Re: [mv] Best Linux Security Solution...?

[Chris Rapier <rapier@psc.edu>]

******    message to minivend-users from Chris Rapier <rapier@psc.edu>     ******


Clint Silvester wrote:
> I myself
> think that Debian is much easier to get packages for, and to update, although I have
> not tried out the BSD's, so I cannot say how any of them do their packing system.

For the most part it rocks. To install a package you go to the directory
/usr/ports. From there you cd in to the appropriate subdirectories (eg
editors/xemacs) and type make. The ports system then retreives the
Xemacs tarball and determines if you have all the necessary support
packages. If you are missing any of the support packages it will go and
retreive, compile and install them before it builds Xemacs. This can
fail if any of the tarballs are not on the servers it has listed but you
can always get the tarball manually, drop it into /usr/ports/distfiles
and it will find it there.

Did I mention that the ports system will also apply any patches
necessary to make it compile under BSD? 

The ports system, a more mature networking stack, better performance
under higher loads and the linux compatibility mode (i'm running excite
for linux on our bsd web server right now) pretty much make it a win for
server boxes. 

> I'm just concerned that maybe you should ask them what reasons they have for Debian,
> because I think that it might get you off the ground faster, especially if they are
> familiar with it. It will take time to learn the ins and outs of a new OS.  

Of course it will take time. However, the daily maintenance of
Free/net/open/BSD and Linux are close enough that any sysadmin worthy of
the title should be able to pick it up inside of a day or two.

> As a note
> about the maturaty of the Linux networking stack, the 2.4 kernel is just around the
> corner, and I know that this was one of the issues that they were addressing witht
> the 2.4 development.

Unfortunately thats what I've been hearing that network issues will be
dealt with in the next kernel for more than a year now. I'm sure that it
will be out soon and that they will address many of these problems but
if we are looking at right here and right now BSD is better suited for
heavy work loads. Linux, thanks to the hacking efforts of thousands, can
be easier to setup but I don't think those savings are significant
enough to outweigh the advantages a BSD system at this time. I expect
Linux to catch up but when it does thats going to mean down time and
additional expense when upgrading.

Again, I'm not interested in a religous war over this topic. Having
worked extenisvely with both Linux and BSD I've simply come to feel that
BSD is better server solution. Conversely, I think that Linux is a
better workstation solution for many of the reasons that Clint mentions
above.

My suggestion is to rank order and weight the various characteristics
you really want in an operating system. Once you have that you can
compare OSes and determine which best suits your needs. One thing
though, if 'free' isn't near the top of the list you should consider
commercial OSes. 

Chris Rapier
-
To unsubscribe from the list, DO NOT REPLY to this message.  Instead, send
email with 'UNSUBSCRIBE minivend-users' in the body to Majordomo@minivend.com.
Archive of past messages: http://www.minivend.com/minivend/minivend-list