[WEB4LIB] RE: Advice on Linux [The Cost of Inertia]

[Cantona, Eric]

>>Eric's assertion that Apache+Linux offers more 
>>features and better
>>performance may well be true, but if you don't 
>>require the additional
>>features they'll just add unnecessarily to the 
>>complexity of your setup.

In my experience it takes less time to install Linux+Apache than it does
WinNT + Serv Packs + IIS + Security Patches + ...?  Now that I think of it,
it takes A LOT less time.  Apache only loads the features you want to use
(and without a reboot!)

>>Performance sounds great, but if the difference is >>imperceptible to your
>>users and/or you're not saving a lot of money on 
>>hardware to make up for
>>sluggish software, it too is irrelevant.  I'm 
>>finding that the performance
>>of database back-ends is more of an issue than that >>of the
page-spitter-outer.

Downtime is never imperceptible to users.  Also, if something performs
better it often means I can provide a service with less hardware which means
less $$ for my org to spend.  (off topic)I've never been able to fathom the
cost of M$ SQL Server when www.mysql.org performs as well or better in most
situations and gives users an MS Access front end.

Hardware costs less for Apache as well.  On my Dell ordering form I choose
"No OS Preinstalled" and watch the quote drop.  If a department wants an
internal server for a small project an old PC is often more than
enough--can't say that for Win2K!

>>The total cost of anything is never $0.00  The 
>>purchase price will be
>>dwarfed by the cost of your time used to maintain >>the system.

Maintenance of Linux+Apache is nonexistent in my experience.  We have
servers going 2+ years without a reboot nor a login for fixing.  I know I
can't say the same for IIS and I don't have time to play with MS Patches
released and re-released in beta quality.

With Linux, a 14.4kbps modem is all I need to troubleshoot or make a change
from my laptop without driving in and being "on the clock"

>>Windows/IIS has had "tragic security and 
>>reliability flaws", but we haven't
>>experienced them--either through dumb luck or by 
>>the prompt application of
>>patches to fix them.

Code Red anyone?  If I spend 4X or 8X of my time researching, patching,
repatching and rebooting IIS compared to Apache then that's $$ for my
employer and downtime for my users.  Remember, MS rarely gets the first
patch right.

>>for the time being, I'd
>>prefer to sink resources into content development >>which will benefit our
>>users rather than a platform change that won't.

Code Red, Nimda, Code Red II, buffer overruns, etc., etc.  Meanwhile, my
Apache boxes hum along, uninterrupted--leaving me with time and resources
for other things.  Uptime always benefits users.

Sure, you can keep patching IIS, but why should you have to?  I'm certified
in IIS too so it's not as though I'm a novice admin.

>>my motivation for running a web server on Windows >>was to reduce the
number OSs I had to maintain

I've always felt, and I'm not implying anyone doesn't, that if I can save my
org money and provide better service, then it's worth my taking a book home
and learning something new.  Inertia, i.e. "but we're a Windows shop" is a
cost rarely tallied but should be, IMHO.

EC


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Dowling [mailto:tdowling at ohiolink.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:35 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] RE: Advice on Linux
> 
> 
> At 10:13 AM 6/4/2002, Cantona, Eric wrote:
> > >Let's make it a list discussion - Linux can be very 
> >useful to web-slinging
> >librarians :)
> >
> >Agreed.  Apache+Linux is an unstoppable web server.  More 
> features and
> >better performance than IIS+2000 but without the tragic security and
> >reliability flaws.
> >
> >And of course, total cost = $0.00
> 
> 
> And yet, mind-bogglingly*, the percentage of libraries 
> running their web 
> sites on Win32/IIS continues to climb.  From the most recent 
> Libweb crawl:
> 
>    6371 total servers:
>      2555 Apache Servers (40.1%)
>      2563 Microsoft Servers (40.22%)
>      497 Netscape/IPlanet Servers (7.8%)
>      799 Other Servers (12.54%)
> 
> IMO, that's 2563 libraries that either make bad decisions or 
> allow bad 
> decisions to be made for them.  (Then there's the 68 libraries still 
> running CERN or NCSA servers, who don't make decisions at all.)
> 
> 
> Thomas (*Low Boggle Threshold) Dowling
> OhioLINK - Ohio Library and Information Network
> tdowling at ohiolink.edu
> 
>