Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:44:04 +0100 From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@mobil.cz> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Message-ID: <20011029134404.A92609@roman.mobil.cz> In-Reply-To: <00a301c1606e$bc00e990$0a00000a@contactdish> References: <00a301c1606e$bc00e990$0a00000a@contactdish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> To: <questions@freebsd.org>
> Subject: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:42:04 +0100
>
> I've decided to set myself up with a tiny UNIX system to provide a break from
> the Windows world (my main machine being Windows NT), and to give myself more
> experience and familiarity with UNIX. I've decided on FreeBSD because (1) it's
> free; (2) it has been around a while, and has a good reputation for reliability
> and completeness; (3) my Web site already runs under FreeBSD; and (4) I just
> don't like the idea of Linux at all, and something like Solaris would cost a
> king's ransom. So what I need to do is find the software and pick some modest
> hardware configuration to support it.
Solaris is free for use on up to 8-CPU machines AFAIK. Although,
last time I tried it, it wasn't very Intel-friendly.
> I was thinking of just buying the Walnut Creek FreeBSD distribution, and then a
> tiny PC (bought new and assembled) to run it. For barely more than the cost of
> a decent monitor, I can get a 1-GHz processor, 128 MB of RAM, 20 GB on one IDE
> disk, CD-ROM drive, etc., to which I can add an Ethernet NIC and a hub and a
> cheap monitor. While this wouldn't even be enough to boot Windows XP, it should
> be plenty for FreeBSD--right? Anything I need to watch out for? Does the
> Walnut Creek box give details on required hardware?
This config will be more than enough (I'd go for maybe a slower CPU,
but more RAM). Much more important is making sure that the hardware
you choose is supported. See release notes.
> This machine won't be a production machine (although I might eventually try
> using it as a firewall). It will be on my LAN (unconnected to the Net) and will
> be left running most of the time. I expect to access it mainly by Telnet or SSH
> from my Windows machine over the LAN, so video on the FreeBSD box can be
> minimal. I just want to make sure there aren't any hidden pitfalls that I need
> to watch out for when picking a bare-bones machine to run the OS.
See above.
> Is the Walnut Creek distribution "pure" FreeBSD? That is, they haven't
> "customized" it with other junk in the way that some vendors "customize"
> Windows, right? I want plain vanilla everything. Just the basics. I need to
> be able to log in over the LAN as root (or other users), and play with vi and
> things like that, and be able to transfer files with FTP (the simplest way to
> move data between machines, I think), and so on. Nothing fancy.
I know nothing about Walnut Creek, sorry.
--
FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE
1:38PM up 6 days, 21 mins, 15 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.13, 0.16
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?20011029134404.A92609>