Unix, Linux, or NT? Take Two

We posted a selection from this thread last week, but we found enough additional interesting material that we decided to pull together a sequel.

[January 21, 2000]

On the ISP-CLEC list in December 1999, GP posted a question destined to create dialogue:

"If you were starting up today, or could start over as an ISP, would you use Unix, Linux or NT servers, and why?"

 

As before, there were strong advocates for both sides of the OS divide—Linux/Unix being on one side, NT on the other. But many of these responses delve more deeply into the issues, illuminating new dimensions of the question.

There was considerable unanimity in the Unix/Linux camp:

[NS wrote] "Unix is the answer. The question is what Unix you go with. I like FreeBSD, but Linux has more support. For example, I recently wanted to install the latest and greatest PGP. The source compiles fine on Linux, but was not made to compile on FreeBSD easily.

"If you need a lot of support and help go with Red Hat [Linux]; if you know a lot about Unix and want more hits per CPU go with FreeBSD."

[DG expanded on one of the virtues of Linux: stabilty] "I have had Red Hat Linux systems (version 4.2) with up-times of 489 days and 496 days. I have had several systems with up-times of over a year. The usual reason for rebooting was running out of disk space and having to add another hard drive. The longest time I have had an NT server in constant operation (NT 4.0 sp3) was about 5 months."

[BR reluctantly suggested there might be a role for NT] "We would use Linux or FreeBSD—except for some Website hosting. Customers like FrontPage, Cold Fusion, Access databases etc."

Proponents of NT were equally adamant, justifying their choice with apparently unarguable business reasons.

[M wrote] "I run a small ISP in which we started using NT 4.0, and have been very happy. Out of the seven servers we run now, all doing various ISP jobs, only one acts up and needs a reboot (I belive this problem is due to sloppy code that we are running for our mail server). The other six I feel could easily run for a year without a reboot. However, I can't see any NT machine running more than six months due to the fact that you constantly need to load security updates provided by Microsoft, which requires rebooting)."

[NS (not the Unix advocate, above) echoed this] "We started out with NT 4.0 three years ago and wouldn't change for anything! It's easier, faster, and stable as long as you know what you're doing.

"For the first two years in business we were the only ISP in our local area using NT. Our competition laughed at us. We are now the best in our area, known for our fast network and lack of downtime—and three out of five competitors are out of business!"

[MH responded, putting the debate in a new light] "I usually find that competency with the tools at hand make more difference than the tools themselves. We can say the same thing, only we use Linux (over 50 servers). Although the tool is good, our experience and competency with it makes it work for us. Obviously you are good at NT."

Another respondent reported crossing party lines—in the opposite direction from BR, above.

[MT wrote] "We also went the NT 4.0 route and have not regretted it. We are now adding Linux and FreeBSD—not out of a change of heart, but due to application requirements. The problem is that in our case getting Linux stable has been a nightmare."

Several respondents chimed in with views that were more OS-neutral:

[EL pointed out] "There are many sides to this question: stability, ease of use, application software choices, equipment, technical support,and maintenance. I agree that Unix is a better system once you get more than 5,000 customers, but starting with NT saves a whole lot of time. It's the easiest to use, set up, and troubleshoot; it's also much easier to set up a secure system to keep hackers out. A number of small Linux ISP's have had frequent downtime due to hacker problems."

[TH brought forward the cost issue] "Package costs are typically not the major portion of the investment: it's integration and support (labor). While Linux is arguably an extremely stable OS, it's difficult to configure properly and to maintain. Red Hat can charge as much as $60K annually for support of corporate clients (so much for 'free'). NT has been a more expensive product to purchase but, typically, not to support."

[MT seconded the thought] "Learning Unix/Linux is not easy. As a result, nontechnical startups are faced with the choice between an OS that is approachable and learnable or hiring a Unix/Linux administrator(s) along with the installation of their free, superior OS."

[In another post, MT made this final point] "Starting with one OS just to get going doesn't commit you for life. Remember, you can upgrade as well."

 —End

 Read the original article: Unix, Linux, or NT?