Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:39:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey Dunitz <orpheus@lemieux.hockey.net> To: dan@wolf.com Cc: Craig Beasland <craig@hotmix.com.au>, telecom1@erols.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT vs FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980821102916.5110A-100000@lemieux.hockey.net> In-Reply-To: <19980821141844.16052.qmail@wolf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm reading this thread backwards. If what I'm about to say has already been said, I apologise. http://www.caldera.com/news/features/971222.keylabs.html This page compares apache on a linux box to something else running on NT. The NT box starts to slow down after only a moderate load. The linux box actaully gets better as the load goes up, probably due to the way the buffer cache handles repetitive file access. As seems to be my slogan lately, this should be as good or better with FreeBSD. On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 dan@wolf.com wrote: > > >>>1.) Ease of Use (Administration) > > > > Depends on your background, we had a guy who had a unix background so BSD > > was not that difficult. In terms of installing NT is much simpler than BSD. i've never successfully gotten NT to install on my machine...my personal experience leads me to disagree with the statement that NT is easier to install. > > But in terms of resolving non-trivial problems (such as IP address > collisions on the local network), neither NT nor Unix is trivial and > gaining the skills to resolve issues such as this on Unix is no more > difficult than gaining the same skills on NT. > > > >>>4.) Security (Which is more secure?) > > Seem to be about the same for both. It depends on how vigilant you are > > about security fixes. The Unix ones seem to be a bit quicker once a hole > > gets identified though. > > You must be one of the lucky few who hasn't yety been targetted by > a serious nasty hacker. NT is an easy victim to such clowns, while > Unix systems generally aren't. > I'd say that many versions of unix (FreeBSD, Open/NetBSD, RedHat, IRIX 6.5...) are much more secure _out of the box_ than an NT box is out of the box. > > >>>5.) FreeBSD w/ Apache OR Website Pro for NT? which is better & why? > > This would depend on exactly you want to do. If you have a database in ODBC > > format then NT is the only way to go (as far as I know), otherwise Apache is > > a great option. > > Sorry, I'd have to disagree. MySQL runs on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux > and other Unix and Unix-ish system and offers ODBC drivers. I can > think of no instance in which NT with any available web server would > be a better solution than Apache on a Unix box (and yes, I run both > Unix and NT boxen for a living). > > > >>>6.) Anything else I forgot to mention. > > We use the NT box for ASP and data driven web sites, because our background > > is in VB and MS Access programming. If we need to serve up only static HTML > > pages or simple perl scripts we use the BSD machines. > > Dan Mahoney > dan@wolf.com > dmahoney@pe.net > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Jeffrey Dunitz | Current Job: | orpheus@avalon.net BOFH Emeritus, Avalon Networks | Information Services | Iowa City, IA http://www.avalon.net/~orpheus | Cray Research/SGI | (319) 339-8268 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?Pine.LNX.3.96.980821102916.5110A-100000>