I don't know, yes, unix is more server oriented, but I think that saying that linux "isn't" is not true.
I have linux boxes with uptimes of a year or more...(not so much any more because I tend to update more often now, but several months of high load usage is not unusual.) and fileservers, webservers, dns servers and other stuff, some all running on the same box, also firewall and nat.. and it handles it nicely. I have one box, that does all of that and serves 7 different domains and a large internal network with alot of traffic, and its uptime is currently one month, and thats just because I last updated the kernel a month ago.. they all have a very basic GUI (icewm,) but it isn't running unless there is a reason for it to be.. all the user stuff either isn't installed or isn't running... works great as a server platform, and linux has been shown in many cases to seriously outperform solaris and other "unix's" in many areas, one of which is the filesystems, and I saw a recent test case in the postfix list, that showed postfix on linux as the fastest example when compared to several uxicies and even freebsd.. so it has its uses... (I am pretty sure that I saw an webserver cgi test that showed that linux had the highest performance of various cgi languages across platform as well, (think that was on a mod perl site..) it looked at asp, php, perl, java and others on different platforms, and linux was consistantly the fastest... (of the unix based OS's, winblows wasnt' included and I suspect the results wouldn't have changed if it was.) linux tends to develop faster then other OS's, mostly because of the sheer number of developers... so I think it will have a significant advantage in performance that will only grow... personally, I find some of the linux changes to be a great benefit in speedy admin, like the init scripts... I will keep using it for servers till I find something as cost effective and performance of a similiar level. rgds Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brent Bailey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 11 January 2002 3:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [expert] 8.1 - very unstable for server environment?? ...I would use a unix instead of linux..being that linux isnt really geared toward the server environment. BSD rulZ B Franki wrote: >I have both the download edition and the powerpack, no difference in speed >in either that I can tell, which makes sense since its the same base rpm >packages being installed. > >I am running 8.1 on many different systems.. > >one has only 32MB of ram, and the cpu's I have running are: > >166mmx, (dns server n stuff) >200mmx (firewall/samba) >233mmx (firewall/samba/postfix) >Ppro200 (firewall/samba/postfix/http) >Celery450 (testing) >Athlon1000 t'bird (firewall/samba/postfix/http) >Athlon1800XP (firewall/samba/postfix/http) > >working great on all of them, my home samba server/firewall/mailserver is >only a 233MMX with 160MB ram, and it runs great, GUI and all, (I use icewm >mostly, but KDE works ok too.) > > > >rgds > >Frank > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark D'voo >Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2002 9:46 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [expert] 8.1 - very unstable > > >i think there was a problem with the download edition, I have downloaded it >3 >times for 3 different computers, on each computer is was slooow and very >unstable ( i was lucky to have a 1 day uptime ). I think we should take a >vote to figure out what is wrong, Tell me if 8.1 is giving you problems or >working great and was it the download edition, powerpack, gaming, etc? > >mark > >On Wednesday 09 January 2002 07:16 am, you wrote: > >>We are going nowhere. People are addicted to Windblows, they will >>experiment with Linux on a "marginal" box, and then, because it is so much >>better, move it to a more powerful box. If the "marginal" box part craps >>out, no powerful box for you... Microsloth wins. >> >>mg >> >>On Monday 07 January 2002 23:18, Michael Leone wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 23:03, mike wrote: >>> >>>>One of the virtues of Linux over Windblows was that the hardware >>>>requiremtns were less stringent, no? >>>> >>>There's a difference between "less stringent" and "marginal". >>> >>>>mg >>>> >>>>On Monday 07 January 2002 22:37, Michael Leone wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 16:52, Davor Cengija wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So, concensus would be that I have some hardware related >>>>>> problems, which is quite unusual since Mdk 7.2 worked just >>>>>> fine without any problem. >>>>>> >>>>>Not necessarily PROBLEMS; just that Mdk 8.1 is more STRICT, and >>>>> >won't > >>>>>tolerate (perhaps) marginal hardware, and 7.2 will. >>>>> >>>>---------------------------------------- >>>>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" >>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part >>>>---------------------------------------- >>>> >>---------------------------------------- >>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part >>---------------------------------------- >> > >-- > 7:43pm up 6:14, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.28, 0.20 > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
