[rescue] Re: [geeks] THIS. MAKES. ME. SICK.
rescue at sunhelp.org
Thu Jun 14 23:58:13 CDT 2001
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 11:38:18PM -0400, mike dombrowski wrote:
> Time for me to jump in and help out Devin. Just FYI, when I say NT I
> mean 4 & 2k.
OK, no flames on either side, let's keep it factual.
> What does this prove? No sane admin runs an out of box install. Even
> OpenBSD needs tweaking to get it going
I can run a stock OpenBSD install on the Internet, not behind a firewall.
And not have to worry about it getting hacked. I could use the installed
sendmail (which in its installed config is secure), though to be honest I do
install postfix (all of 4 commands to type to install, configure, and
> You can't do this either. Quadruple the ram and go with a Duron and it
> starts getting fair. Compare OpenBSD and Solaris 8 on an LX with
> minimum amount of ram for Solaris. OpenBSD will beat Solaris handily in
> terms of response time, speed, etc. Does this make Solaris bad? No, it
Stop and think about what you are saying here... I need a GB of RAM and a
800MHz CPU to have decent performance with W2K? Is that what you are saying?
In comparison, a 450MHz machine with 128MB RAM is like an LX?
Are you sure you're on Devin's side :-) ?
> just means you're incorrectly pairing the OS and hardware. Try this
> comparison; Quad Xeon, 2gb ram, scsi OS disks and fibre channel data
> disks for massive SQL serving, 2k vs. OpenBSD. Watch 2k beat down
> OpenBSD, does this prove anything either?
OK, fair enough, OBSD doesn't do SMP. If I stuck Linux on there what do you
think would happen?
> >I'm not trying to flame you, but if you want to come on the list and
> >such (IMHO) ridiculous claims you should be challenged. I know $250
> >real money but it's what I have as "mad money" :-) .
> Saying that properly admined NT can work is not a "ridiculous claim."
That is not what I said; if you still have the thread, re-read it.
More information about the rescue