Gossamer Forum: Products: Gossamer Links: Version 1.x: Have someone running Links SQL with MSSQL7?

For all that´s always a question of philosophie, isn´t it?
The thing is that myself is too stupid to do linux and co; we have our technican who do all that stuff. But for my own, i have begun to do all the same things we have outside in net on linux inside on NT without heavy last or the terror of make it safe.
So im able now to test everything i want on NT (LInks 2) without getting angry about my stupidness on linux. And if im happy with the thing, i must only port it to linux outside.
The same doing on Links2, i have to do with LinksSQL - so it is.

And if i have a lot of time (maybe in 2040)
i would try to learn linux again. The machine is here, the soft and the books, but i would get faster to results with NT. Thats it.
Robert

Actually, NT security is more problematic than Unix.

For a small amount of money you can have someone reasonably secure any Unix server, and give you the places where you will find problems. There are plenty of 'security.txt' files around the web that tell you the basic whys and where-to's.

Most ISP's will do work for you for an hourly charge, and they know their systems best. If you set up the software, they'll set the access.

The more I use Unix, the more elegant it is, and while the utilities are not the same graphically based stuff you get with NT, a Unix server is so stable, you don't NEED a lot of stuff. I reboot my server every 4-6 weeks whether it needs it or not! I'm doing perl/mysql development on the system, and I _know_ I'm not doing everything right. I still have not crashed the system (I only did that once, and I don't think it was really a crash... I think it was more of an overload and would have resolved itself in a few minutes).

My windows 98 machine reboots itself 4 or 5 times a day, and all I'm doing with it is FTP (WS_FTP) and Netscape, Eudora and Adobe Photoshop. The last one only every few days.

I had an NT machine that I tried to run a multi-line bbs on, and there were severe problems. The same BBS ran under OS2/Warp for weeks at a time without a problem. When NT goes down, you have to reboot the whole thing... when one program crashes it can take an entire subsystem with it.

I just don't like NT, and the more I use Unix, and visit sites that are NT based, the less I like it.

I think the problems trying to make this work with NT are going to erase anything you feel you might gain.

NT's biggest problems are what M$ tries to tell you are it's strength -- ASP and DLL's... those are the things that go KABOOM! and stuff up processes, leak memory, and eventually take everything down -- often in a very painful way.

If you are running a database on a multi-process system (like one running the webserver and other scripts) you'd almost have to have a RAID system in place to allow crash recovery, or a really, really bood backup system -- since NT goes south quite often, and sometimes it takes everything with it.

I don't like that OS, from experience over 3-4 years. I don't think it will EVER mature. I think Linux has made it obsolete before it was even really ready for prime-time (Version 4.x ... I laugh!! more like 0.4.x)

I don't use Linux... I'm using Solaris and BSD, but that's just habit, and situation. The only time that makes much difference is in system-specific calls or compiled (C/C++) programs. Since almost everything major I use is CPAN based, even that is a non-problem since the install figures the OS and platform on it's own.

What I'm really saying, I guess, is if you've already started to go forward... why go back?

You'll find more hosts, more consultants, and more people able to help you on Unix -- and much of the help you get without first having to enter a credit card number!.

You really _need_ books and manuals to use NT. You need a systems manual, a reference guide, and a programmers reference to use Unix. Anything else that puzzels you, you can get answers to in hours on the newsgroups.

I'll admit -- in the past I've wished I've had NT servers so I could write dll type modules to do what I need... but in the long run, I'd be stuck. I have over 400 feet of shelf space dedicated to obsolete, useless and in some cases completely un-runable programs due to MS-DOS/Windows "upgrades" over the years. I've gotten tired of it.

That doesn't happen in Unix very often. Programs port, or continue to run. In the long run, that saves more than you can imagine.

I started with PC's in Oct 1983, with a PC-XT that had a 5-digit serial number, purchased from an IBM Store. It's been a battle ever since. (That was my first machine with a harddrive... everything before was floppy or cassette tape based).

The M$ monopoly is over, and it's not even going to be a revolution -- Just an evolution. Darwinism at it's best. The Justice department is 10 years too late (right on time for them). The evolution is to open source, Unix or Java based applications, and "custom" solutions, not one-size-fits-all.

Code like Windows NT is a legacy dinosaur, and pure nightmare. It will, inevitably, become extinct.

This is why I don't understand the move. Yes, there are groups porting to NT, but there are almost as many groups saying "It's not worth it." With a virtually free OS, continual (not step-wise) development, world-wide support virtually 24-hours a day, better speed and performance, internals that spawned -- and still control -- the Internet, Unix is the way to go.

I realized that when I loaded Windows NT 3.51 into the top-of-the-line 486 (at that time) and loaded Word. My CPU usage rose to 90+% and my available resources dwindled, and stayed there, with me doing NOTHING and no documents open.

Anyway... I've been impressed with what Unix can do without breaking a sweat, while NT churns out "Internal Server Errors" and "ASP/DLL unable to load" errors, as well as license-exceeded errors... etc, etc, etc.