(no subject)

[Michael Powell]

Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 06:28:07AM -0500, Michael Powell wrote:
>> 
>> If you are totally new to Linux/Unix and have zero experience and just
>> want an easy, out of the box "something other" than XP you might try the
>> latest incarnation of Kubuntu. I know in a FreeBSD list these comments
>> are sacrilege, but the broader picture is what your needs truly are.

I take that back - I just examined the latest Kubuntu. It is the simplest to
install of just about anything I've seen, but once installed is just so
excruciatingly annoying! Ease of install doesn't make up for the short
sightedness of Canonical.
 
> I'd suggest PC-BSD instead, and not only because it's a FreeBSD spin-off.
> It also provides PBI for software management, which will surely provide a
> gentler transition for people used to the Microsoft way of installing
> software, and doesn't make a lot of the design mistakes I see in Ubuntu
> and its spin-offs.
> 
> DesktopBSD is a pretty good choice along those lines, too.  Still better
> than Ubuntu, in my opinion.
> 
> Furthermore . . . they both use KDE by default, and you don't have to use
> a red-headed stepchild or second-hand citizen like Kubuntu to get it.
> 

Yes, I like this suggestion better - I've just never used either one but
rather just built KDE out from ports. I just took some brief looks at
Kubuntu 8.10 in a VirtualBox VM and it still annoys me no end. I had used
it some time in the past and needed reminding why I quit. Fedora 9 looks a
trifle better, and the openSUSE 11.1 Beta is a train wreck. So my desktop
will probably stay openSUSE 10.3 as this allows me to get work done. If
none of the "newer, improved and advanced" Linuxes get their act together
soon I will probably be returning to KDE on FreeBSD in the not very distant
future. I just can't spend all my time screwing around with b***cr**.

>> 
>> Now running a real live "Web" presence out of your house is probably not
>> really a good idea if it has anything to do with business. A personal
>> blog can go down for indefinite periods and no harm done, but a business
>> site is a different story. First, the reason for having your servers
>> located in a data center is they are sitting directly on the "fat pipes"
>> of the Internet. Second, these data centers are "multi homed" in their
>> peerage to other backbones. If one connection path develops a problem
>> your site is still going to be accessible via one of the other paths. You
>> simply will never have the kind of connectivity found in a real data
>> center at home.
> 
> Make sure the colocation facility of your choice is multi-homed before
> simply assuming it is.  Some aren't.
> 

I wouldn't want one with less than 3 peerages, and I'm in favor of full mesh
arrangements. But at this stage of the game I think the OP is better served
by learning how it all works before he starts co-locating or leasing
dedicated boxen. Baby steps first, so to speak.

-Mike