Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:32:40 -0600 From: rootman <rootman@xmission.com> To: Cynic <cynic@mail.cz>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Justification for using FreeBSD Message-ID: <01061422554208.00463@blackmirror.xmission.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615055641.03f5dba0@mail.cz> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615015821.02135168@mail.cz> <5.1.0.14.2.20010615055641.03f5dba0@mail.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say: > >> 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". I took that to mean: There are already two web servers in place, FreeBSD/Apache on one and NT 4.0/MS IIS on the other. Both are working fine, no need to change anything. Other than fixing some duplication of content, this is certainly true. However, if I can't supply a good reason for having two web servers running our intranet, then I believe my manager wouldn't bat an eye at telling me to copy all of the content on my FreeBSD box over to the NT 4.0/MS IIS box and then get rid of FreeBSD. This is, of course, before arguing the cost saving benefits associated with FreeBSD. I feel I've already obtained enough helpful information from you and others on this list to justify the use of FreeBSD where I work. If none of this serves to change minds/attitudes, nothing will. On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Cynic wrote: > At 04:02 15.6. 2001, rootman wrote the following: > -------------------------------------------------------------- > >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^) > > what alternatives do you have when it comes to OS OS (Open Source > Operating System)? Linux, which I don't take for really free (GPL), > and which, IMO (YMMV) isn't developped, but instead grows randomly > in different directions. ;) > > >> >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. > > I don't understand it. Below you write about emphasis on reducing costs... > Recreating what already works just for the warm fuzzy feeling "all of our servers > are [brand-of-the-day]"? How that translates into reducing costs? > > >> >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. > > (Note: I haven't done this in practice, but it should work.) > You don't have to duplicate any content, even with your current setup. Just do these > two things: expose the content from Apache through Samba, and let the NT guy use the > share as a virtual directory in IIS. If he alo shares the IIS webtree, you _should_ > be able to get it served through Sharity Light. That way both servers should be able > to serve each others content. Right, I just haven't gotten around to messing with Sharity yet. > > >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? > > What do you mean? Like moving all the static pages to either of the httpds and > developing only on the other one from there on? Yes. > > >Wouldn't this reduce the overall load on both > >servers, instead of serving content and web apps on one? > > Not enough info. > > >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. > > IIS isn't as crippled as you might think from the majority of opinions expressed > on unix-related mailing lists. My experience shows that most people would rather > die than admit something different from their favorite toy is ok (let alone a product > of the Redmond Satan!). IIS is just a web server, it has good points and bad points. > One of it's worst aspects is the fact that--since it's a "M$ crap"--it's one of the > most popular targets, and... Have you noticed how loudly the unix mob "applauds" > to every hole in anything from MS? however, it's quite different the other way > around. apache.org has been breached. if I weren't subscribed to the new-httpd@ > list, I wouldn't know. toye.php.net has been breached. If I weren't a PHP developer > taking part in PHP's QA I wouldn't know. see my point? you can happily move any > "legacy" content to the IIS box, using either shlight (Sharity Light) or mod_proxy > (or mod_rewrite, if you wish so) to "hide" the IIS, and focus on FBSD/Apache. Good point. > > >> >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. > > See above. I don't have enough info to pretend being any authority, but there is > quite a choice of ways to serve the IIS-based content through apache. no duplication. > > <snip> stuff I don't know </snip> > > >> 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. > > Well, while very standards-focused, the apache developers know that a strict > implementation would lead the popularity of apache south. :) they provide hacks, which > are enabled by default. Of course, these are often minor problems showing up in > border situations. Or you might not notice at all. (that is nothing to say about > other browsers!) > Ok, thanks. I hope I made a little more sense this time. Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about. I've been using FreeBSD for over a year now but would never call myself anything of an expert. I've still got years of learning ahead. 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?01061422554208.00463>