On 7/23/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:

> 3. I'm surprised nobody defended Windows Server 2003. Just because it's
> closed source and expensive doesn't mean it's a bad OS in terms of
> reliability, security or performance. Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL,
> Ruby, Rails, etc. run just fine on Windows 2003 server

I'm not sure why -- maybe a change in OS philosophy on my part -- but
I think Windows 2000 server was a Microsoft high watermark for
stability/reliability/useability in my opinion.  We had plenty of
those guys sitting around with nary a problem.

Licensing wasn't too much of a hassle, either.  At least they weren't
doing things like some of the engineering software brands we ran did;
namely, more often than not, requiring serial and/or parallel port
dongles on _servers_ of all places!  Talk about grabbin' ya by the
'nads.

I'm a minimilast, so I run with BSD and vim.  BSD is a bit weird in
the OSS world.  They put a sturdier cap on the open source zeal
present in most linux distros.

I think it was the writer Neal Stephenson that attempted to compare
OS's to vehicles.  Well, if his Linux is a tank, the former BeOS a
batmobile, Windows a Saturn, then I guess BSD would be like a
locomotive -- sturdy, but you have to follow the track.

Todd