Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: 00...@williams.edu (Jason Healy)
Subject: Linux or Solaris
Date: 1997/01/25
Message-ID: <5cdk7n$94n@goshen.williams.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212174363
organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
summary: linux or solaris for web serving


Good day, I have a quick question that I hope people can give me their
thoughts on.

We have just obtained a new server for our organization; it is a Pentium
Pro 200 with 128MB of RAM and 8GB of online storage. We will be running
it as a WWW/FTP server, as well as a UNIX shell account server for a few
hundred users. We currently have a choice between Linux or Solaris 2.5
for the flavors of UNIX that we might put on the machine.

What should we go with? I keep seeing threads about TCP/IP problems in
solaris on this newsgroup, as well as the nickname "slowaris" for the
software. However, some people here seem to think that Linux not being
commerical software will cause it to have problems.

Please assume that Solaris does not cost us anything, that we have equal
expertise in both flavors, and that we will be running Apache as our web
server. Are there any arguments for one flavor over the other?

Thanks in advance,

Jason

--
________________________________________________________________________
Jason Healy | If you're the type of person who reads
Jason.B.He...@williams.edu | .sig files all the way to the end, 
http://wso.williams.edu/~jhealy/| then I'm afraid you're going to be

From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: 1997/01/27
Message-ID: <5ci51p$t5p@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212500457
references: <5cdk7n$94n@goshen.williams.edu>
organization: CymruNET
newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


In article <5cdk7n$...@goshen.williams.edu>,
Jason Healy <00...@williams.edu> wrote:
>software. However, some people here seem to think that Linux not being
>commerical software will cause it to have problems.
>Please assume that Solaris does not cost us anything, that we have equal
>expertise in both flavors, and that we will be running Apache as our web
>server. Are there any arguments for one flavor over the other?

Userbase (Linux v Solaris Intel). Speed of fixing (the rsh bug still
isnt fixed in Solaris 2.5.1 - over 9 months on now). And you can get Linux 
commercially if you want, just buy a CD. You can buy Linux support contracts
too, and while they are not cheap, neither are Sun's real support contracts
- not that the reporting of the rsh bug from someone with a sun support
contract got it fixed). [1]

As to the 'slowaris' moniker. In terms of commercial Unices v Linux and
FreeBSD, Solaris is one of the better ones in terms of closeness of
performance compared with the Free OS's. Solaris had some very bad tcp
problems but those are fixed in the 2.5.1 recommended patches and the
benchmark performance of Solaris tcp even over wide area links is now very
good.

Alan
[1] Oh and if any lawyer from Sun is reaching for his lawsuit I'd just 
suggest he talks to Casper Dik, Alec Muffett, the UK Defence Research
Agency, and Mark Graff then shuts up.

-- 
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: andr...@klemm.gtn.com (Andreas Klemm)
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: 1997/02/23
Message-ID: <5eph7t$9sh$1@klemm.gtn.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 220847802
References: <5cdk7n$94n@goshen.williams.edu>
To: 00...@williams.edu (Jason Healy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: private site powered by FreeBSD, see http://www.freebsd.org/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


[Posted and mailed]

In article <5cdk7n$...@goshen.williams.edu>,
00...@williams.edu (Jason Healy) writes:
> Good day, I have a quick question that I hope people can give me their
> thoughts on.
> 
> We have just obtained a new server for our organization; it is a Pentium
> Pro 200 with 128MB of RAM and 8GB of online storage. We will be running
> it as a WWW/FTP server, as well as a UNIX shell account server for a few
> hundred users. We currently have a choice between Linux or Solaris 2.5
> for the flavors of UNIX that we might put on the machine.

I'd choose FreeBSD-2.1.7 if I were you for several reasons:
- FreeBSD is based on a real Unix Sources (4.4BSD lite2)
- Networking is known to be superior
- The Operating system source tree (~120 MB) is maintained
in a central cvs repository, so fixed errors are really
fixed for the future. Linux only has a kernel maintained
by Linux, but there are lot's of different distributions,
where each has it's own fault's ...
- You can join the FreeBSD deveopers team and can get remote
access to the source repository if you like (and of course,
if the core team likes you ;-)
- You can upgrade the OS via internet on a regulary basis.
Based on "source upgrades". A 'make world' in /usr/src
builds your complete OS new. Files in /etc aren't clobbered.
So after 60-240 minutes after doing a make world (P200/P90)
you can reboot with a freshly updated OS without problems.
- The FreeBSD ports collection contains about 800 programs,
that you can build from source. You simply go into a
ports directory, let's say: cd /usr/ports/news/inn
Then type: make all install, this does the following:
- gets inn sources via fetch from a ftp server
- patches and configures it accordingly for use
on FreeBSD under /usr/local (standard path for
add on packages, configurable via PREFIX in
/etc/make.conf)
- This builds every port from source with your 
compiler, libraries and header files ... 

Figure out which system has more beauty ... ;-)
Well I know nearly every PC Unix since nearly 10 years, know
Solaris 2.5.1 and SunOS4 very well. I ran about 6 different Linux
Versions, among them SLS in the beginning, Slackware and SuSe.

Now I'm very satisfied, to have an operating system like FreeBSD,
which is the most professional and robust I have ever seen !

Excellent support you get especially from the mailinglists.
The same is for BSDI, Net- and OpenBSD. But I think for PC
environment FreeBSD is the best. BSDI is not free, but you
get it with commercial support _and_ sources if you get a license.

I'd go with *BSD if I were you.

Best wishes.

Andreas ///

-- 
andr...@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH
Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.kl...@wup.de
pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<<
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<

From: a...@snowcrash.cymru.net (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: 1997/02/24
Message-ID: <5es7af$t4d@snowcrash.cymru.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 221065636
References: <5cdk7n$94n@goshen.williams.edu> <5eph7t$9sh$1@klemm.gtn.com>
Organization: CymruNET
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


In article <5eph7t$9s...@klemm.gtn.com>,
Andreas Klemm <andr...@klemm.gtn.com> wrote:
>I'd choose FreeBSD-2.1.7 if I were you for several reasons:
> - FreeBSD is based on a real Unix Sources (4.4BSD lite2)

Untrue. 4.4BSD lite 2 contains NO unix sources. If it did it would be
AT&T licensing. 4.4BSD lite 2 is all the non Unix stuff. Furthermore to
call FreeBSD (or Linux) "Unix" is a breach of the good old OpenGroup (ex
OSF) trademark. You should have seen the nasty email they sent me ;)

> - Networking is known to be superior

I think a lot of people would argue that, in both the Solaris and Linux
cases. In the Solaris case you HAVE to get the recommended patch clusters 
on the boxes to fix the tcp bugs.

> - The Operating system source tree (~120 MB) is maintained
> in a central cvs repository, so fixed errors are really

Fixed errors.. lots of those, see bugtraq. If you want to argue for a
coherent very very security and coherency aware BSD system then take
a look at www.openbsd.org. Its notable that every time a FreeBSD bug
appears on bugtraq the OpenBSD people generally fixed it 6 months or
more before.

Thats not to suggest FreeBSD is crap - there are some very large sites
using FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux you name it. The rest of the world does
get a bit fed up with unbacked up statements that FreeBSD folks keep
emitting at every opportunity

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: "John S. Dyson" <dy...@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: 1997/02/28
Message-ID: <33166662.41C67EA6@freebsd.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 222029091
References: <5cdk7n$94n@goshen.williams.edu> <5eph7t$9sh$1@klemm.gtn.com> 
<5es7af$t4d@snowcrash.cymru.net>
Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix


Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> In article <5eph7t$9s...@klemm.gtn.com>,
> Andreas Klemm <andr...@klemm.gtn.com> wrote:
> >I'd choose FreeBSD-2.1.7 if I were you for several reasons:
> > - FreeBSD is based on a real Unix Sources (4.4BSD lite2)
> 
> Untrue. 4.4BSD lite 2 contains NO unix sources. If it did it would be
> AT&T licensing. 4.4BSD lite 2 is all the non Unix stuff. Furthermore to
> call FreeBSD (or Linux) "Unix" is a breach of the good old OpenGroup (ex
> OSF) trademark. You should have seen the nasty email they sent me ;)
>
Perhaps then it is more accurate to say that SVR4 contains alot of
BSD code. Also, refer to the USL copyright statements in alot of
the 4.4Lite code. (Of course, those statements allow for free
use with very few encumberances.)

> 
> > - The Operating system source tree (~120 MB) is maintained
> > in a central cvs repository, so fixed errors are really
> 
> Fixed errors.. lots of those, see bugtraq. If you want to argue for a
> coherent very very security and coherency aware BSD system then take
> a look at www.openbsd.org. Its notable that every time a FreeBSD bug
> appears on bugtraq the OpenBSD people generally fixed it 6 months or
> more before.
>
There is now a FreeBSD security initiative. Frankly, most of the
FreeBSD
team isn't involved in the cracker community, and hasn't seen until
recently what has been/is going on. FreeBSD has increased the priority
of security issues, and has two security coordinators stationed 12 Hrs
apart for quicker emergency response. On a scale of one to ten, our
security emphasis has probably gone from a "4" to a "8". Our role
has gone from reactive, to proactive -- with the moderation that
security
fixes should be designed in and not hacked in. I am not claiming that
others "hack in" security fixes, but it does take time to look at the
design issues involved. If you see a security bulletin, it might take
a day or two to create a reasonable solution (unless the problem is
complex.)
Of course, we are not blinded by the "issue of the week" proclaiming
that
security is our only interest. We have received interest and offers of
help from security researchers, and might take more security initiatives
from the academic viewpoint, as opposed to our previous reactive
behavior,
or some others dealing directly with the cracker community.

> Thats not to suggest FreeBSD is crap - there are some very large sites
> using FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux you name it. The rest of the world does
> get a bit fed up with unbacked up statements that FreeBSD folks keep
> emitting at every opportunity
> 
Please back up your statement :-)... I don't really mean that, but
there
are alot of un-backed-up statements made by everyone. In email
conversations,
it is very easy to complain about un-backed-up claims, as I have
complained
before. In order to avoid the problems, it is best to avoid saying
*BSD is better than Linux or vice versa. Frankly, I don't know how to
measure things other than using benchmarks, and then those measure only
specific things. The problem is so multidimensional, I have decided
not to concern myself signficantly with such comparisons other when
there
are strange (outrageous) claims are made, or when claims are made
unsubstantiated. I think that you would agree that it is difficult to
dispute an individuals experience, and one should probably accept
statements
like "FreeBSD's frobber is better than Linux's frobber" as being more
accurately "FreeBSD's frobber works better than Linux's frobber for my
application." I agree that it is best to avoid evangelizing, but when
you have enthusiastic users and developers, it it hard to keep from
"crowing."

Anyway, FreeBSD isn't known as the most "evangelized" OS out there, is
it?

John
dy...@freebsd.org

			      USENET Archives


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/