> i have to agree with Ian here. this setup does not scale, especially > when you have multiple servers all over the place, AND you're not the > only one doing system admnistration. one thing i realized about packages > is that they're self documenting. you know which package a certain file > comes from, you could take them out and plug something in easily. > > if it's a matter of not trusting the rpm builds or wanting to compile > with processor optimizations, then rebuild the rpm from the spec files. > i come from a slackware background, and i just love the simplicity it > offers. but after those servers started piling up, you yearn for a > standard way of doing things. you start to appreciate consistency. i > dont want to go back to slackware. FYI, slackware's not the only one > functional in this area. hehehe. AdMULinux na lang!
I made a little error by saying Slackware alone is functional in thin servers. I gave the wrong connotation that it is the only one sufficient in this arena. What I actually meant by "alone" is Slackware as a distribution without the extras(like a Max's fried chicken... hehehe). Anyway, I will have to concede that I've never deployed a big number of servers in a network. My faith in you people makes me believe in what you have said about packet management. However, I do believe that Slackware has a place in giving justice to old machines which can still do many things(including some which an ultra-hightech M$ Windows machine can do). My Linux home server distributes internet access through our network. It can saturate a 10Mbps line even though its a mere 486DX4 with 16MB of RAM. It's also operating as a mail server and dialup server. It can also be a web server at the sametime(it's currently running Apache, but I really don't have my public HTML files in this machine due to my limited bandwidth). Calling these machines "useless and junk" is just too much for me who sees an immense digital divide in the world disorder. Having a Pentium class computer is sometimes a luxury for me, even though I can afford some. Slackware's simplicity has made low-hardware installations a lot easier. And they allow these kind of hardware to do web and mail hosting, and a variety of other things. Very few can afford to buy a computer, and your abandoned machines coupled with Slackware will probably be the most functional and least costly computers on earth. This is Linux on the front of IT access. You don't need a Pentium for e-mail. You can run Netscape under Slackware in 16MB of RAM fine in a 486. You can even do wordprocessing in the same machine using LyX and TeX. One of Linux's philosophies is to make IT more accessible, and Slackware has been one of the players here when it comes to cost. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
