TCLUG Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [TCLUG:2845] linux web server



insert debian between caldra and slackware
PROS: dpkg package manager much more powerfull than RPM, good security in
mind when designed, only open source software included in base system.
better SysV init scripts. more flexable install system. base install is
very drive space friendly (smaller than slack in some cases)

CONS: dselect is retarded (interface to dpkg)   base install is a base
install.. debian has the largest package list of any out there.. the
system chops up packages into so many chuncks, they have a directory
structure to store them.  (redhat has one RPMS dir)

i think debian is a good balance of what redhat does for easy package
maint. and the server feel of slackware.  in current development is a new
package interface, that has the ability to automaticaly update your system
by checking online archives for new packages. this is good for workstation
systems, where you can have boxes auto get pakcages you design


Thank You,
        Ben Kochie (ben@nerp.net)

*-----------------------*  [ - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - ]
| Unix/Linux Consulting |  [ Haiku Error Message:          ]
|  PC/Mac Repair        |  [  Chaos reigns within.         ]
|   Networking          |  [  Reflect, repent, and reboot. ]
| http://nerp.net       |  [  Order shall return.          ]
*-----------------------*  [ - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - ]

 "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends."

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Eric Hillman wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mathias Taylor [mailto:mataylor@uswest.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 2:41 PM
> > To: TCLUG
> > Subject: [TCLUG:2845] linux web server
> >
> >
> > Greetings-
> > I've recently moved to the Twin Cities area and now I'm now looking for
> > any suggestions on different flavors of Linux for my endeavour into
> > setting up a Linux web server with Apache.  For the time being, I will
> > have a dedicated P133/64 machine and ample HDD space.  I've come to a
> > halt on deciding between OpenLinux and Slackware, would anyone be able
> > to detail some of the benefits/negatives between those (or even others
> > if necessary).  I searched through the linux.org web site but found only
> > vague details on what the different companies had to offer.  Any insight
> > would be wonderful, thanks!
> > --
> > Mathias A. Taylor
> > mataylor@uswest.net
> 
> 
> 	It all depends.  What follows is my opinion of the distros I've used:
> 
> 	RedHat Linux -
> 	PRO: RPMs make upgrading and new installs a breeze.  Ready-to-run out of
> the box, with very little tweaking required.  Very user-friendly management
> tools.
> 	CON: Huge, drive-choking distribution, with a few too many bells and
> whistles installed by default for some peoples' taste.  Can require a great
> deal of effort to scale *down*.
> 
> 	Caldera OpenLinux -
> 	PRO: Very sharp distribution, and a business-ready server out of the box.
> Fairly lightweight  Close ties with Novell make NDS/Netware interaction a
> lot easier.	 Great management tools.
> 	CON: Not as workstation-friendly as RedHat.  RPM support is only
> half-there -- upgrading via rpms can SEVERELY mess things up if you're not
> careful.
> 
> 	SuSE Linux -
> 	PRO: Actually, I only have a little experience with this one, but I know
> they lead the market as far as XWindows technology.  "Quality German
> Engineering" seems to sum up their image pretty nicely.
> 	CON: Vaguely threatening Teutonic overtones.   Dunno, maybe that's a pro...
> 
> 	Slackware -
> 	PRO: Serious geek credentials.  Entitles you to scoff at RedHat users.  The
> Erector Set of Linux distros -- it's not a working server, it's a great big
> box of parts.
> 	CON: Not for beginners, the easily intimidated, or those who turn pale at
> the sound of the words "re-compile the kernel."
> 
> 	FreeBSD -
> 	PRO: Entitles you to scoff at Slackware users.  Small, powerful, and
> spartan.  Arguably the ideal free OS for dedicated servers.  You'll feel
> that pioneer spirit folks running Linux in 1993 felt.
> 	CON: Not linux, and not glibc.  If you need software for this platform,
> you'd better be prepared to write it yourself.  (Although it does run
> Quake...)
> 
> 
> 	I've listed these in an order of sorts...  Ease of use decreases as you go
> down the list, but versatility and control increase.  Of course, any
> distribution is totally configurable since you have the source, and any
> distribution can be made easier to use if you download a good set of tools,
> utilities, window managers, etc.  I left out Debian because I don't know
> anything about it.
> 	I'd advise you to consider RedHat or Caldera if you're new to Linux/UNIX,
> if only to give you the option of using RPM.  I started using Linux back in
> 1994, and the one thing that tripped me up the most on my first Linux box
> was having to download and compile source code every time I wanted to
> upgrade something.  For one thing, I couldn't keep track of library
> dependencies myself, especially when I was only beginning to figure out what
> all the stuff I'd loaded was *for*.  For another, as a newbie, I didn't want
> to have to answer "make config" questions over how my c compiler handled
> code optimization, or whether my OS was big-endian or little-endian.  Plus,
> as I said, either of those distros will work out-of-the-box, with very
> little effort on your part, and both have excellent tech support.
> 	Otherwise, if you're feeling up to a challenge, there really is no right or
> wrong distribution.  Any distro can be tailored or beaten into shape with a
> little time, effort and know-how.  If you can spare the time and effort,
> this list (and other resources) should be able to deliver the know-how.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@listserv.real-time.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@listserv.real-time.com
> Try our website: http://tclug.real-time.com
>