21–30 of 42 posts
Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install and work with when it comes to back-end servers for running network infrastructure type services (vpn, firewall, chat server, torrent server, dns, dhcp etc. etc.) - nothing comes close.
Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install and work with when it comes to back-end servers for running network infrastructure type services (vpn, firewall, chat server, torrent server, dns, dhcp etc. etc.) - nothing comes close.
What are some reasons for OpenBSD not being a more popular OS on web servers? I always wondered about this, as on paper OpenBSD (and FreeBSD) seem like they have the edge but most server admins end up running linux. Another case of linux being slightly easier to use and doing the job well enough?
For some time OpenBSD has been regarded as "slow", in big part because it couldn't use large amounts of RAM, and it scaled across multiple cores poorly. I'm not sure if this is still the case.
Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install and work with when it comes to back-end servers for running network infrastructure type services (vpn, firewall, chat server, torrent server, dns, dhcp etc. etc.) - nothing comes close.
Hmm, really? I love OpenBSD, but last I checked the installer tells you to create slices then drops you straight into fdisk. Has this been polished up? I'm just concerned "one of the easiest to install" would give a n00b the wrong impression.
Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install and work with when it comes to back-end servers for running network infrastructure type services (vpn, firewall, chat server, torrent server, dns, dhcp etc. etc.) - nothing comes close.
> Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install. Hmm, really? I love OpenBSD, but last I checked the installer tells you to create slices then drops you straight into fdisk. Has this been polished up? I'm just concerned "one of the easiest to install" would give a n00b the wrong impression.
Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install and work with when it comes to back-end servers for running network infrastructure type services (vpn, firewall, chat server, torrent server, dns, dhcp etc. etc.) - nothing comes close.
> Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install. Hmm, really? I love OpenBSD, but last I checked the installer tells you to create slices then drops you straight into fdisk. Has this been polished up? I'm just concerned "one of the easiest to install" would give a n00b the wrong impression.
Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install and work with when it comes to back-end servers for running network infrastructure type services (vpn, firewall, chat server, torrent server, dns, dhcp etc. etc.) - nothing comes close.
What are some reasons for OpenBSD not being a more popular OS on web servers? I always wondered about this, as on paper OpenBSD (and FreeBSD) seem like they have the edge but most server admins end up running linux. Another case of linux being slightly easier to use and doing the job well enough?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its actually one of the easiest O.S to install. Hmm, really? I love OpenBSD, but last I checked the installer tells you to create slices then drops you straight into fdisk. Has this been polished up? I'm just concerned "one of the easiest to install" would give a n00b the wrong impression.
well, you could expect someone who handles server to know his ways around partitioning a volume?
The partitioner on Ubuntu's LiveCD is easy to use. (Choose full disk and go)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, you could expect someone who handles server to know his ways around partitioning a volume?
Sure, but that's not "easy to install". That's "faster for an expert to install". The partitioner on Ubuntu's LiveCD is easy to use. (Choose full disk and go)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that's not "easy to install". That's "faster for an expert to install". The partitioner on Ubuntu's LiveCD is easy to use. (Choose full disk and go)
OpenBSD installer can auto-partition the disk for you.