Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 12:54:34 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Hittinger <bugs@ns1.win.net> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Comparison of un*x's (fwd) Message-ID: <199503191754.MAA05947@ns1.win.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Solaris x86 (Seemingly the first choice of several members) > Peter is right. Patches patches patches patches patches patches patches. I converted our Solaris x86's to FreeBSD late last year. FreeBSD has been more stable, and more fun. I don't believe Sun is really serious about the x86 port. Sun seems to me to have caught a late case of Digital-itis :-) > > SCO Worse than Solaris. You don't get patches. They are even pre SYSV.4! > Linux has performed well as a WWW, news, and e-mail server for > my internet provider. (The only reason they use linux over FreeBSD is > because the software for their Annex terminal server flakes out on > FreeBSD for some reason.) > We were unable to get Linux to be stable under load. I made the Annex security server run under FreeBSD without trouble. I am using the X8.0.10 release code. I've modified it for dynamic IP assignment to PPP/SLIP incoming. We use it heavily. In the end, having used so many flavors, I really believe that you can make things work. The difference is how much aggravation and time you want to put into it. When you don't have sources for reference, the time you spend trying to do something new is probably ten times. Especially when the expensive documentation is weak, incomplete, and your manager didn't buy it in the first place :-). Call support and there is a guy on the line even greener than you are, oh and I forgot to mention that your manager didn't buy telepone support in the first place :-) When you use an operating system that has a huge number of inter-twined patches this increases the amount of time you have to fool with it. If you are going to be a de-facto beta site you *MUST* have sources. If you are using software developed for *BSD* then you will spend extra time making the BSD stuff run under the SYSV environment. Hurt me, beat me, make me drive 55, SYSV is history dot text. Finally you want to use something which is extensible for the next 4-5 years. You want the capability for a 64 bit file system. You want the capability for utilizing a cluster of pentiums to serve your users instead of a single expensive RISC box. Regards, Mark Hittinger bugs@win.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503191754.MAA05947>