I can't address Caldera because I haven't had the opportunity to use it.
Red Hat, however, I can talk about forever. Pluses are that it's the most
widely used version of Linux, very, very easy to install, and has support
options ranging from USENET to RedHat factory support.
Where is it a good idea? In pretty much any kind of network environment,
especially if it involves the Internet. The operating system is wildly
scaleable...from a low powered 386 to 10 processor Pentium Pro servers to
128 parallel processor mainframes. Because it is so configurable, you can
design it to support exactly what you want...and leave out the things you
don't.
Take a look at your local ISP...you'll probably find that they've got at
least a few Linux machines running...and they're probably running Red Hat.
In a network environment, a Linux server can act as a DHCP host, provide
domain services for an NT network, serve SMB shares, and interact with
Netware. It's security is first rate. Absolutely first rate. Generally
speaking, the Linux community responds to security issues much, much faster
than any other operating system.
For real-time data acquisition, again, Linux shines because the OS has such
low overhead and high performance.
From a client/server perspective, Linux, like other versions of UNIX, was
built for networking in this kind of environment. A diskless workstation
can boot Linux (with a boot PROM in the network card), map NFS volumes and
act as if it was full of hard drives. X-Windows is completely client/server
driven. On a single machine, the distinction is not visible, but it's
possible to have the software completely distributed over a network,
allowing for diskless/small disk workstations to run X-Windows with ease.
It, of course, has the benefit of being pretty cheap...from free to $50.00.
In my office, I have three systems running Red Hat 5.1, with the 2.0.34
kernel, a dual P233 with 128MB of RAM and about 11GB of drive space, a P150
with 32MB and 4GB and a P100 with 32MB and 1.6GB. Everything...absolutely
everything comes from the dual P233 machine. NFS was a snap to configure,
security is managed from one computer, X-Windows components reside on one
system and applications and files are served from one system. The
performance is very good, even over a 10BaseT network with three other
computers and an Internet bridge. In fact, up until the subscriber base
threatened the licensing limitations of Listserv Lite, the PC-MS list ran
from the P100 machine...routing an average of 2,500 messages per day...and
all of the application software resided on an NFS partition on the server.
Right now, the system sends about 500 messages per day with next to no
impact on its performance...and that's an old Zappa motherboard-based P-100
with a very, very slow hard drive.
When is it a bad idea? Well, Linux purists will probably hang me, but as a
day-to-day operating system, it has its difficulties. Obviously, the world
is focused on Windows, so if there is not a Linux parallel to a Windows
program, there's obviously a problem. I would have to say that for casual
home use, Linux would be a tough OS to justify.
Anyway, I usually recommend Red Hat because of its ease of installation and
upgrade with the RPM software, responsive upgrades and patches, because of
the commercial accessories they include, and because they seem to be the
biggest player in the market.
Drew Dunn
[log in to unmask]
Check out the BurbCam!
http://adsl24.bois.uswest.net/drew/hood.html
> For the LINUX groupies on the list; I'd like some pluses and minuses for
> these two flavors. I'm less interested in the web server stuff than the
> business server and client environment. Where is and is not LINUX a good
> idea?
>
> LINUX has a good reputation for stability and use for legacy systems --
> of course, most corporate folks are skeptical of free-ware support.
|
