On 2000.12.19 Scott Parks wrote: > > A guy who works for me tells me that Mandrake can not cut it when it comes to > production web work and he favors, very strongly, Debian. Telling me that it > is the strongest for production environments. I have been using Mandrake for > several years and enjoy it as a personal development platform, connection > sharing in my house, mp3 jukebox, etc. But, I have never used it for a web > production environment. > > Anyone have some thoughts on this issue? The machines are dual P3's with 18 > gig drives in arrays, 2 gigs ram each. Multiple machines behind Cisco Local > Director. Mandrake installs fine on each box, Debian is a bit more > bothersome to configure, but I can not simulate the load of web servers in > the shop. > I really doubt that one distro was better than other. For example, if you want a web server you must worry about what kernel to use (for good drivers for disks and net), and what version of apache or tux choose, etc. I still don't know why people 'labels' distros as good for workstation and bad for server (and the reverse). It all depends on the default install. Mandrake could distribute an installation with the 'server' mode as default, and be catalogued as a 'Server version of mdk'. Any distro contains now almost the same soft, and anyone can be torn down to the minimal running soft needed to do the work and do not loose any cpu cycle (say wipe out gnome, kde,...) Diffs: - How hard is to get the distro installed without the 'superfluous' soft to act as a server. - How hard is to upgrade the installed soft itself - How hard is to get the 'unusual' soft running (masquerading, firewalls...) - How hard is to get the box secure. Looking at all those, i think Mandrake is the right one. -- Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta #> cd /pub mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #> more beer Linux werewolf 2.2.19-pre2 #2 SMP Sun Dec 17 00:51:15 CET 2000 i686
Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
