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