On 25 Aug 98, at 23:22, Tique Bennett wrote:
> Our experience has been with Red Hat Linux and we can say that its
> reliability and stability has been superlative. What's more it the outlay
> for setting up the web server is essentially the cost of the hardware,
> that is if you have an experienced system administrator.
I am running Red Hat Linux on our intranet. I tore my hair out the
other day trying to figure out how to set a umask that would work via
telnet and ftp -- there I was looking in all my sysadmn books and I
found the answer from a search of usegroups via dejanews. Now, I
haven't found the best answer but I discovered that I could edit the
ftp config file to add the umask setting. The Red Hat website is,
imho, a complete waste of time. But there are a lot of users out
there who are doing what they don't know (me) and others who take the
time to help them (and when I can I help). For this reason I would
go the Linux,Freebsd route.
I cannot say which system is more robust. My linux box stays up for
weeks on end and in fact has never crashed yet. But I am not really
putting it through much stress. But my darn NT will crash for just
no reason -- maybe I have a virus but when I start my CD wake-up
alarm on my NT it never wakes me up in the morning because the
computer crashed during the nigh (and there was no one using it).
Odd.
Peter
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
