Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:02:51 -0600 From: rootman <rootman@xmission.com> To: Cynic <cynic@mail.cz>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Justification for using FreeBSD Message-ID: <01061421292700.00463@blackmirror.xmission.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615015821.02135168@mail.cz> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615015821.02135168@mail.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Cynic wrote: -----------snip------------------------------------ > > IMO no list is a good choice for such a question. Anywhere you turn, > 99.9% of responses will be biased. Indeed, at least the responses from the *BSD lists are BSD biased. 8^) > > >The manager I had when I set up my FreeBSD box thought that what I had done was > >great and was impressed with FreeBSD/Apache. I recently got a new manager who > >doesn't know the BSD's from Open Source and wants me to justify why we need to > >have two web servers instead of one and why we need FreeBSD/Apache. > > The work has already been done, and doesn't have to be done again. I think that's > enough of an advantage, especially if it'd "be a lot of work". To some managers, assigning extra work and having thing's redone isn't an issue because they're not the one's who do the actual work. They just delegate what they think need's to be done and lose no sleep over it. > > >Basically, she wants to know how FreeBSD/Apache compares to NT 4.0/MS IIS. > > Besides the obvious (FreeBSD & Apache are free, as opposed to NT & IIS), there is > a few things to measure: Apache 1.3 (current production version [you might try > 2.0.16 -- AFAIK that's what apache.org runs on]) on unices is process-based, while > IIS is multithreaded. That should theoretically translate to better performance > of IIS. BUT--but hardware is so cheap these days that this doesn't really matter, > especially for intranet. Besides, one (several?) of memory managers in Apache 2.0 > is multithreaded, turning this further into non-issue. > What matters, is price of the software, and your manager should get ready to keep > paying if your company goes the MS path: you get IIS (i. e. ASP) bundled with > NT Server, but that's bare bones. Any and all functionality you could imagine > exists almost solely in the form of commercial components. And if you ever decide > to take the IIS to the internet, you have to pay MS again for an internet licence. Yes, it seems the greatest advantage of using FreeBSD/Apache are because they are free. This rings especially important in lieu of the recent emphasis on reducing costs in our office. If you're a manager and you're truly serious about reducing costs, why would you not support a proven, reliable, popular and FREE solution that FreeBSD and Apache offer? My company didn't even pay for the copy of FreeBSD 3.4 that I currently have running on an old Compaq Deskpro. It was my personal copy and the PC I installed it on was collecting dust in one of our storage closets. > > >I really don't want to try to fight the battle of getting all of our intranet > >content moved to FreeBSD/Apache. This would also be a lot of work, since a > >lot of content is already in place on MS IIS. > > > >So, she also wants to know what the advantages/disadvantages would be of having > >two web servers instead of one. > > Disadvantages: well, that depends on what content dwells on those servers, and if > you might want to develop an application across the two servers. That might bring > in minor problems, but with WDDX and stuff... I think it's ok. > But I see disadvantages in IIS... I mean, you don't have to ditch it, but: > > If your company ever decides to develop an application, the difference in cost will > be prominent. Besides the cost of software I've outlined you need to take into account: > * support costs (I'm not aware of MS mailing lists like the ones provided by ASF, > FreeBSD, or e. g. PHP Group) > * development costs -- ASP developers are more expensive, because you cannot download > the software and play with it at night; there's nothing to fill the gap between > Access (ouch) and SQL Server which translates to Informix or Oracle in unix world, > and Oracle developers, just like the SQL Server ones, aren't cheap > * HR costs - people who work with MS products switch jobs more often (this has been > covered in wininfo IIRC [http://www.win2000mag.net] recently) than the unix types Ok, this sounds logical. The only problem we've seen with having two web servers so far, is duplication of content and this really isn't hardly an issue and one that can be easily fixed. I plan to run a lot of web applications on FreeBSD/Apache. I plan to install FreeBSD 4.3 on a new server and include the latest Apache, PHP and MySQL for starters. I will also have Big Brother running on it to do our network monitoring. Wouldn't it be better to serve content on one web server and run your web apps on another? Wouldn't this reduce the overall load on both servers, instead of serving content and web apps on one? I know that FreeBSD/Apache could handle this easily but I don't know about MS IIS. Plus, the UNIX version of Big Brother is free and you have to pay for the MS version. > > >I've already obtained some information from the FAQ at Apache.org and from > >FreeBSD.org but I was wondering if anyone could provide any additional > >examples, info or web sites I could check out. > > > >I need to be able to justify FreeBSD/Apache and the use of two web servers > >or I'm afraid it will be "Bye Bye" for FreeBSD where I work. > > Is there any real need to move from one to another? Not to me. >Is the coexistence of IIS and Apache on your intranet source of any problems? Not really. Like I said before, the only existing problem is duplication of content. > What features do you need? Right now, we only have static web pages but I'd like to implement the use of PHP and MySql. We don't even have a search engine on either web server and that's something we really need. I want to continue using Big Brother for our network monitoring and I plan on trying out some Open Source/web based help desk applications. I'm trying to find ways to do existing tasks through a web browser rather than a seperate client/app. We use a Lotus Notes database for our help desk and most of us in my department would rather do this through a web browser. I'd like to try IBM's Host On Demand client/server app for TN3270 and TN5250 sessions through a web browser instead of using a separate client like Client Access or Rumba. It makes no sense to me to come to work everyday and keep three or four big, memory/CPU hogging apps up all day when it might be possible to do most of your work through a web browser instead. I would much rather come to work and just open IE 5.X and Lotus Notes on my NT box and do my work than having to keep Lotus Notes, Client Access, IE, along with all the other apps I'm forced to use like Office2K and such. > You know (since we're talking intranet), if, for example, you company mandates > iexplore as The browser, you _might_ be happier with IIS, because they account for > each others bugs, while you could encounter glitches with the standards-focused > Apache (although the Apache developers provide "hacks" like BrowserMatch for all > browser bugs they encounter). Our company mandated browser is IE but so far, I haven't noticed any problems while viewing the pages located on my FreeBSD box. Thanks for your thoughts. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01061421292700.00463>