TurboLinux,OpenBSD,Debian....r they on right path...

[netgeek]

Hello friends,
The questions that i m asking from u experts are not technical issues.
Few of friends are planning to open a Service Company which will provide help and support in installation ,and configuration of Linux/Unix Based Networks for various segments (Home Users, Schools and Small Home Business ). After a long research on the topics .They hv finalized three operating systems for various segments.

1. Home User .. OpenBSD (for home Firewalls and NAT)
2. Debian Linux for Schools and Govt. Organisation
3. TurboLinux for Business Segment


When i asked them about the reasons behind their selections of these operating systems. They just avoid telling the secrets...


Now If i may ask u , Why they hav chosen TurboLinux when there are lot of other vendors (REDHAT ,SUSE,CALDERA).

(a)Can any one explain how TurboLinux is different from others,
(b)Is Debian Linux reliable enough to move to practical business.
(c)Why to select OpenBSD as a firewall..


Plz help to grasp these concepts better....

[originel]

i don't know why on a). personally i would choose mandrake, redhat, or collegelinux. but that's me.

as for b) if debian is configured correctly (and that is a fairly large if) it is very stable and reliable, among the most reliable among linux. but it is very hard to setup properly.

i would guess that they used BSD because it has a much better implementation of the tcp/ip stack (in fact they are kinda the ones who came up with the idea of a stack for tcp/ip AFAIK).

[SpookyEddy]

OpenBSD is a good choice for a box that is going to perform any kind of firewalling or NAT, atleast IMO. The default packet filtering implementation (pf) has a clean syntax (much more so than netfilter/iptables used by linux) and offers atleast some functionality beyond that provided by ipf (as used by FreeBSD and NetBSD). Combined with some rigorous code auditing and the removal of as many SUID binaries as possible makes for a nice solid base system.

debian is, atleast in my moderately biased opinion, one of the best linux distributions available. The installation is clean and you get a trim setup at the end with the minimum of bloat. If you stick with the stable branch you should get a nice reliable system with regular security updates available via apt. Anyway, debian can provide stability and would be a good choice IMO.

<edit>and I wouldn't use TurboLinux at all, I would stick with debian. If you really must use an RPM based distro then I would go with RedHat.</edit>

Regards

eddy

[CMonster]

Turbolinux is the leading supplier of the Linux operating system in Asia Pacific. Our product portfolio includes multiplatform clustering and distributed computing software to bring high-availability and high throughput to the enterprise. Turbolinux is part of UnitedLinux, a global, uniform distribution of Linux designed for businesses and supported by a majority of enterprise system and software vendors.

www.turbolinux.com

[nukes]

I don't know what the reason is for turbo linux as I've never really looked at it. For large servers, I would probably use either openBSD, Deb, or RH.
Deb, because you get the security updates through apt and can stay with proven versions of software - so long as you don't need the bleeding edge. It also allows you to ONLY install the stuff you need, no requirement for X or any software you don't want. The base system is very quick and clean.
OpenBSD, has a very robust stack, and has masive code audits going on all the time, making it more secure, and half the time - when a hole is found you hear people saying "Well, yeah - but that was fixed in OpenBSD like 6 months ago!"
a) I don't know
b) definatley
c) see eddy's and my post.