[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why OpenBSD?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org, "'advocacy_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org'" <advocacy_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org>
- Subject: Re: Why OpenBSD?
- From: "R. Lonstein" <lonstein_(_at_)_agoron_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:48:43 -0500
- Mail-followup-to: "R. Lonstein" <lonstein>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org, "'advocacy_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org'" <advocacy_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org>
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 10:21:35AM -0500, Lipscomb, Al wrote:
> Stability comes in two froms, reliable operation and an avoidance of the
> "feature of the week" attitude that I have seen in other open source
> projects. Reliable operation keeps my systems running without my needing to
> watch them like a hawk. Not changing major operating system function on
The reliability is why I applied OpenBSD (sparc) to the task of loghost
for 35+ servers running Solaris 2.x. I could have run Solaris but OBSD
has less overhead and needs less care and feeding. And the track record
on security suggests that if all of the Suns running Solaris were hosed
at least the logs would be intact on the OBSD system. Aside, though
money was no object, my boss was pleased that we didn't shell out on an
Ultra 2 or E220 for such a processor unintensive task.
I'm no longer the SA (jumped to development), but the current SA's have
decided to leave that box in place. They also log more hosts to it since
it puts no demands on their time and lets them monitor the systems from