FilePro running on Unix vs Windows

[Bill Vermillion]

Dan Snyder, the prominent pundit, on Thu, Dec 16 10:55  while half 
mumbling half-witicized: 

> Cindy,

> Kudos to you for asking a question that could start a religious
> flame war like the old "coke vs. pepsi" or "chevy vs. ford"
> opinion battles. The responses you receive on this list will
> tend to favor UNIX/LINUX because that's where filePro started,
> where it is the most optimized and where the people on the
> list have the most experience. In the past I would have agreed
> with those statements, but Windows Server 2003 has made huge
> advances over Win2K and WinNT. The reality is that they both
> have their own strengths and weaknesses, either one could
> do a fine job for you. You'll just need to evalute your own
> capabilities and requirements before making a final decision.

> For whatever it's worth, below, I've added my 2 cents to the
> comments made by everyone that has responded so far. However,
> your original question only asked about filePro performance so
> most of all our comments don't directly address your question.

> > UNIX/LINUX vs. Windows security

> I believe UNIX has a better security history than Windows.
> However, my opinion is that security depends more on the skills
> of the network and server admin than on the platform being
> used. Therefore, I consider call this a draw.

> Here's a example from today's news that shows
> UNIX/LINUX have their own security problems.
> http://news.com.com/Students+uncover+dozens+of+Unix+software+flaws/2100-1002 _3-5492969.html?tag=nefd.top


Did you read the links in that message.  Then did you look at the
holes that Bernstein's students found.  I suspect not because if
you did you would see that the only one that comes close to being a
Unix problem are the two holes in CUPS - one involves the
/usr/local/etc/cups/passwd, and the other has to do with with
printing and HPGL file obtained through email.

All others are not part of a standard Unix installation - unless
you are thinking of the 'install every application ever compiled
for Linux' that some distributions seem to take.   

Unix has show to have far fewer flaws in the >OS< than what
we see in the integrated MS environment where there is so much
interdependency that you can't take one out with affecting
something else - as MS claims you can't take IE  out of the base
OS as so much depends upon it.  Whether that is 100% correct or
not, that is what MS testified under oath in the their trials.

> > Furthermore, with 1.6gb already, you're not too far from
> > the 2gb limit in Windows (I might suggest Apple's OS X
> > Server, but I don't think FilePro runs on it :-).

> This limit is long since gone. Apple's OS X would be GREAT
> (I'm typing this message on OS X), but it's harder to find
> off-the-shelf software for it. Only 2 of the 35 ERP packages we
> looked at could be run on OS X.

I've had a client in our racks doing web serving - with about
700 domains split over a couple of servers - that I'd be a bit
hesitant to choose OS/X over other  Unix variants.  There is
still too much Apple-iffication of standard programs.  There are
some completely bizarre.

For example if you are using their server version of Apache
and you restart with your network disconnected, it will disable all
the sites in it's own version of httpd.conf, so that you have to go
back in edit that file if you had not made the precaution of
backing it up to a non-Apple name after you make any changes to it.

Some of the problems will occur during installation if you don't
understand your needs exactly and just HOW Apple approaches things.

For example you CAN make a separate swap file during install, but
that is not the default.  The default is to create dynamic swap
file under /var/vm.  While the client did not have enough RAM
though he promised to pu in more - he was running 1.25GB - the
machine limit on the G4s is 2GB - he run out of memory - and it was
usually HTTPD or Sendmail consuming most - and then it would start
creating dynamic swap files.

This solves the problem that some have complained about of running
out of swap space - but I have seen as high as 30 - thats
THIRTY 80MB swap files.

There doesn't seem to be any notice of this in Apples install [and
their manuals are a bit weak on this] but the machines - base on my
observation of running OS/X servers - should use the typical Unix
rule-of-thumb and have as a minimum as much physically configured
swap space as there is RAM.  In his case it should have been 1.25GB
of swap, but ideally for him it should have been 2GB.

So depending on your expected loads I'd be hesitant to recommend
OS/X - at least on a G4 - in a heavily loaded environment.  The G5s
do have the capability of 8GB RAM - and if you take a look at
this weeks Info-world you cam see why the P5 may just be the
processor of choice for high end applications. It's highlighted on
the cover of the print edition or you can find it on line.

> > One thing that's changing is the number of worms that
> > attack the Microsoft virus, Windows.  They've been
> > steadily increasing in number and destructive power,
> > at least if one counts the amount of spam sent through
> > zombified Windows machines destructive.

> This has nothing to do with Windows Server 2003 vs. UNIX.
> Hackers target the weakest link and that tends to change.

That seems to be a story that MS likes to put forth as an excuse,
but I disagree with that based on observations of my servers which
are located on a backbone, not layers down.

> For example, most SPAM used to come from poorly configured web
> server CGI's and mail servers (which were UNIX based).

The SPAM from Unix based mail servers was typically caused
in the pre 8.x versions of sendmail - designed back in the days
when it was considered courteous to relay mail for others.

Poorly configured CGI scripts are not a Unix problem but a problem
on any platform running CGI scripts under an web server.

> Admins and developers have since fixed those security holes,
> so now the hackers target unpatched, unprotected client
> workstations that have clueless owners/operators.

The go after Unix systems too.  I've seen over 500 attempts in a
single day to break in via sshd logins.  These rogue systems just
start by going after blocks of IPs with no regard as to what is
there, and then if they find a port about which they can make
certain assumptions - they launch the attack.

> As Walter said, a CIO will take some other considerations to
> take into account when selecting a technology platform for
> business, such as availability of personnel skilled in the
> technology, training materials and software availability.

>From my experience in a Unix system you need a person with at
least a certain skill level to install it, but after that point, if
you are using it for dedicated programs particularly, you can almost
perform the routine that Ron Popeil uses for audience response
on his table top rotiserries 'Just set it and forget it'.

> We are currently in the process of replacing our SCO
> UNIX/filePro system with a Windows Server2003 based ERP
> package. I have UNIX experience, so why go with a Windows
> server when the application we chose does run on LINUX? 25 out
> of 35 off-the-shelf ERP packages that we looked at ran only on
> Windows. Additionally, of the packages that do run on UNIX many
> of the 3rd party add-ons that we would be interested in only
> run on Windows servers and we don't see the need/benefit of
> running multiple server platforms.

I see no harm in running certain applications on their own server -
which could be any OS - and use the OS that marries to the
application in the best way.   There is no need to to have a 
'one platform for all machines' in this day and age.  Having
one server for all applications sometimes is a grievous mistake.

My biased [of course since I gave up MS for PRIMARY use with DOS
2.0 and moved to Unix in 1983] opinion is that too many people
making the decisions don't have enough information to make truly
informed decisions about their needs.  They treat computers
and systems as the do desktop PCs or copy machines.   And for many
that works - but they really need to get hold of someone who has
nothing to sell but information and recommendation before they
start shoveling out money.

I was doing outside work for one place and for a new-hire one of
the specs was a degree in CS.  They >assumed< that a person that
worked at their place with all the computers would need a CS 
degree.  I worked with that person.  He always was grousing about
the end-users, and how he hated the PCs, and after they sent him
out-of-town for training on a specialized platform, he came back and
screwed that one up.

He left after 6 months and went to work writing drivers for
a tape backup company where he was happy - and using the skills
he learned getting his degree.

The problem is that HR often assumes certain requirements and seems
not to investigate in depth the needs of the department skills
which are actually needed.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com