Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [linux] OS choice ( was: Re: OT: AMD x2 desktop with GiGE special price at Newegg ...)

Expand Messages
  • J
    ... Oh I know... and I actually filed bugs against RHEL back when they removed it because I almost always installed Everything on my test machines daily...
    Message 1 of 42 , Mar 12, 2012
      On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:13, thad_floryan <thad@...> wrote:
      > --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, J <dreadpiratejeff@...> wrote:
      >> [...]
      >> Grain of salt: I haven't installed Cent or RHEL in a too long now...
      >> However, RHEL removed the "Everything" option some time ago (maybe in
      >> RHEL 3 or 4?) in favor of specific package options.  The thinking at
      >> the time was "What enterprise is going to want to run a mail server
      >> AND LAMP stack AND DNS on the same machine?  That's just silly talk
      >> there!"
      > Many sole proprietorships (consultants, etc.) don't have an abundance
      > of hardware so most will run everything on one box.

      Oh I know... and I actually filed bugs against RHEL back when they
      removed it because I almost always installed "Everything" on my test
      machines daily... that removal made my job just that much more painful
      (at least for the hour or two it took me to figure out the package
      patterns so I could fix my kickstart scripts) :) But yeah, I've run
      into that where someone will only be able to afford one or two
      "servers" and they'll be running everything on them... ugh... and
      that's a nighmare... one place I worked had, at one point, all their
      billing software running on the same system as their mail server AND
      an IIS server (Windows :( )... so if someone managed to compromise the
      box via IIS, they'd have immediate access to the companie's entire
      billing system, customer data, account info, everything...

      > My FreeBSD development, email and webserver is a single machine though
      > at my home office I have a lot of systems because I need to test a lot
      > of things on a lot of different OSs.
      > That FreeBSD system's load average only exceeded 1.0 (and topped-out
      > somewhere around 50+) when there was a DDoS attack from Asia several
      > years ago.  Its quiescent load average is zero:
      > thadlabs bash 77321/77325> uptime
      >  7:05AM  up 145 days,  4:22, 5 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
      > thadlabs bash 77321/77325>
      > my SheevaPlugs never really get down to zero:
      > root@lanserv1:~# uptime
      >  07:06:38 up 40 days,  5:26,  1 user,  load average: 0.08, 0.13, 0.13
      > root@lanserv1:~#
      >> I usually resolved that by installing RHEL from a DVD, then after
      >> rebooting, mounting the DVD, going into the directory that stored all
      >> the RPMs and then:
      >> rpm -Uvh *.rpm
      >> hehehe... cheating, and ugly, but it more or less worked for a true
      >> "Everything" install
      >> The problem with that is that they started installing multiple
      >> examples of the same thing: for example, if you truly installed
      >> "Everything" you'd get three different mail servers installed... and
      >> then you'd get all sorts of joyful errors as those three competed for
      >> the same ports and spools.
      > Ah, that's the difference between types of distros.  Solaris only has
      > one mail server AFAIK, sendmail.  I'm running qmail and dovecot on the
      > FreeBSD box.

      Yeah, and most distros (my present employer's distro is no exception,
      unfortunately) do just that. I was always more of the opinion that
      the distro should decide on one thing, install it and let the user
      decide if they want something else and let them install that later on.

      At least, AFAIK, with Ubuntu Server we have been sitting on one of
      each package (PostFix for mail, MySQL for database, etc, though I
      think if you pick the LAMP stack option you do get PostGRES).

      >> [...]
      >> Anyway, that's why they removed the "Everything" Option from RHEL.
      > Thank you for the insight.  That's the "problem" with Linux when there
      > are eleventy-seven different programs for the same task(s) [e.g., 15
      > or 20 browsers, 30 or 40 email clients, ad infinitum and crazy.  Just
      > pick one good one and go with that which also simplifies support and
      > bug fixes].

      Agreed... and most of them make no sense in their naming... qmail,
      sendmail, even to a degree postfix I can get an idea of what they do.
      Unfortunately, I had to actually look at dovecot to figure out what
      it was... same with other things... Oh, just install blarty if you
      want the best FOO out there... "Ummm... what the heck is a blarty?"

      It reminds me of the commercials I see for that dating website Zoosk.
      What the hell is a Zoosk and how would I EVER connect that to online
      dating? Ugh... but I guess after a while you start running out of
      descriptive names for programs, so you have to start calling them
      things like Bob or aklhsdhukthkaune :)

      >> I would assume that since Cent is just rebranded RHEL, it would work
      >> exactly the same...
      > I suppose it does as would Scientific Linux, too.
      > It looks like I'll be permanently keeping CentOS on this new box.

      Yeah, after your last comments about Scientific LInux I was a bit
      disappointed. I had thought that it included a lot of extra Science
      related programs and libraries... but I gather from your investigation
      it is really just another re-badged RHEL?
    • thad_floryan
      ... D oh, headslap - ouch! You re right, it does appear Microsoft-ish. I had to really lay down the law at several client sites where their so-called
      Message 42 of 42 , Mar 17, 2012
        --- In linux@yahoogroups.com, John O'Donnell <unixjohn1969@...> wrote:
        > On 03/17/2012 12:51 PM, Herbert R Coburn wrote:
        > > On 03/16/2012 11:42 PM, thad_floryan wrote:
        > > [snip]
        > > >
        > > > The reason I mention this is because we had an "interesting"
        > > > thread
        > > > here within the past year or so and some folks took offense by
        > > > the use of the "/usr/local" hierarchy [which I've been using
        > > > since UNIX Day 1).
        > > >
        > > [snip]
        > >
        > > I suppose they eschew /opt also.
        > I am with Thad.. I cut my teeth on Xenix 286 to Fortune Systems
        > Unix, Basic Four, all they way to OSF/1, and BEYOND! /usr/local
        > was key for independent systems in a larger network. I loved /opt
        > for individual (large) packages like Open Office, KDE, and others
        > that you could just add or dismiss from user paths at will. Those
        > were large multi-user systems that Unix/Linux were designed
        > around. All this merging sounds like a Microsoft move to me.
        > I am not a fan.
        > :-(
        > Johnny O

        D'oh, headslap - ouch! You're right, it does appear Microsoft-ish.

        I had to really lay down the law at several client sites where their
        so-called SysAdmins would download and compile, say, sendmail in their
        home directory(ies) then mv the executable to /usr/sbin with no notes
        or clues to the origin of that new package. Then when they leave for
        another job there's no one who knows what's what. I had to fix such
        nightmares at many clients' sites over the years. I'm a calm and
        reasonable person, but if I actually saw someone doing what I just
        described there might be more people pushing up daisies right now.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.