Re: Debian vs. other firewall/server operating systems
on 01:00 Mon 28 Feb, Jason Hsu (jhsu802701@jasonhsu.com) wrote:
> I can't comment on other distros as servers, as my experience at the
> server level has so far been with a minimal command-line only Debian
> Stable installation. (When I'm given the option of installing
> packages for the graphical desktop, web server, mail server, etc., I
> don't select any of them.)
You're going to get a pretty obvious bias asking this question on a
Debian list.
> I tried this minimal Debian installation on the desktop in the past
> and didn't like it. But at the server level, I really appreciate the
> minimalism. As I have found from trying to upgrade Lenny to Squeeze,
> certain things about certain packages change. Thus, the more packages
> you have installed, the more difficult is, because you multiply your
> chances of running into problems. Given that most companies and
> organizations need their servers running 24/7/365, it makes sense to
> use the most stable OS possible for the server. Debian is known for
> stability in the Linux world, and the Stable branch is stable even by
> Debian standards. The server doesn't require as many applications as
> the desktop, so I don't mind a bare-bones Debian installation at the
> server level. Given concerns about security at the server level, a
> bare-bones installation seems better, as more applications mean the
> potential for more security holes.
Without discussing merits of any one OS/distros, the rationales I've
seen given are generally:
- Organizational familiarity -- what do you know.
- Marketing in general. Not just advertising, but various
parternships (hardware, ISV, service providers). It can be
effective.
- Application support. Particularly in the realm of proprietary ISV
third-party apps: what is vendor-supported? I've seen otherwise
Debian shops opt for RHEL on Oracle servers.
- Hardware support. Whether the issue is CPU architecture (Debian
arguably runs on more platforms than any other OS) or simply vendor
support for/under OSes of servers, expansion devices, and/or
peripheral hardware.
- Ease/cost of management. I'd give Debian very, very high marks
here. APT, backports, package selection, and auxiliary management
tools (stow, checkinstall, alien, and apt-build among others) make
sane management of both distro-provided and third-party software
vastly easier than any other platform I've had familiarity with (and
hence: contempt for). With some 30,000+ packages, the in-distro
availability of software trumps any other distro/OS.
- Long-term support. For production environments, it's very helpful
to have a system which one can deploy and leave in place for the
life of hardware (3-7 years generally). Upgrades don't matter
BECAUSE YOU NEVER UPGRADE. Individual packages are updated for
security/bugfix reasons. The number of frighteningly brittle
production systems in existance is petrifying.
- Managed hosting. Various managed hosting providers will offer a set
of standard, supported platforms. For a small startup, not having
to worry about systems administration issues at the initial stage
can be a win. OSes with corporate backing and marketing to create
partnership agreements will be more successful here.
- Suitability to task. For a firewall, OpenBSD makes a very
persuasive argument (hardened, designed for the task,
secure-by-default, very solid security history). For mobile devices
you'd need your head examined to not look strongly at Android (yes,
Nokia, I'm talking to you). Desktop gives you the choice of
Microsoft, Apple, or numerous Linux distros. Debian, while not
specifically optimized for any one task (it's the "universal
operating system") can be slotted into a vast range of tasks with
ease, and high suitability.
- Decreasingly: FUD. In the early oughts I interviewd with the CTO
of a company who in all seriousness cited patent / lawsuit risk,
specifically mentioning the SCO/Caldera lawsuits against IBM and
Novell, as concerns for adopting Linux. This is pretty much a
dead-ender rationale today.
> Given all this, what are the reasons for using the other server
> operating systems?
The naive answer is that someone felt they were worth creating, and
someone else thought they were worth deploying.
> WHY WHY WHY are there Windows servers out there?
Oh, now we get to discuss other platform merits....
See the list above, starting with the first item. For many shops,
there's an appeal to "one platform, all systems". I have the same
preference, though the platform I choose differs from these shops.
> Why do people use Ubuntu on the server given that Debian is more
> stable?
See the list above, start with marketing. Suitability to task (ease of
installation, end-user desktop orientation) also played a role, though
IMO it's got little if any edge over Debian in this regard now. Less,
for me, as I don't care for the direction of Ubuntu's desktop polish.
> Why do people use RedHat given that it has proprietary features in it?
> (While it's not Windows, it sounds like a step in the wrong
> direction.) I've heard that CentOS is MUCH more difficult to upgrade
> than Debian, so why do people use CentOS on the server?
See the list above, starting with marketing. Red Hat had a huge lead
over Ubuntu, and while it continues to hold the edge, it's slipped very
significantly at least in mindshare. This does speak to the vastly
superior package management / general administrative ease and
flexibility of APT, both in terms of end-user administration and the
rate at which Ubuntu have increased the quality/capabilities of their
offerings. LTS, hardware support, ISV support, "the number one name in
Linux" all play major roles.
CentOS: shops which want all the flexibility, administrative ease, and
power of Red Hat with all the marketing and third-party vendor support
of Debian. Or could they just be cheap bastards?
Actually, simply getting away from the hassles of RHN is a pretty big
win.
--
Dr. Ed Morbius, Chief Scientist / |
Robot Wrangler / Staff Psychologist | When you seek unlimited power
Krell Power Systems Unlimited | Go to Krell!
Reply to: