Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> I would note that BEST.COM has been running, effectively, public shell
> systems for 5 years. The last couple of years have been using FreeBSD.
> It works just dandy. We put 2000 users on each box.
>
> Just because people aren't willing to spend thousands of hours making
> the kernel handle every conceivable user abuse doesn't make the machine
> a bad solution for a particular problem. With that sort of attitude,
> no operating system ever made could live up to your standards. FreeBSD
> does the things most easily handled in a kernel. You, the sysop, are
> supposed to do the things that are most easily handled by a sysop. That
> is inclusive of writing monitoring and kill scripts.
Ok, disclaimer in the vain attempt to prevent further replies. I
took an issue with blaming public shell accounts for perceived
problems with the way FreeBSD manages them. I do think FreeBSD, and
Unix, generally speaking, is one of the best deals available. It
could be improved, and it does require non-clueless sysadmins.
Saying "public shell accounts are a bad idea" is dismissing the real
issues, and blaming the messenger for the bad news.
What you, Dillon, were saying in the message quoted in the message I
originally replied to, is to the point. FreeBSD can handle it, as
long as the sysadmin knows what s/he is doing.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
d...@freebsd.org
"nothing better than the ability to perform cunning linguistics"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
