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....

[Redwolf]

a) TurboLinux is really not much different from the others. No linux really is. Redhat, however, reaquires a subscription to upgrade more than one machine using Redhat's upgrade service, which explains that. Caldera is dead, and now SCO (aka Caldera) is suing IBM over Linux. I would have picked Mandrake 9.1 personally, but that's just me.

b) Debian is one of the most reliable Linux's out there, especially with APT (SuperCow, alla restette!). Thing is, it's not really an 'up-to-date' Linux. It's usually the slowest Linux to get upgrades incorporated into the stable release. But that's really why it's so stable, because it's so thouroghly tested. Debian is also a harder distro to learn than something like Mandrake or Turbolinux, but in my experience, is much easier to maintain.

c) The *BSDs use very little in the way of system resources, and make good routers. Thing is, I don't see why they don't use Gilbraltar or a Hard-Discless Linux to do the job? If they're the ones making the computers for the users, then it would surely save them money.

[Praetorian]

I'll try to answer this.

OpenBSD was probably picked for firewall / NAT because it's whole thing is security. It's designed to besecure out-of-the-box. As their site says, "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!". When most people think OpenBSD, they think secure. That's probably why this was picked as the network firewall / NAT box.

Debian. The only reason I can think of to use Debian is for APT. There is a program available called APT-Proxy which creates your own Debian mirror based on request which pass through the proxy. This is nice for businesses who want to keep all of their machines up-to-date and don't want to bog down their internet connection. APT can be configured to require no user input on installs, and I believe a cron job can run apt-get update; and apt-get (dist-)upgrade for you peridocially so hardly any user interaction is needed.

TurboLinux...I have no idea. I've never thouched the thing, and I'm not even sure what it's supposed to specialize in. I'm not going to comment on this one.

[e980238]

All I know about turbo linux is that it has good chinese character support. I am not sure why they chose to use OpenBSD in a normal (non-geek) home environment when it may be more plausable to use a linksys or D-Link router.

[SpookyEddy]

Please don't double post

I am not sure why they chose to use OpenBSD in a normal (non-geek) home environment when it may be more plausable to use a linksys or D-Link router.

I would imagine because OpenBSD is considerably more powerful and flexible than any of the cheap home routers. That said a simple firewall/router appliance would be easier for a computer novice to work with and probably a better idea.

Thing is, it's not really an 'up-to-date' Linux.

Fortunately this is not even vaguely true, if you are happy to run sid with some experimental packages you can get just about as bleeding edge as you want. The beauty of debian is it makes it easy for you to decide what level of stability is required. If you track stable then obviously you will be stuck with older (but well tested) packages however there is nothing stopping you upgrading to newer versions if you judge it worth the risk.

Thing is, I don't see why they don't use Gilbraltar or a Hard-Discless Linux to do the job?

Probably because many people (myself included) greatly prefer OpenBSD's pf compared to netfilter (as used by linux). This is obviously a fairly major concern if the primary job of the system is filtering packets. OpenBSD is also considerably more secure than most linux distros.

Regards

eddy

[e980238]

I always love it when Eddy puts in his 2 cents

[Redwolf]

Thanks for your input Spooky!

On the 'up-to-date' thing, I was refering to the Debian stable releases only, because that would most likely be what would be set up for a business or government branch.

[SpookyEddy]

Yeah sure, but its rather unfair to say "debian is not up to date" when you actually mean something like "one branch of debian offers older packages for increased stability so can appear rather out of date, however you don't have to use it"

Regards

eddy

[nukes]

Plus, they patch all the old packages with the security updates, so you're not sacrificing stability for security.
Debian is really good. The mistake I made with it was going onto sid.

[Praetorian]

Originally posted by nukes
Plus, they patch all the old packages with the security updates, so you're not sacrificing stability for security.
Debian is really good. The mistake I made with it was going onto sid.

Why does everyone complain about Sid? I'm running Sid and it's simply amazing. No more buggy than RH, Mandrake, SuSe, etc.

BTW, Eddy must be rigth when he says PF is easier than Netfilter. At work they just switched the main firewall that's in front of the T3's (and lets literally thousands of clients out online) from Debian Linux using Netfilter to OpenBSD using PF. That's quitea switch to make with a network of that size. But, it only took 7 hours to move all of the routing info and such from Netfilter to OpenBSD, and everything is running flawless. Probably better than before.