From: Chad Perrin Date: 2007-07-24T16:18:32+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby Editor On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:23:20PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: > >> Red Hat is another good example of a thriving open source business > >> model. However, in the case of RHEL, I would argue that it *is* > >> technologically superior to its competition, with the possible exception > >> of Solaris. There just isn't another server OS out there that runs on > >> commodity hardware with that level of security, reliability and performance. > > > > Well . . . there is, but I don't think you're counting other possible > > examples in your comparison (like the BSD Unix variants). I'll just > > assume you're lumping all Linux distributions together when you say RHEL, > > and not excluding other distributions like Debian and Slackware. > > Well ... > > 1. I've heard good things about BSD, but it's really hard to find > sysadmins for it. It may be more stable than any Linux kernel, but if > you can't find someone to maintain it, it's not going to be useful. You could probably find a couple on this list, and I'm sure you'd hit half a dozen if you swung a dead cat in the freebsd-questions mailing list. There's at least one guy among the netadmin volunteers at the Wikimedia Foundation. My experience is that they're pretty easy to find. In fact, I find them to be easier to locate than Solaris admins. Where have you been looking? > > 2. No I was *not* lumping all Linux distros together -- I *was* > excluding Debian and Slackware. They aren't as hard to find sysadmins > for as BSD, but they are enough different from Red Hat that there's > still a learning curve. I *meant* Red Hat! Um . . . a halfway competent Linux admin should be able to make the transition from RHEL to Debian in about two days of familiarization. A few files are in different places, and APT isn't exactly the same as YUM, but otherwise Linux is Linux. Granted, Slackware can be a pain in the butt for someone who hasn't tried to install it before. . . . > > 3. I'm surprised nobody defended Windows Server 2003. Just because it's > closed source and expensive doesn't mean it's a bad OS in terms of > reliability, security or performance. Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, > Ruby, Rails, etc. run just fine on Windows 2003 server No, that doesn't mean it's bad -- there are, however, other things that mean it's not very good. In my estimation, such considerations as the amount of administrative overhead, security costs, reduced remote administration capability, and increased resource footprint for minimal operation add up to a lot of reasons it isn't in the same league as the major free unices. Keep in mind that "administrative overhead" covers a lot of ground, too -- like the increased difficulty of managing software (which in and of itself covers a lot of ground). WS2k3 isn't completely worthless, to be sure, but given an option it's usually better to avoid it in favor of something unixy (especially if you want to do your system scripting in Ruby). -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."