>On Sat, Nov 21, 1998 at 01:24:35PM -0800, Gill, Kathy wrote:
>> My question to you is, how might NT be a better OS than UNIX for hosting a
>> web site? Or would a UNIX server really do the better job? I'd be most
>> interesting in hearing back from grrls who have used both for web servers.
>> I'm looking for practical, somewhat quantifiable pros and cons, to help me
>> make a decision (read, MS bashing wouldn't be helpful, unless it has a
>> point).
>
>Unix/Linux is a superior OS for web hosting for the following reasons:
>
>1. It requires fewer resources to provide an equivalent or higher
>level of performance. A 486-based PC with 8M of memory running Linux
>and Apache constitutes a reasonable low-end web server.
This is true in my experience too. I have a little P100 that is running FreeBSD
(another free Unix) and it runs faster and more reliable than my P200 NT machine. It
seems top be much more robust. I have my modem in it now and it is used as my router.
In the Unix box, it seems to stay connected much longer than it did in the NT machine.
>2. Unix/Linux is much more robust/reliable: this is unquestioned, even by
>Microsoft.
I reboot my FreeBSD box only when I install kernel or major changes. The NT box has
to be rebooted weekly (usually 2 or 3 times a week). I never have to reboot it because
it is running weird.
>
>3. Support for Unix -- and Linux in particular -- is available, for free,
>and in a timely manner, via the Internet. Microsoft support is legendary
>for its ineptness. Internet support is difficult because they have not
>released the full source code for their products.
Linux / FreeBSD support and fixes can be had usually in a few hours. M$ (if you are
lucky) will get you their fixes in a week. You also usually get a few work arounds
from people
>
>4. Unix/Linux is where the web and the technology components that
>comprise were invented and developed. (Contrast with NT, where no
>web technology has been developed.) If you want to be able to keep
>with the technology curve, your best bet is Unix/Linux.
There are usually "ports" and also there are packages that do the same thing as
commercial packages for NT (like Real Audio Server)
>5. It is a myth that Unix/Linux is harder to learn/use than NT.
>Neither is as easy to use a Mac (for example); the difference is
>that investing the effort to learn Unix gets you a big reward.
My wife (with a degree in accounting) has become a UNIX Nerd and can do 90% of the
system administration tasks.
>6. Unix/Linux readily lends itself to remote/off-site administration;
>NT does not.
If you do get a remote access package, then you need to know the command line versions
for any commands you need to run.
>7. The software cost of setting up Unix/Linux is much smaller, because
>nearly everything you need is already included; what isn't, is free.
>
Everything including the OS is available for free verses 599 for NT Server (since you
have the connection limit in NT Workstation.
>8. Committing to Unix/Linux enables you to harness the power of the
>OSS movement, which is growing *very* fast.
>[snip]
Matthew Soffen - Webmaster http://www.iso-ne.com/
ISO New England
1 Sullivan Road
Holyoke, MA 01040-2841
(413) 535 8167
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
