Which OS?

dadexter · 2005-03-09 18:20:31

I'm building a web server box for work, and it's an old P166 with like 64MB of ram... I just finished installing NetBSD on it... anyone has better suggestions?

cactus · 2005-03-09 18:38:25

what else do you need it to do?
if it is just webserver, then netbsd would be a great choice. Robust tcp/ip stack, great memory allocation algorithms, and well tested.
*shrug*
Go with what you are most comfortable with. Go with what you know you can secure.

arooaroo · 2005-03-09 18:47:05

dadexter wrote:

I'm building a web server box for work, and it's an old P166 with like 64MB of ram... I just finished installing NetBSD on it... anyone has better suggestions?

Windows 95.

dadexter · 2005-03-09 19:05:11

please die

arooaroo · 2005-03-09 19:09:18

dadexter wrote:

please die

Yeah, silly me! Win95 on a P166?!? Try Windows 3.11.

I'll get my coat...

cmp · 2005-03-09 19:17:18

openbsd? - I never got it to run, because the installer died on me at startup.

dadexter · 2005-03-09 19:19:17

I've used both... and openbsd is so "just like" netbsd that I didn't even bother mentioning it

cmp · 2005-03-09 19:22:43

from what I've heard, it's much more secure per default. but as I said, never used it, so I can't judge about this statement.

dadexter · 2005-03-09 19:25:12

ya... well out of the box means "no applications installed"
which seems pretty useless to me

cmp · 2005-03-09 19:30:52

I meant that strong cryptography is thrown all over this os.

dadexter · 2005-03-09 19:32:07

true... but for a simple web server, that seems a little over the top... I don't need that much security

cactus · 2005-03-09 21:23:07

cmp wrote:

I meant that strong cryptography is thrown all over this os.

Strong crypto, in and of itself, is useless if it is not applied properly. That is up to the admin. I don't see much extra crypto above and beyond what is available on any other BSD.
The one thing that open has going for it, is that they have compiled everything with canary support. Which is a very good thing.
They have also audited quite a bit of old code. Their bugfixes have, of course, been made available, so other bsd's have also implemented them.

Cam · 2005-03-09 21:50:19

The reason OpenBSD is known as the most secure one is only because they have incredibly strict coding guidelines which inherently produces more secure code and less bugs. That's what I read anyway but it's not like you can't make any other OS secure if you just put a little thought into it.

puntmuts · 2005-03-10 00:12:52

I am moving away from Slackware because of the lack of security updates since Patrick Volkerding mentioned in public that he was seriously ill. The only thing that seems to be updated is the slackware-current tree. So I would advice against Slackware for a machine that is connected to the internet.

Gullible Jones · 2005-03-10 00:58:28

Why not Arch? You could do a minimal installation and turn off unnecessary stuff...

GuyonAsm · 2005-03-10 02:34:12

Gullible Jones wrote:

Why not Arch? You could do a minimal installation and turn off unnecessary stuff...

I don't believe that is a i686 processor.

dtw · 2005-03-10 11:19:33

Gullible...how could you?

How about Vector Linux? Thats i586 optimized

sorcerer · 2005-03-10 12:00:27

voted for slackware, i would stick to a linux system because of familiarity and i never really liked debian that much......

zezaz · 2005-03-10 12:57:40

Ladislav Bodnar at distrowatch.com switched from Debian to FreeBSD. He wrote an article comparing the two here:

http://lwn.net/Articles/123949/

NetBSD is not a bad choice, i like pkgsrc. FreeBSD could be very fine too (i would personnaly choose 4.x for FreeBSD). For Linux i would take something like Vector, even if i never tried it.

If you stay with one of the BSDs, you may find it easier to stick to the standard kernel and userland options. That way you can update your ports with binary packages.

FUBAR · 2005-03-10 20:38:45

Gullible Jones wrote:

Why not Arch? You could do a minimal installation and turn off unnecessary stuff...

His system is i586.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-03-09 18:20:31

Which OS?

#2 2005-03-09 18:38:25

Re: Which OS?

#3 2005-03-09 18:47:05

Re: Which OS?

#4 2005-03-09 19:05:11

Re: Which OS?

#5 2005-03-09 19:09:18

Re: Which OS?

#6 2005-03-09 19:17:18

Re: Which OS?

#7 2005-03-09 19:19:17

Re: Which OS?

#8 2005-03-09 19:22:43

Re: Which OS?

#9 2005-03-09 19:25:12

Re: Which OS?

#10 2005-03-09 19:30:52

Re: Which OS?

#11 2005-03-09 19:32:07

Re: Which OS?

#12 2005-03-09 21:23:07

Re: Which OS?

#13 2005-03-09 21:50:19

Re: Which OS?

#14 2005-03-10 00:12:52

Re: Which OS?

#15 2005-03-10 00:58:28

Re: Which OS?

#16 2005-03-10 02:34:12

Re: Which OS?

#17 2005-03-10 11:19:33

Re: Which OS?

#18 2005-03-10 12:00:27

Re: Which OS?

#19 2005-03-10 12:57:40

Re: Which OS?

#20 2005-03-10 20:38:45

Re: Which OS?

Board footer