From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Aug 20 22:37:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA09485 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:37:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from frontier.netnology.com.au (frontier.netnology.com.au [203.33.30.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA09480 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:37:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from craig@hotmix.com.au) Received: from superbruce (superbruce.netnology.com.au [203.33.30.10]) by frontier.netnology.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA01210; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:44:35 +0800 From: Craig Beasland To: Cc: Subject: RE: NT vs FreeBSD Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:40:35 +0800 Message-ID: <000401bdccc5$ca31d910$0a1e21cb@superbruce.hotmix.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <35DD0005.68C1@erols.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi there, We run three freebsd machines and one NT box. The reason for the FreeBSd boxes originally was cost, but in terms of ease of use the 3 BSD boxes have caused us far less problems than the NT box. >>>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. >>>2.) Software Compatibility Issues (cgi's, perl scripts, C programs, etc.) We still can't get perl working properly on our NT box, worked right away with FreeBSD. We still can't afford a C compiler for NT, comes free with FreeBSD. >>>3.) Re-booting Issues We only ever turn the BSD boxes off to install new cards, which is not very often now, we have to restart the NT box every time we do any changes to the network. >>>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. >>>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. >>>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. The biggest thing is cost, we have a 486 DX100 running a web server and small mail server, and we have a P2 running NT just doing web serving (although from a database) and the BSD box is much quicker. THe 486 we scraped together for $200, the NT box cost us $5000 including software. Hope this helps Cheers Craig To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message