On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:18:06AM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> > How about a decently built rack mount PC running Debian[1], by
> > someone who actually knows how to setup that particular OS decently,
> > as compared with a Sun box running Solaris setup by someone good
> > with solaris?
> >
> > (And, myself, I'd recommend the PC for some situations, and the Solaris box
> > for others).
>
> > My main problem with the PC architecture is that you can do a lot by carefully
> > picking a good manufacturer, but it's still fundamentally not as solid and
> > consistent as sun stuff, IMHO.
> >
> > I imagine you could get a pc service contract on the same level as
> > Sun do, but I have no experience in the area. Has anyone got any experience
> > paying vast amounts of money for PC support? did you get much for your
> > money?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > [1] OS changed on the grounds I feel that Redhat ships something more
> > optimised towards desktop use, whereas I feel Debian and Solaris are both
> > more suited for servers.
>
>
> Would this still hold for a RedDrat system with all the X stuff and
> other unncessary stuff removed ?
>
> And if not - what else do you you think is different ?
>
> I've a small shell script that does quite a bit of rpm -e (remove) on X
> stuff / other druff that redhat installs by default - it would be nice
> if they included a stripped down install class in their default install
> - which left you with a basic machine ....
IMHO the main significance here is in the default install. You can
fiddle around with anything if you want and make it vaguely sensible as a
server.
Redhat as default is not very well setup to use as a server on the internet
(I feel). Debian I think is a lot better as shipped, as is Solaris,
mostly on the grounds they're less prone to installing irrelevant
crap[1].
Michael
[1] My solaris admin experience is almost completely nonexistent, but I'd
drawing on my experience as a user of solaris systems.
