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

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:18:16 -0800
> From: Benedict <jbt@xxxxxxxx>

(snipping throughout)


> 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...

Density, perhaps?  We have some full and mid towers, as well as
rackmount gear.  But, then again, we still have excess space.


> > 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

Yeah, right.  STFW, find out what a network stack is, and then
reread that statement.


> of a Qube or Cobalt RaQ, because it's using more and
> faster memory, and a faster mainboard and faster CPU, and

The network you describe hardly sounds like a big network.
CPU probably won't be a bottleneck.  Excess capacity does not
translate into speed.  Being connected via an OC3 _does not_ mean
that you'll serve pages 100x as fast as a T1.


> 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.

So have I.  And to tweak *ix.


> shell to get your stuff working again. A no brand PC is easier
> to maintain, if you ask me. Solutions for Linux or Windows

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I rather like Dell OptiPlex GX{a|i|1|et
cetera} models.


> problems are everywhere on the net, whereas for Qubes they
> are rather hard to find, if you find them in time at all.

Sure, there are some specifics on the Qubes.  But anyone skilled
in *ix can adapt in a snap.  Slackware uses BSD-style init
scripts.  RedHat uses SysV-style.  Does that stop me from working
on both?  No.


> > 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

I _prefer_ a shell prompt, thank you very much.  One does not
need a GUI.  A GUI often makes things take _longer_.  And this is
coming from someone who is quite skilled on Windows... I can get
around Windows faster than anyone I've met -- that's hundreds of
computer users.


> for example. This is much faster than having to chmod stuff
> and telnetting and ftp-ing everything using the right permissions.

*sigh*

You won't be booting off of that.  Files with H or S set that
must be in specific positions... registry... bleah.

FWIW, you've apparently never heard of rsync.  Or AMANDA.  Or
several other tools.  Your lack of *ix knowledge does not make
*ix inferior.


> 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

Not unless you image the entire drive, which you should not do if
you're running from it.


> RAID, or you need to find a way to have an exact image copy

What's wrong with RAID?  It's not that expensive.


> 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.

You can't reliably make an HDD image on a running system from
any OS that I've used.  One would need a journaling fs that
worked similarly to PostgreSQL's MVCC for that to be even
remotely advisable.


> 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.

For restoring files from non-RAID, non-image, copy-them-over
backups, I've found BSD to be the quickest, simplest, and most
convenient.

Except for the very first stages of the bootloader, and keeping
the kernel in the first 1024 cylinders, you needn't worry about
position-sensitive files.

You gave your opinion.  Jeff gave his.  I'm giving mine.  When
it comes to opinions, experience is important.  If you want to
say that you find *ix harder to learn than Windows, fine.  But
don't claim that it can't do something just because you don't
understand it.


Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
--

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to be blocked.