05-2001, 01:19 PM
10-05-2001, 02:06 PM
I don't think there is a definate yes on a Linux dedicated server yet, but they have to be completely brainless if they don't release it (and for free, which is also good commercially... the more servers, the more the game is played, the more the game is sold).
I'm still hoping for a Linux client too, which isn't all that hard to make (not easy either though) if they don't mess the Q3 engine up too much :p
10-05-2001, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Seryl Cann:
<STRONG> but they have to be completely brainless if they don't release it </STRONG>
Tell that to Volition.
10-05-2001, 03:42 PM
Volition released win32 dedicated servers for both Freespace2 and Red Faction, FYI.
10-05-2001, 03:54 PM
Windows isn't the best place to run a (dedicated) server on. This is not an oppinion, but this is a fact. I've run counterstrike and q3 servers on both Windows 2000 and Linux (Slackware). Windows 2000 was on a better computer, but the results were worse. The Linux servers could run for days at a time, while I had to reboot the Windows 2000 servers at least once a day. I didn't get the chance to test the servers with a lot of people on it, but I know from other people who have run servers (and played on them a lot too) that Linux servers usually have less lag than Windows servers.
Setting up a Linux dedicated server is harder and more work than setting up a Windows dedicated server, but Linux gives better quality and requires less maintenance.
10-05-2001, 05:31 PM
No joking :) I get very close framerates in linux to what I get in widoze, and some people even have better framerates in linux then windoze.
I ran my computer under windoze for 2 days straight the other day. I listed to music, surfed, and played some games. I whent to reboot it (because my framerates were dropping) and I got a bluescreen after hitting "shutdown" lol. It can even turn off right.
Ive put the same load on linux for much longer periods of time and it says as ready as it was when i first booted up.
10-05-2001, 08:27 PM
If it is a 'fact' that linux is 'better' for hosting dedicated servers, then why is win32 the most common hosting OS for all dedicated servers? Given that linux is free, and supposedly 'superior,' one would expect linux be the dominant OS for dedicated server hosting. And yet it isn't.
Oh well, 'the best' doesn't always mean 'popular.'
10-05-2001, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Wilhuf:
<STRONG>then why is win32 the most common hosting OS for all dedicated servers?
Tell that to counter strike. Seriously, please point me to some stats to back up this argument. The only reason I can think of that windows might be more common is the lack of Linux server software.
10-06-2001, 12:06 AM
Many people are frightened to death of any sort of Unix system because it is supposed to be difficult. :rolleyes:
10-06-2001, 12:21 AM
People are stupid, it can't be helped. This is the day and age of compters, and consequently computer illiteracy.
Not many understand what an OS is, or that there's another option besides Windows.
Eventually common sense will win out, but for now people go with what they know, when they become comfortable, then they start to explore...
10-06-2001, 02:09 AM
Just take a casual glance at a listing of Half-Life servers and you'll see that linux is not the domainant operating system for dedicated servers. That would be obvious to even the casual gamer.
I choose not to use linux, not because I dont understand it, but because I know it doesn't represent an improvement over Win98se, for what I want to do with my server.
I might try linux instead of win2k some time, simply because of cost. The downside of course is extremely limited linux compatibility with the existing base of PC games. Again, win98se works just fine though, as a server.
The claim that linux is somehow 'unavailable' doesn't hold water. It's a free operating system. Anyone can get it from the web 24/7.
If linux were really 'superior,' the word would have gotten out by now and sys admins around the world would have jumped on the linux bandwagon.
Actually, why should someone learn about .cshrc files, chmod, chgrp, chown, su, ps, ln, tarring, and other admin commands if all they want to do is host a decent server with minimal effort? I know it isn't hard to learn these commands, but I also know it's just simply easier to use a (windows) GUI to set up a server. I am guessing that many people just aren't interested in learning unix system administration, when they really just want to host and play games.
I suppose they could just use KDE but that still will not allow you to avoid the need to learn at least a few basic unix commands.
10-06-2001, 02:17 AM
i believe to install ut, you only need one or two commands. The rest is done through the GUI, same as windows.
10-06-2001, 02:27 AM
I'd like to see Mac OS servers. Apples run applications so much faster, you know.
10-06-2001, 05:26 AM
The reason why Windows is used more than Linux (in both desktops and servers) is because a long time Linux could only be used by the "elite". It was too hard to use for any "normal" user.
Linux has a bad name when it comes to user-friendliness, which use to be true, but isn't anymore. It is different than Windows and that is why people find it so hard to make the step, but the basics are no harder than Windows.
The reason why most people choose Windows is because everybody else does. Most companies choose Windows because most employees use it at home, so they don't have to teach them how to use it. Most employees choose it because most of them use it at work. Most people are like that, they don't like big changes. They like things that they know.
It is a fact that Linux is more stable and faster than Windows (especially Windows 98se, but when I talk about Windows I'm talking about the best, or least bad, Windows out there, Windows 2000). If you want I'll find some statistics to back up these facts.
10-06-2001, 05:58 AM
Thankfully there's always the dual boot option...
10-06-2001, 06:50 AM
And there are several tools that allow you to run Windows in Linux or the other way around :)
And wine (and other Windows simulators) are getting better all the time too.
10-06-2001, 02:14 PM
Sure, I would like to see proof that linux is 'faster' and 'more stable' than win98se for dedicated servers. I.e., dedicated servers load faster, provide overall lower latency to clients, and run longer periods without crashing.
10-06-2001, 03:31 PM
Did a little test tonight. Ran counter strike and then updated my server list, and counted how many linux, and how many windows. ( This is cs only, it doesn't include any other mods)
Total : 10280
Linux : 5988
Windows : 4292
(Note that when I updated it actually counted 12406 servers but only came up with a list of 10280. This proves that this method is not extremely scientific, and only general patterns may be discerned from it. I'm also assuming that the halflife browser is accurate in discerning which is Linux and which is windows.)
So that means that just over half of all the counter strike servers are running on some form of unix. You can possibly also cull out another hundred or so windows servers that are not dedicated, and are running in listen mode.
So that is a lot of servers that would not be around if there was no Linux server for cs, noting that most of the people who are running these servers would not be running a windows server in it's place if no linux server existed, for whatever reason ( I really don't want to start a linux vs windows flame war here, if you really want that then there a plenty of other forums, mailing lists, newsgroups that seem to cover this extensively).
This is not the sort of thing I want to see for Jedi Outcast, a lack of dedicated servers because windows is the only available platform. Note also that I am not talking about a linux client, the market for that is extremely small at the moment, and unlikely to improve in a hurry.
I guess some Official response is what I'm really looking for.
10-12-2001, 03:11 AM
I'm not normally one to start flaming, but I do love it when people come up with unproven arguments, then when you show them proof they are wrong they merely shut up and hope no one notices their mistake.
10-12-2001, 06:35 AM
But if you know you're right, does that require you to gloat over your victory?
I think that if a person has made a convincing argument and won a debate, it should stand as self evident. The losers of the discussion need not grovel in shame for making a mistake or being out-argued.
Besides, winning a debate doesn't prove you're right, just that you could come up with a better sounding argument at the time. ; )
10-12-2001, 03:34 PM
And in this case, noone has 'out argued' anyone to begin with.
Uteboy, You're not reporting at least two thousand servers in your results, you ding dong! Why did you drop them from your tabulations?
Notice your mistake, and run the check with all Half-Life servers, Mr. 'Volition never issued a dedicated server.' :rolleyes: Not just counterstrike. There are typically 20,000 Half-Life servers online. You're missing half of the actual server situation for Half-Life.
I laugh when someone paints half a picture and then tries to present it as a finished work. Especially when they're trying to use their work to 'prove' someone 'wrong.'
[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]
10-12-2001, 04:19 PM
Not all the halflife mods have linux servers released for them. So including any of them would skew the ( unscientific )statistics. Therefore i chose one ( the most popular one ).
I have yet to see any statistics that prove otherwise, from anyone arguing that windows is more common than linux ( regarding dedicated servers )
Yes I'm short 2000 servers why the refresh lost them I do not know.
I agree it's only half the picture, so why did it take a week and another post from me before anyone disputed it. Half a picture is better than no picture at all.
Oh and I never said that Volition never released a dedicated server, but they have never released a Linux Dedicated server ( and I doubt ever will). I have to admit that their Red Faction server runs very smoothly. However as Windows I'll be running it Lan only, a pity considering I have a dual PIII that I admin sitting on the net.
Kurgan : I don't _know_ I'm right, I like discussion ( which is part of the reason I bumped this thread )
10-17-2001, 07:36 PM
I run a CS server, and help admin the Thunderdome gaming servers, and I can tell you from experience that while Win may be the popular choice, it isn't the best choice. Thunderdome runs FreeBSD, and I run Linux; they are simply superior operating systems for the CS server application. Pings are lower, they are more stable, and there are more advanced tools out there for use on the linux servers.
I set up my linux CS server in very little time, and I knew absolutely nothing about the OS, I still don't really. I cant even move a file from one place to another without going into the GUI, which is easy enough to navigate and start, btw. You set up the server in the GUI, and then go to a website server.counter-strike.net that gives you a walkthrough for setting it up on both OS'es. Its simply a matter of running the hlds once you get it all in the right directories with the GUI. And NO, you never want to run it in the GUI, that defeats the purpose of using Linux in the first place.
[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: Averron ]
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.