httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivan Barrera A." <Br...@Ivn.cl>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Favorite Linux Distribution
Date Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:46:21 GMT
Yep. I vote the same.
We are off-topic right now.

:o)

g.lams@itcilo.org wrote:
> The idea is that, if you don't need something, don't install it. Nobody is 
> perfect, software can have bugs, actually they have bugs: if you don't 
> have something installed (it's fully important whether you use it or not), 
> you don't have to apply patch on it.
> The less you have, the better. 
> For monitoring, use a central server, it's more secure and it helps in 
> managing more than a few servers.
> 
> Obviously, if you really need X on a server, install it.
> 
> For the rest, better stop the discussion, people could start being 
> irritated as it's an apache mailing list-)
> 
> Have a nice day all
> 
> Gaƫl
> Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <chad@shire.net> wrote on 09/02/2005 18.28.50:
> 
> 
>>On Feb 9, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The GUI is another userland program.  It is no different than apache 
>>>>in
>>>>that regard.
>>>
>>>Not true. GUIs have to have special access to the video hardware on 
> 
> the
> 
>>>vast majority of operating systems (including UNIX), either because 
>>>they
>>>can't run at all any other way or because performance is so poor 
>>>without
>>>such access that they cannot be practically used
>>
>>It may be desirable, but is not required.  On a server, a simple frame 
>>buffer or VGA X Server may be all that is required to get real time 
>>data displays.  Such thigs do not require your intrusive kernel level 
>>stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>>>. This direct access is
>>>a security breach on most modern operating systems and has a
>>>destabilizing influence on the OS.
>>
>>Prove it.  Show me the stats.  You are wrong.
>>
>>
>>>>It is possible to have specialized drivers that run at
>>>>the kernel level but is not necessary for a GUI.  Typical X servers 
>>>>may
>>>>have these special drivers but they are not required.
>>>
>>>A GUI isn't necessary for a server, period.  Many servers run in dark
>>>rooms mounted in racks.  They don't need GUIs because they aren't even
>>>driving displays most of the time.  And when they are switched to a
>>>display, simple CGA or EGA compatibility will do.
>>
>>You make claims, but many people find the GUI attractive on the server. 
>>  I agree that it is not required, but it is not the problem you state 
>>either.
>>
>>
>>>>Having X11 installed does not make your machine less reliable.
>>>
>>>All GUIs destabilize the operating systems on which they run, just as
>>>games do ... and for similar reasons, which I've already explained.
>>
>>No they don't.  Prove it. Show me studies or test cases or data.
>>
>>
>>>>And unless you are on it all the time, which I mentioned, it does not
>>>>slow it down. An idling X Server puts no drain on your machine.
>>>
>>>It requires more disk, more memory, more system resources, all of 
> 
> which
> 
>>>could be better used in running the other daemons on the machine.
>>
>>disk space is cheap, idling X or GUI takes almost no RAM, or other 
>>system resources.   Show me data to back up your assertions.
>>
>>
>>>>And installing X does not mean you have to run it.
>>>
>>>If you aren't going to run it, you don't need to install it.
>>
>>It gives you the option if you need it.
>>
>>
>>>>The fact that setting up X is difficult has no bearing on the
>>>>reliability of the machine for server use.  User problems are not the
>>>>same as the system being less reliable.
>>>
>>>A GUI isn't just a user program; it inevitably puts hooks into the OS.
>>
>>You claimed that people having troubles setting up X to do fancy things 
>>made it unsuitable for a server, making it less reliable.  You have 
>>conveniently snipped out your part I was replying to.    Setting up X, 
>>and difficulties in doing so, have no bearing on the reliability of a 
>>server.  Your back answer is irrelevant as it is not what we were 
>>talking about in this section.
>>
>>
>>>>I have X installed on my servers.  In general I do not have an X 
>>>>server
>>>>running as I have no need.
>>>
>>>Then why have X installed?
>>
>>I explained that.  You conveniently snipped that.  So I will explain it 
>>again.  It allows me to link certain applications that require it (java 
>>on FreeBSD for example, which I use to run server stuff).  It also 
>>allows me to have client applications that I can display on remote 
>>displays, not on the server.  I can run stuff that requires X and 
>>display it on my OS X workstation (running Apples X11 server).
>>
>>There are lots of advantages to installing X even if you are not 
>>running an X server.  Ability to run apps for remote display is one, 
>>and ability to build certain SW packages that require X is another.
>>
>>
>>>>Windows is a different matter.  There the GUI is inter-threaded in 
> 
> the
> 
>>>>rest of the system code and there it does have a destabilizing
>>>>influence.
>>>
>>>It's no different than UNIX.  All GUIs work that way, for reasons of
>>>performance and flexibility.
>>
>>No they don't.  You ought to learn about how these things work. 
>>Windows has put extensive GUI stuff in the kernel for performance 
>>reasons.  Things that OS X, and other Unix systems, do not do.  This is 
>>why Windows systems typically have better graphics performance for 
>>games, web  browsers, etc than comparable unix and OS X machines.
>>
>>
>>>>Windows is a bad example.
>>>
>>>Windows is a classic example, not a bad example.
>>
>>It is a bad example as MS has made some bad design decisions.
>>
>>
>>>>It depends.  Lots of interesting system metrics apps are GUI based as
>>>>it is a lot more interesting to look at pretty graphics and graphical
>>>>representations of system metrics data than a list of numbers.
>>>
>>>It depends on one's objectives.  And you can always move the numbers 
> 
> to
> 
>>>a different machine and generate the graphics there, away from your
>>>mission-critical production server.
>>
>>Not real time data feeds you can't
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server 
>>>Project.
>>>See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>>>   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server 
> 
> Project.
> 
>>See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>>   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
> See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>    "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message