Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by RJHM van den Berg » Wed, 26 Aug 1998 04:00:00



I need some advise.

Until know I've spent a lot of time and money
trying to get a Linux server running.
I was better of if I just had bought an NT server !!

I've tried Slackware 3.4 first.
But the documentation is a mess.
Allthough that isn't the biggest problem.
It isn't a stable OS.
When a program crashes it can take the whole system down.
Also the documentation isn't correct.
For example:
It states to use a gcc version x.x.x or newer to compile the kernel.
But people on the net say you will have to use a newer version than that.
(also the new compile will not install)

Then I tried Red HAt 5.1.
Same problem unstable.
Documentation seems to be a little better.
But also this OS hangs if a program crashes.
The OS doesn't even read out the keyboard anymore.
Also some basic things are wrong.
Don't try this:
cd /
ls -l */*/XF86Config
If you do this as normal user you only can shut the
server down with the power button

I've tested the above on two different PC.
One which is new the other an old one.

To let the story be short
Is an OSC server more stable than Linux ?

Can it run with the following hardware ?
ABIT LX6
64 MB ECC ram
Quantum FireBall 6.4 se ide (not my favorit brand)
Aopen 32x aku  CDROM (ide)
Intell Pentium II 300mhz
Tornado 4MB pci (s3virge DX)
microsoft ps/2 mouse.
I've several brands of ethernet and modems so that isn't a problem.

Or should I directly buy an NT server ?

Perpose:
Mainly learning a bit more of Unix.
I'm NOT interested in development in C language.
Conect my local net periodecly and automatic with the internet
when needed.
(reading email/browsing)
Whe don't have cable jet , so it will be a PPP dial up.
Design and testing of perl CGI scripts
I need a running web server for that.
I don't like the asp thing.

Please mail me at

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Bill Campbel » Wed, 26 Aug 1998 04:00:00


We're using Caldera OpenLinux, and I've never had significant problems
getting it to install and work properly.  Probably the hardest part is
getting the X-windows configured.  It works on a wide variety of S3
chipsets, but I would pick a known brand that's mentioned in the XFree86
documentation as supported.  We've used STB, Diamond, Hercules, and a few
others with S3 chips.


....

Quote:>It states to use a gcc version x.x.x or newer to compile the kernel.
>But people on the net say you will have to use a newer version than that.
>(also the new compile will not install)

Use the version of gcc that comes with the distribution as it's the same as
was used to build the distribution itself.  Make sure that you have
selected all the appropriate development software (i.e. if you don't load
ncurses the menuconfig won't work).

...

Quote:>To let the story be short
>Is an OSC server more stable than Linux ?

I can't address any version of Linux other than Caldera, which we selected
for much the same reason we went with SCO 13 years ago, it's designed to be
a stable commercial platform, and avoids being on the bleeding edge of the
technology.

In my experience Caldera OpenLinux 1.1 and 1.2 are at least as stable as
SCO 3.2v5.4+.  We use both here, and they generally get rebooted only when
we fiddle with hardware or moving systems around.

Our primary public mail and news server is SCO 3.2v5.0.4 running on a
Pentium 90 with 64MB of RAM.  It's currently been up for over 30 days, and
processes at least 20,000 e-mail messages a day, and has done as many as
43,000 in a day.

We moved our modems to a Caldera OpenLinux 1.1 system about this time last
year after I got tired of attempting to make SCO's /etc/getty work with the
HylaFAX faxgetty program.  This is running on an relatively ancient 486-66
EISA box, and the only problems with have with that are a sometimes flakey
Equinox multi-port board that has a tendency to stop talking to one of the
modem ports.

We moved ftp.celestial.com to a Caldera OpenLinux 1.2 system last June
because we were having stability problems with Nakamichi 5-disk changers on
SCO 3.2v5.0.4.  The Linux SCSI drivers are considerably more robust than
either OpenServer's or the current Sun Solaris drivers.  They can even
reset the main SCSI host adapter if necessary rather than just* the
system.  This is particularly important to use as we use SCSI scanners
extensively, and some of them can do strange things to the SCSI bus if
they're turned on with the system running.

I prefer the NFS performance of Caldera to that of SCO, and really like the
amd automounter in comparison to the SCO automounter.

Quote:>Can it run with the following hardware ?
>ABIT LX6
>64 MB ECC ram
>Quantum FireBall 6.4 se ide (not my favorit brand)
>Aopen 32x aku  CDROM (ide)
>Intell Pentium II 300mhz
>Tornado 4MB pci (s3virge DX)
>microsoft ps/2 mouse.

I'm not familiar with much of this equipment as we've used SCSI exclusively
since our first Tandy 4000 system running their version of SCO Xenix.  We
use Logitech 3-button mice which will work with either PS/2 or serial.  X-
windows uses all three buttons so are better than the two-button mice.

Bill
--

UUCP:               camco!bill  PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX:            (206) 232-9186  Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.veryComputer.com/

It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to
students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential
programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of
regeneration.
                -- Dijkstra

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Jeff Lieberma » Wed, 26 Aug 1998 04:00:00


On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:22:14 +0200, "RJHM van den Bergh"


>I need some advise.

Free advice:  "Learn by Destroying".

Quote:>But the documentation is a mess.

All the Linux Documentation is a mess.  The Linux Documentation
Project is doing its best, but the beast grows faster than the
volunteers can keep up.  Worse is that much of the documentation
and HOWTO's are radically out of date.

Quote:>But also this OS hangs if a program crashes.
>The OS doesn't even read out the keyboard anymore.
>Also some basic things are wrong.
>Don't try this:
>cd /
>ls -l */*/XF86Config

I just ran this on my RedHat 5.1 (2.0.33 kernel) without
difficult.  The fact that you've had the identical problem on two
different operating systems points to a hardware problem.
Methinks your computer is busted in some undeterminable manner.

Quote:>I've tested the above on two different PC.
>One which is new the other an old one.

Test what and how?  Moving a broken hard disk and/or controller
to a new motherboard is not a valid test.  Same with busted
memory.  If *ANY* operating system had such catostrophic
problems, let me assure you that world as we know it would end
tomorrow.

Quote:>Or should I directly buy an NT server ?

A fate worse than death.  However, I would be interested in how
NT crashes on your defective hardware.

Quote:>Mainly learning a bit more of Unix.

SCO offers free versions of their various operating systems.
See:
        http://www.sco.com/offers/

>Please mail me at


NO.
 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Daniel P. Hembre » Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:00:00



Quote:> I need some advise.

> Until know I've spent a lot of time and money
> trying to get a Linux server running.
> I was better of if I just had bought an NT server !!

> I've tried Slackware 3.4 first.
> But the documentation is a mess.
> Allthough that isn't the biggest problem.
> It isn't a stable OS.
> When a program crashes it can take the whole system down.
> Also the documentation isn't correct.
> For example:
> It states to use a gcc version x.x.x or newer to compile the kernel.
> But people on the net say you will have to use a newer version than that.
> (also the new compile will not install)

> Then I tried Red HAt 5.1.
> Same problem unstable.
> Documentation seems to be a little better.
> But also this OS hangs if a program crashes.
> The OS doesn't even read out the keyboard anymore.
> Also some basic things are wrong.
> Don't try this:
> cd /
> ls -l */*/XF86Config
> If you do this as normal user you only can shut the
> server down with the power button

> I've tested the above on two different PC.
> One which is new the other an old one.

That's a nice test. I tried it on two Linices also. Mklinux, which is based
on a Mach kernel similar to the one used for NT . I have yet to get an
answer to the query but  the system is working fine, I'm typing this message
in netscape while it searchs. I also typed it on a Debian Linux system. Same
thing, it is still querying but the system is fine. It seems to want to open
every device. One might  expect a little trouble from that.

You might want to go to NT. You can get this behaviour without having to
type anything.

I've been using Linux for three years now. I prefer it to SCO. It's easy to
set up and use and very stable. Suport and documentation is superior to any
comersial system I've tried. I must note that not only do all the comercial
systems lag on their support and documetation, they manage to lag without
ever changing. The Linux crowd (as well as BSD and others) may have trouble
keeping up, but it's because the software is changing quickly, that's a good
thing.

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Guoqiang Da » Sun, 06 Sep 1998 04:00:00



> I've been using Linux for three years now. I prefer it to SCO. It's easy to
> set up and use and very stable. Suport and documentation is superior to any
> comersial system I've tried. I must note that not only do all the comercial
> systems lag on their support and documetation, they manage to lag without
> ever changing. The Linux crowd (as well as BSD and others) may have trouble
> keeping up, but it's because the software is changing quickly, that's a good
> thing.

Do you know if there is a way to multiboot sco with linux?

TIA
--
Guoqiang Dai

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Meelis Punga » Sun, 06 Sep 1998 04:00:00


In Linux and Free BSD, there is possibility to use multiple systems.
I used FreeBSD and now use RedHat Linux with Windows95 in one disk.

Meelis Pungas.



> > I've been using Linux for three years now. I prefer it to SCO. It's easy to
> > set up and use and very stable. Suport and documentation is superior to any
> > comersial system I've tried. I must note that not only do all the comercial
> > systems lag on their support and documetation, they manage to lag without
> > ever changing. The Linux crowd (as well as BSD and others) may have trouble
> > keeping up, but it's because the software is changing quickly, that's a good
> > thing.

> Do you know if there is a way to multiboot sco with linux?

> TIA
> --
> Guoqiang Dai

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Carl Patt » Sun, 06 Sep 1998 04:00:00


:
: Do you know if there is a way to multiboot sco with linux?
:

SCO is a _company_.  UnixWare and OpenServer are _operating systems_.

System Commander, OS/2 Boot Manager, and a number of freeware utilities
all can do this and are probably your best bet.  The Linux versions I've
worked with come with LILO, which is another boot utility, and UnixWare 7
has something similar which I haven't played with yet.

--
Carl Patten
Systems Administrator
Trimodal Inc.

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Guoqiang Da » Sun, 06 Sep 1998 04:00:00


Quote:> SCO is a _company_.  UnixWare and OpenServer are _operating systems_.

Sorry for my ignorance.

Quote:> System Commander, OS/2 Boot Manager, and a number of freeware utilities
> all can do this and are probably your best bet.  The Linux versions I've
> worked with come with LILO, which is another boot utility, and UnixWare 7
> has something similar which I haven't played with yet.

I'm fairly familiar with LILO, just don't know the boot mechanism of SCO
OpenServer (which I just ordered a free copy). Should be the same, isn't
it? Judging from the manual that came with it, it seemed that if you
want to boot to another OS, SCO will choose/find it for you (I could be
wrong).

If you could shed some light on that, it will be greatly appreciated.

--
Guoqiang Dai

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Dave Clo » Mon, 07 Sep 1998 04:00:00



>Do you know if there is a way to multiboot sco with linux?

If you mean OpenServer, the answer is yes. But OS wants to be in
the active partition, so that confuses some boot managers that may
want to be in the active partition themselves. One box I have (not
my primary) has OS, Linux, and Windows booting from LILO just fine.
LILO, of course, is in the Linux partition - and in the master boot
record - but OS is in the "active" partition. When I select Linux or
Windows from the LILO prompt, they boot directly. When I select OS
from that prompt, OpenServer's boot program takes control and gives
the "boot:" prompt; I have to hit return one more time.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA  "Politics is the business of getting


 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by RoAdB10c » Sat, 12 Sep 1998 04:00:00


I use unixware 7 with 95 & NT, I have each set up on a different partition
and when UW boots up, you just press enter to get to the [boot] prompt and
then type in the partition that needs to be booted.

>> SCO is a _company_.  UnixWare and OpenServer are _operating systems_.

>Sorry for my ignorance.

>> System Commander, OS/2 Boot Manager, and a number of freeware utilities
>> all can do this and are probably your best bet.  The Linux versions I've
>> worked with come with LILO, which is another boot utility, and UnixWare 7
>> has something similar which I haven't played with yet.

>I'm fairly familiar with LILO, just don't know the boot mechanism of SCO
>OpenServer (which I just ordered a free copy). Should be the same, isn't
>it? Judging from the manual that came with it, it seemed that if you
>want to boot to another OS, SCO will choose/find it for you (I could be
>wrong).

>If you could shed some light on that, it will be greatly appreciated.

>--
>Guoqiang Dai

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Alex Arno » Mon, 14 Sep 1998 04:00:00




> >Do you know if there is a way to multiboot sco with linux?

> If you mean OpenServer, the answer is yes. But OS wants to be in
> the active partition, so that confuses some boot managers that may
> want to be in the active partition themselves. One box I have (not
> my primary) has OS, Linux, and Windows booting from LILO just fine.
> LILO, of course, is in the Linux partition - and in the master boot
> record - but OS is in the "active" partition. When I select Linux or
> Windows from the LILO prompt, they boot directly. When I select OS
> from that prompt, OpenServer's boot program takes control and gives
> the "boot:" prompt; I have to hit return one more time.
> --
> Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA  "Politics is the business of getting



Try getting OSBS from Freebird; this allows you change active partition
at boot time, and gives a nice menu interface. Goto:
www.freebird.org => Software Index => Boot utilities.

Cheers,

--
----------------------------------------------
Alex Arnon                      
System Support Engineer         Tochna Veod
                                Maskit 8

Tel:    972-9-9526834           Israel
        972-9-9526830
Fax:    972-9-9526844

 
 
 

Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

Post by Richard Mckinne » Sat, 26 Sep 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> I need some advise.

> Until know I've spent a lot of time and money
> trying to get a Linux server running.
> I was better of if I just had bought an NT server !!

> I've tried Slackware 3.4 first.
> But the documentation is a mess.
> Allthough that isn't the biggest problem.
> It isn't a stable OS.
> When a program crashes it can take the whole system down.
> Also the documentation isn't correct.
> For example:
> It states to use a gcc version x.x.x or newer to compile the kernel.
> But people on the net say you will have to use a newer version than that.
> (also the new compile will not install)

> Then I tried Red HAt 5.1.
> Same problem unstable.
> Documentation seems to be a little better.
> But also this OS hangs if a program crashes.
> The OS doesn't even read out the keyboard anymore.
> Also some basic things are wrong.
> Don't try this:
> cd /
> ls -l */*/XF86Config
> If you do this as normal user you only can shut the
> server down with the power button

> I've tested the above on two different PC.
> One which is new the other an old one.

> To let the story be short
> Is an OSC server more stable than Linux ?

> Can it run with the following hardware ?
> ABIT LX6
> 64 MB ECC ram
> Quantum FireBall 6.4 se ide (not my favorit brand)
> Aopen 32x aku  CDROM (ide)
> Intell Pentium II 300mhz
> Tornado 4MB pci (s3virge DX)
> microsoft ps/2 mouse.
> I've several brands of ethernet and modems so that isn't a problem.

> Or should I directly buy an NT server ?

NO!

You could not have picked worse releases of both distributions of Linux.

EVERYBODY knows to stay away from those.

Try Slackware 3.5 or Redhat 4.2 or 5.2.

For a newby I would go with Redhat or S.u.S.E.

S.u.S.E. has a great deal with partition magic (will let you resize/boot
any type/location of partition) and comes with so much software for less
than $100 that you could never use it all.

Please talk to a local Linux users group representative BEFORE you go
and base your opinion of the OS on a single version of a distribution.
Some versions TOTALLY suck!!! You picked a couple of winners.

I always wait around for atleast a couple of months before I use any
version.  Time to let the bugs get worked out.  And to see if there are
any that just don't make the upgrade worth it.

I know people that have been running Linux for YEARS without a reboot.

I have just started on SCO and find it very limited when compared to any
given distribution of Linux.

Every distribution comes with servers for most network protocalls (even
appletalk) will do netbios over tcp/ip and smb (SAMBA).

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe additional packages are
needed before many of these services can be offered from an SCO box.

The stability, as a whole, is probably better under SCO however but I
have had very few problems with Linux in that area.  I beleive either
SCO and Linux are many times more stable than NT.  My NT backoffice
server groans under 64MGb RAM.

For a single user to learn on they are about equally priced (~$20).

Pleasedon't flame me as these are the humble opinions of a guy that is
trying to learn too.

Rich