Re: [cobalt-users] next time just buy a PC

[Benedict <jbt@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

> > Have all you Qube/RaQ owners considered the "buy a PC" option ?
> 
> Your PC option won't work for RaQ users; a full-tower takes
> significantly more space in colocation than a RaQ; we'd charge at least
> $500/month to colocate a full-tower.

But then, the fulltowers are much more silent than the Cobalts,
and can contain much more data and speed, obviously.
So, what one would lose is beyond me...

> Win2000 Pro is NOT a server solution.

You mean; Microsoft does not sell it as a server solution,
that's not the same as it not being a server-solution.
I can run Apache on it, with IMAP support, PHP 4, Perl, SSL
and I bet the network stack will be faster than that
of a Qube or Cobalt RaQ, because it's using more and
faster memory, and a faster mainboard and faster CPU, and
in most cases faster data-speeds from and to HD as well.
Over time I have learned to tweak Windows so that it works faster.
 
> > When reading from this list, I can hardly say it would take
> > more time installing a linux-server on such a PC and
> > kicking Win2000 off of it.
> 
> But now you've got basic Linux, hardly the convenience of a Qube.

Well, the convenience goes down the drain if we're talking
backing up the onboard harddrive, mirroring it all on-board,
replacing the hardware. Also, if it doesn't work, you depend
on Cobalt mailinglists or expensive service personnel.
A Cobalt Sun Linux O.S. version is like a Compaq or HP PC.
When you have trouble with it, you depend on some company's
shell to get your stuff working again. A no brand PC is easier
to maintain, if you ask me. Solutions for Linux or Windows
problems are everywhere on the net, whereas for Qubes they
are rather hard to find, if you find them in time at all.
 
> At a cost of a lot more in administration.

Really? I doubt that. Simple example:
To exchange files from and to a Win2000 Pro box
locally can be done with access to the entire drive
without having to type commandlines, by using Windows Commander
for example. This is much faster than having to chmod stuff
and telnetting and ftp-ing everything using the right permissions.
 
> The Qube3 is NOT addressed to the same market as either a Win2000 Pro
> box, or a generic linux box.

Still, I see many use it as if it is.
Installing X-Windows and Squirrelmail on a Qube and all.
Another example: At home I have a stripped down Windows 98SE
test-serving http, mail and ftp. Now I also have a Qube 3 for
testing purposes before it needs to go in 'production' where I work.
One would think that a Qube would surpass the 98 box, but it doesn't,
I have downloads locking up at the start because of strange
DNS-issues I would never have to deal with before.
Solutions for that are missing in the manuals.
The Win98SE box is running PegasusMail, BPFTP and Apache using
only a 200 MHz PI, 128 MB SDRAM and performance of the webserver is
way better than Apache on the Qube. Version number is higher as well.
(This surprised me, yes.)
Also, whenever some update.pkg appears, it seems to overwrite
many of my customisations and set it all back as if it was new.
With Windows you won't have that, no install would ever touch
httpd.conf or php.ini, they operate separately.

And for backups you simply backup the entire IDE-drive's content
over the local network. When the HD fails, you have a copy of it
to replace the other one. For a Qube the backup either needs to be
RAID, or you need to find a way to have an exact image copy
of the drive, which has me worried, since I have no access to it
through FTP or LAN, I can't simply copy the entire content
each day and burn a CD out of it or something.
I really don't know if using a Win2000 box or clean BSD
or Linux install for a server would be so bad, in comparison.
For smaller networks at home, a Win2000Pro will do better
in my opinion.

B.

------------------------------------------------
This mail sent from DHBiT - http://mail.dhbit.ca
 Come get your free, secure 5MB mailbox today!