Unix, Linux or NT?

When you're setting up a new ISP, is there one 'right' operating system platform. Members of ISP-CLEC offer opinions.

[January 11, 2000]

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

"If you were starting up today, or could start over as an ISP, would you use Unix, Linux or NT servers, and why? Which RAS servers have the fewest 'issues' with user modems and require the least customer support?"

 

One respondent pointed out a number of variables involved in answering the question:

[WK wrote] "It depends on the number of customers you are expecting to service and the technical competence of your system administrators. Start-up funds are also a big determining factor."

Another brought up the issue of previous experience:

[EC wrote] "The question is: What do your tech folks (or you) already know? I chose Linux because I had a lot of experience with it. If I had already known NT (without also knowing Linux) I probably wouldn't have chosen Linux. Had I known Unix and had a lot of experience with BSF, I probably would have gone with FreeBSD. Having to learn the ins and outs of a new OS would definitely raise the total cost of ownership (TCO) too high for me."

Many respondents expressed their satisfaction with the choices they've made. As you can imagine, each OS had it fans—and its detractors. The following are typical of this run of answers:

[NT wrote] "As far as operating systems go, I like Free BSD. The RAS server question is even more of a religious issue than the first question."

[NS had a different favorite] "We started out three years ago with NT 4.0 and USR/3Com Total Control hubs and wouldn't change for anything! It's easier, faster, and stable."

[by contrast, JS wrote] "I'd personally avoid NT, it just costs too much to operate NT for the few customers that require it. As for NT's 'reduced' cost of ownership ... angry customers can cost a lot too. Not to say Unix is perfect, but I've yet to see any 'server grade' OS as buggy as NT. I get a lot of customers who tell me it's a good thing I don't run NT; 'My last ISP ran NT and they were down all the time.'"

Others, however, had more differentiated responses

[LY had this to say] "We use Linux, Free BSD, and BSDI—a commercial version of free BSD used by a lot of ISPs. I have used Solaris with very good results, and we use NT for our billing platform. Although NT is much less stable than a good Unix platform, it is attractive to those people who are not technically comfortable with Unix/Linux . We use 3COM Total Control for access servers and are pleased with them."

[JS had a highly equitable view] "Each server OS has its own advantages and disadvantages. We chose the one that would do each job best within our budget: Linux for mail; DNS and NT as our commercial hosting platform; Linux and PostgreSQL for data backend; and NT on our desktops for development, etc."

[MT seconded this, and expanded on this concept] "The important thing is to realize that it may take more than one OS to deliver the applications you desire. While a complete Linux solution may be the ultimate solution, your office staff may require Windows. The cool thing is there are systems that bridge multiple operating systems, allowing you to use what works best or is most convenient for you. Remember you can upgrade as well. Starting with one OS just to get going doesn't commit you for life."

 —End