From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 21 04:22:52 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698C616A4CE for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:22:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DBC43D58 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:22:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1106.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1C38F1C000A6 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:22:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1106.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E80A11C00097 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:22:50 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20050421042250950.E80A11C00097@mwinf1106.wanadoo.fr Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:22:50 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1381370797.20050421062250@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <660243652fd13100f75dc80e449e0fa8@chrononomicon.com> References: <76E0DAA32C39D711B6EC0002B364A6FA043DCAF4@amsal01exc01.americatel.com.sv> <660243652fd13100f75dc80e449e0fa8@chrononomicon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:22:52 -0000 Bart Silverstrim writes: > I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros > of Linux, that "easy way" isn't necessarily Linux either. Some of them are apparently much closer to the plug-and-play environment of Windows than are any versions of UNIX. Logically anyone who wants Windows will install Windows, instead of Linux, of course, but logic isn't always the deciding factor. > The only "easy way" to go with installing things on a computer would > have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a > matter of clickclickclickclick done. Yes. And if an Intel platform is not mandatory, the Mac is even easier to install and use--but it is more expensive, and it restricts the user to a single vendor for both OS software and hardware, and the range of available applications is much smaller. > Windows will usually run for several weeks ... Current versions of Windows will run for years without a reboot. > It has to be easy to set up because you end up having to reinstall when > it "starts acting weird" :-) It doesn't start acting weird unless you contaminate it with spyware and viruses, which are easy enough to avoid. > Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of "I want a web > server...down load "web server"...click click license yeah yeah > click... oooh! Web server! I wouldn't use Windows for a Web server, personally, but a server version of the OS with IIS will get the job done. The point-and-click interface hides a lot of complexity, though, and while this isn't such a bad thing on the desktop, it can be dangerous on a server. On servers it's really important to know exactly what's running on the machine, what it's doing, and how the machine is interacting with the Net. > With a Unix system it's "I want a web > server.......hmm...Apache > looks like it should work.......make > install....edit config file...what's this > do?...oh..........neat!...edit config...what's this > directive?.......okay...edit...save...apachectl start...web > server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with > virtual host Z. WEB SERVER!" Far too complex for many newbies, but for those who stay the course, FreeBSD and Apache are the best possible combination for Web servers today. -- Anthony