On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:50:05 +0100 Neill Newman wrote:
Laurie Brown wrote:
That's one reason I'm still with SuSE after all this time. They
haven't messed me about at all,
and if beta software is in the distro, they ensure one is aware of
it. IMO, for a newbie, SuSE
can't be beaten. Every time I've been near RH, OTOH...
this isn't aimed at one person, or one distro, just a general blow of steam.. ignore if wanted....
I like these rants great fun and good thread starters. any wwy here goes.
<rant>
I recommend Suse to all my friends who are home users, but in commercial environments I use redhat. This is for various reasons; I've been using it long enough to know what goes where, I can setup/automate large scale systems very easily, it runs with very little management when I have set it up, and finally there are some non-technical issues like the managers and bean counters not having heard of suse or debian. There is more of a chance that they have heard of redhat...
WHAT! SUSE is a complete nightmare, never did get ppp to work on it, and as for yast, well yast is the practical alternative to real unix
Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but for the last few years I have never had any problems with Rh.. pre 6.2 was a different story though, but that's 3 years old now ;)
yes you are weird but so are most here so we don't hold that against you :o)
I was in a heated discussion with friend recently saying how unstable M$ stuff is and he said that win2k is very stable, and that I was using the same reasoning and logic from win95 to judge win2k.. I have to admit that he was right...
No he's wrong! uptill windows 9X they where very crap, win NT is still crashable and I managed on many occasions when at college to wipe it out. Win2K is getting so bloated its un believable, It requires so many resources it is unbelievable. Also WinNT took me 2 weeks to install on two Compaq servers, both failed, Peanut linux went on in under 5 minutes!
Now I'm not saying that we should all switch to winblows, but I am saying that just because things didn't work in teh past, the past shouldn't be used to judge the present... the first version of Suse I used was a compete nightmare (version 5.1), and I hated it with a passion. But now I am seriously considering giving 7.2 a try... I want encrypted file system out of the box, and it provides the features I want, so I'll make the switch...
SUSE is horrible.
At the end of the day, the best technical solution is not necessarly the best solution, M$ is a shining exmaple of how to do things that are technically wrong, but how to provide a good solution to people's problems </me hides under rock for the second time today>
Oi, make room under this rock, some others need to hide here as well. MS is an example of good marketting and skilful FUD!
I believe that what we alternative OS types should be doing is promoting the use of alternative systems. I want people to realise that they do have a choice in linux/BSD/other, and that the community can support them when they need help. I don't want people thinking that the community is arguing amoungst itself as to which OS/distro is technically superiour. Use what is a good solution for the job, and if that is slackware, mandrake, *bsd, suse, debian then so be it.. Don;t forget that somebody has to look after these machines, if a newbie is given a slackware CD then I would consider that an incorrect move, even if it is better than the rest...
Ok, If I had to list what I would use for each task it goes like this
Web server of anything outside of a firewall == OpenBSD Desktop boxen == Debian, I have yet to find such an easy ppp setup file server == Novell, hands down this is what it does best! Idiot friendly for newbie's to computers == Apple kit
simple as that! Windows IMHO is good at nothing and bad at most things.
Oh well, back to the land of reality ;)
Why, reality is shite, trust me on this :o)
Thanks
D
</rant>
Sz
-- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/
http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug
See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
on Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:11:05AM +0000, David Freeman scribbled:
Web server of anything outside of a firewall == OpenBSD
Why OpenBSD? It doesn't even have a mature firewalling system at the momement, let alone an easy to use isakmp daemon. Oh, and they've also dropped qmail, djbdns, publicfile, as well as ipf.
Even Linux has security-orientated code audits performed on it now. So how is it more secure/a better choice?
It's hellishly slow on most low spec stuff that you would normally love to use as a dedicated firewall/small webserver. A p100 with 8 megs of ram crawls under openbsd. The task scheduler pretty crappy. The same box flies under NetBSD. Oh, and NetBSD runs under about 44 architectures.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 xsprite@bigfoot.com wrote:
on Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:11:05AM +0000, David Freeman scribbled:
Web server of anything outside of a firewall == OpenBSD
Even Linux has security-orientated code audits performed on it now. So how is it more secure/a better choice?
It's hellishly slow on most low spec stuff that you would normally love to use as a dedicated firewall/small webserver. A p100 with 8 megs of ram crawls under openbsd. The task scheduler pretty crappy. The same box flies under NetBSD. Oh, and NetBSD runs under about 44 architectures.
<AOL> /me too, </AOL>
Some of the tests I have seen done would recommend using something with a linux kernel flavour greater than 2.4 as the tcp/ip stack has been turbocharged by around 30% since the 2.2 kernels. OpenBSD was quite a bit slower doing webserving.
Adam
-
Adam Bower -
David Freeman -
xsprite＠bigfoot.com