Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: awm...@oakland.edu (awmunn)
Subject: Best Intel based Unix for Apache?
Date: 1996/12/06
Message-ID: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 202651604
content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


What is the ebst Intel based Unix for running Apache on?
FreeBSD? Linux? Solaris? Doesnt matter?

please reply through email since I dont read this group very often.

Thanks

Andrew

From: Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com>
Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache?
Date: 1996/12/10
Message-ID: <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203663362
references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Internet Movie Database http://us.imdb.com/
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1.6.1-RELEASE i386)


awmunn wrote:
> 
> What is the ebst Intel based Unix for running Apache on?
> FreeBSD? Linux? Solaris? Doesnt matter?
> 
> please reply through email since I dont read this group very often.

If your hardware can handle it, go with FreeBSD.

I use FreeBSD and highly recommend it.

Juding by feedback on the Apache developers list developer, Linux
and Solaris seem to be more trouble to setup/maintain. Everything
is that much easier with FreeBSD.

-- 
Rob Hartill. Internet Movie Database Ltd. http://www.imdb.com/

From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache?
Date: 1996/12/12
Message-ID: <58ouq6$12p@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203697268
references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com>
organization: CymruNET
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


In article <32ACB5B1.3F54B...@imdb.com>, Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com> wrote:
>Juding by feedback on the Apache developers list developer, Linux
>and Solaris seem to be more trouble to setup/maintain. Everything
>is that much easier with FreeBSD.

I'd very strongly have to disagree on the Linux maintenance issue. Solaris X86
I wouldnt currently advise. I can't seem to get any answer from Sun over the
'big ping crashes boxes' stuff like a fix date. (doesnt affect the sparcs).

Since an upgrade consists of typing
rpm --upgrade packagename
and a new package install
rpm --install packagename

on all the decent Linux distributions

Both FreeBSD and Linux will simply sit there and run. Both are great
answers to the 'what shall we use apache for'.

Alan
-- 
Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net
-------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

From: d...@va.pubnix.com (David J MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache?
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <lobubymugy.fsf@catapult.va.pubnix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203904114
sender: d...@catapult.va.pubnix.com
references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com>
organization: UUNET Technologies
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:58:25 +0000, Rob Hartill <r...@imdb.com> said:

> Juding by feedback on the Apache developers list developer, Linux
> and Solaris seem to be more trouble to setup/maintain. Everything
> is that much easier with FreeBSD.

BSDI works very well too, once you tune some kernel parameters for
best performance. Linux's TCP/IP code is significantly less optimized
than any BSD's. If you run a heavily-used server, it will matter.

From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache?
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <58sb6f$npo@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203960480
references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com> 
<lobubymugy.fsf@catapult.va.pubnix.com>
organization: CymruNET
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


In article <lobubymugy....@catapult.va.pubnix.com>,
David J MacKenzie <d...@va.pubnix.com> wrote:
>BSDI works very well too, once you tune some kernel parameters for
>best performance. Linux's TCP/IP code is significantly less optimized
>than any BSD's. If you run a heavily-used server, it will matter.

I take specific offence to that. The Linux 2.0 networking code has the
lowest lmbench latencies of any generally used TCP/IP stack on the planet.

May I humbly suggest you either
a) Withdraw the claim
b) Produce industry accepted tcp benchmark figures to show
otherwise
c) Speak to your lawyer

(C is a joke BTW I'm not that sort of person)

Alan

-- 
Alan Cox, Technical Director, CymruNET Ltd: Email: A...@cymru.net
-------- http://www.cymru.net ---------- Phone: +44 1792 290194
Internet/Intranet Solutions, ISDN, Leased Lines, Consultancy and Support

From: d...@va.pubnix.com (David J MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Best Intel based Unix for Apache?
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <lo9172mbrw.fsf@catapult.va.pubnix.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203962715
sender: d...@catapult.va.pubnix.com
references: <588kbu$mvg@news2.acs.oakland.edu> <32ACB5B1.3F54BC7E@imdb.com>
organization: UUNET Technologies
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


On 13 Dec 1996 19:35:43 -0000, a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox) said:

> I take specific offence to that. The Linux 2.0 networking code has the
> lowest lmbench latencies of any generally used TCP/IP stack on the planet.

I was going by the lmbench results reported at the January 1996 Usenix.
I wasn't aware that Linux 2.0 had significantly different networking
code than previous versions. I'm just aware of its historical trend
of sucking in various ways :-)

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/