topic Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP in Operating System - Linux

Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Blaq Dawg — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:33:39 GMT

Hello fellas/ladies I know this might start a heated discussion, but honestly which is the "best" OS to use for networking?

I'm a windows fan but from what other professionals are telling me is that Windows is insecure. I'm thinking of changing to a Unix-like OS, but first I just want to know the pros and cons of it.

How can this problem be solved and improved?

Thanx
Dx o_0?

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Steven E. Protter — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 19:58:50 GMT

Best?

Depends on your critera.

They are all very strong in networking. I'd not use XP because its too complex and has security issues.

You forgot HP-UX.

SEP

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Blaq Dawg — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:21:25 GMT

Thanx Steve for replying.

Yes, you are right that I forgot HP-UX, I have not become in contact with it that often. Actually I've just recently been introduced to it.

What are the pros and cons of HP-UX and Window XP?

Dx o_0?

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Steven E. Protter — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:53:41 GMT

HP-UX really is not terribly secure out of the box. It has the advantage of being secureable, which is what HP wants. In a closed network where security is not a problem, you don't need to do anything to it and its reasonably secure.

With security_patch_check, Bastille and a few simple scripts written by Bill Hassell you can lock down an HP-UX system in a very understandable way.

Its simple, and doesn't involve the hundreds of megabytes of security patches requires to secure a Windows 2003 box. W2K3 was reasonably secure btw, but still had lots of holes in it that were exploitable.

I'm in my spare time a Windows 2003 admin and have a few hundred hours of experience using gui admin. I hate gui tools for admin, and prefer command line solutions. I don't have to fire up a vulnerable browser to patch HP-UX.

With the exception of Exchange, for which an open source version exists sthat can be compiled on HP-UX an HP-UX server can replicate or imitate all the functionality of a Windows server.

With a simple cookbook that takes a few hours to implement you can make HP-UX into a primary domain controller with Samba shares, and queues for most common printers.

The administration is elegant and understandable.

BTW you can do this with Linux, and I'm pretty sure you can do it with Solaris as well. Each OS has its pros and cons.

SEP

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Stuart Browne — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:02:15 GMT

*nod* I agree with pretty much everything SEP has said.

I've just got my hands on a Mac (*yay!*), and am starting to muck around with it. There's a learning curve, as it's underlying BSD is different from other releases.

It does all depend on what you're wanting to do with the machine in the end.

If you just want to do user-apps, stick with XP, making sure it's behind some well set up firewalls.

If you're wanting a server, drop XP like a hot potato and go for one of the Unix variants.

HP-UX and Solaris have well known histories and are actively updated on a regular basis. Same goes for the BSD's. Of course, all of these solutions come with a hefty $$$.

Linux is very fluid thing, but if you go for one of the Enterprise level products, all should be well (I personally despise Debian). Using something like CentOS gets the best of the Enterprise level product, without a pricetag at all.

Mac OSX as a server is, well, odd. I know a number of people swear by it, and are using more and more, but the security issues it's had in the past are just downright scary. I'd shy away from OSX as a server for a while yet. As a workstation though, I don't think you can go past OSX.. It's got the best of both worlds, and is quite affordable.

Just my thoughts..

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Muthukumar_5 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:05:13 GMT

For Networking,

I hope windows based systems are not competitive to *NIX platforms. May be we can add 2003 server.

You can select HP-UX platform for networking which is having good performance on that except security related.

I feel you can add one platform called freeBSD here which is having good performance and network related stuff(s).

--
Muthu

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

dirk dierickx — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:01:47 GMT

if you are looking for a system for 'networking' (whatever that encompasses), i would not go for hpux (it doesn't make any sense).
xp does not have the best tcp/ip stack, even ms knows this and have rewritten it in vista (will it be better, we can only hope).
solaris 10 (not 9) does have a good networking stack, very performant.
the most secure network OS is OpenBSD, and NetBSD also deserves a look.
linux, the nice thing is that there are a few distro's around that will turn your machine into a FW or a router while taking the 'unix' layer away from you, which is nice if you don't want to learn unix but still have a powerful network device. http://www.ipcop.org/ http://www.m0n0.ch/wall/ http://smoothwall.org/ http://www.wifi.com.ar/cdrouter.html http://www.astaro.com/

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Lionel Giraudeau — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:50:37 GMT

Dear Blaq Dawg,

I personnally think that you're trying to win the contest : "The biggest Forum's Troll of the year".

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Alan_152 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:43:42 GMT

Depends on whay you really need out of the box:

If I am running java services, then I go with Solaris.

If I'm going with a web server, then I run apache on a solaris, linux, or (sometimes) windows -- depending on the customer (I run apache on knoppix, myself).

If this is for a graphics or music studio, then Mac.

If I'm integrating into an existing MS environment, then I go with XP or linux with samba.

If I'm doing mail or dns, I am nonstandard and do windows (THAT should earn me some wrath from somebody).

If I want the system to work on the 1st try, I'll use MS-DOS.

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Bill Thorsteinson — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:36:00 GMT

It all depends on what you want/need to
do. All have their uses.
Changing environments will have a learning
curve. You will likely also have to
abandon software which runs only on Windows.
Open Office is a decent replacment for
Microsoft Office.

Debian is very open source. Relatively,
secure out of the box, and easy to firewall
down to an even more secure configuration.
I recommend shorewall. For intalling
new sofware I recommend aptitude, which is
installed as part of the base install.
Software installation will pull in other
necessary packages over the net.
I use it heavily in development as
software is easy to come by and install.
It also avoids the delays required for
purchasing software.

HP-UX and Solaris are both proprietary
with the accompaning delay in software
upgrades. I find software installation on
both to be more complex than necessary.
Pretty well anything you can run on Debian
you can get or build for either.

I use Windows when require by proprietary
software packages.

For desktop use, I switch between Windows
and Debian. I would consider Mac OS X, but
it would require new hardware.

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Blaq Dawg — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:54:14 GMT

Thanks guys for the useful replies.

I agree entirely that it comes down to what I want it for. As Alan wrote "If this is for a graphics or music studio, then Mac" well that's exactly what i want it for. Though I have never really appriciated the Mac, maybe it will be a learning curve for me to learn another OS besides Unix/Linux and Windows.

I know one thing Mac should do... provide a wider variety of games.

Dx o_0?

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Stuart Browne — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:03:07 GMT

Actually, there's less games on Mac than there are for PC/XP ;)

Anyway.

The Mac (even prior to OSX) has always been what real graphic artists use :) (My brother loves his Mac.. far too much than should be good for a person).

And Alan.. *flame*flame*flame* *mumbles* using windows for something like mail or dns *mumbles*

Re: Debian Linux vs. Solaris 9 vs. Mac OS X vs. Win XP

Alan_152 — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:49:27 GMT

Stuart

Maybe it is just because I have a better proclivity for windows-based products than other products (although my resume says I have far more time as a *nix admin than anything else). I never can seem to get a stable, working version of sendmail or bind going right on any *nix platform (I've had better results with djbdns, however). My DDNS setups in 2k seem to just chug along, though.

Although I'll use Exchange if it is forced upon me, my preferences are for ArGoSoft and Merak mail servers. I'm particularly fond of Merak because I'll run it on a 9x box. My mail server has been up for 2 years with nary a complaint.

Maybe the survival of my setups is due to that smoothwall box I have between my DMZ and the Internet.

Let me throw a couple more preferences in: I really like HP-UX if I'm going to be doing any kind of hard-core hardware testing. I like Freedos if I have to throw together some kind of network boot floppy/cd for Ghost'ing, and I like like Solaris for pkgadd (more grumbles, moans, and flames expected). :)