| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
Posted Feb 24, 2005 8:54 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)Parent article: Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
If you mention a system that constantly updates, you should consider Debian's unstable as well, and not just stable.
As for daily checks: take a look at, e.g. logwatch, sxid.
Anyway, on Debian using apache with worker.c is as easy as:
apt-cache search apache| grep worker
apt-get install apache2-mpm-worker
Tested on Sarge.
And rebuilding from source is quite simple:
As root: apt-get build-deb apache2
As user:
apt-get source apache2
cd apache2-2.0.52
[patch whatever you want]
fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage
You get a nice deb to install on your system, along with its source so you'll be able to reproduce that build later.
(Log in to post comments)
Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
Posted Feb 24, 2005 16:52 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
Don't go around recomending unstable versions for 24x7 jobs (it is called unstable for some reason, isn't it?).
Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
Posted Feb 24, 2005 17:36 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Again, in the context where it was written:
> This is in sharp contrast with FreeBSD where
> only the base system, often referred to as
> kernel and userland, is kept in a constant
> state (with the only exception being security
> updates), while the included applications,
> or ports in FreeBSD's language, are
> continuously updated. This being so, a system
> administrator can choose to keep upgrading all
> important ports to their current stable
> versions and take advantage of any new
> features in them. This is a very pleasant
> aspect of FreeBSD - instead of an endless
> wait one might endure before a new stable
> Debian release, the administrator running
> FreeBSD can upgrade all installed ports to
> their latest versions at any time, independently
> on the base system.
Basically either use Stable+backports or Unstable to get basicalyl the same effect.
BTW: I'd like to see some comparison of the apache configuration in both distros. The Debian mainjtainers of the package bothered doing the extra work to automate as many tasks as possible. e.g.: almost all modules are disabled in the default apache config. There is an extra utility to "enable" modules (and virtual hosts, for apache2).
Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
Posted Apr 14, 2005 10:14 UTC (Thu) by vinci (guest, #13772) [Link]
No, no, no. Only use "unstable" if you know what you are doing (being a developer or something). So generally NEVER use unstable. If you use it anyway, you will know why.
I had SO MUCH trouble because of people like you recommending unstable years ago, when I started using Debian.
Thilo
Unstable stable and testing
Posted Mar 5, 2005 0:47 UTC (Sat) by cricketjeff (guest, #28244) [Link]
While I would never use unstable without a great deal of thought on a busy production server it isn't as drastic as the name implies, unstable doesn't mean the packages are flaky just that the versions and dependencies will change quite rapidly. Testing is a third set of archives and is the "new" stable version in waiting and is usually suitable for immediate use, indeed in my last job we served about 3 billion webpages a year from testing boxes. If you need to use the latest software for one or two packages but want stability for the rest Debian has that covered,apt-get install -t unstable package-name
will pull the package you want from unstable the apt conf file allowing you to specify stable or testing to be your default distribution.
apt-get install -st unstable package-name
would pretend to do the same thing so you can see what extra packages will need to be pulled for unstable so you can decide whether or not to go ahead.
Unstable stable and testing
Posted Apr 14, 2005 10:24 UTC (Thu) by vinci (guest, #13772) [Link]
It does mean that a packages is there today and gone tomorrow - and you get NO support. This can lead to high frustration. Yes, some packages are very well organized, but "unstable" is not named "testing" for good reasons.
The truth is, and I hate to say that, that Debian today is quite unusable for people who like to use modern software. The concept is outdated. 3 years for a new release is just too much (for me and many others).
I am using Debian right now since 6 years as home server and webserver. I like it very much. But the update policy is a pain.
I don't know what comes into nex 'stable' and when 'stable' comes. That means that I might have to switch to another distribution if I want PHP5, Horde3 ,Gnome 2.10 in the next 4-5 years. We just don't know so many things today about a future release. "Its ready when it's ready" - this is good for a product nobody is eagerly waiting off. I want to know when a next release comes out and what software it will have. It is ok, if that does not fit a 100%. But if you need a certain basis you can not use todays Debian.
But I am optimistic that Debian will make its reforms now and be attractive again, soon. But right now one should not recommend Debian.
Debian vs. FreeBSD as a Web Serving Platform, Part 1
Posted May 17, 2005 16:29 UTC (Tue) by yanzg (guest, #29995) [Link]
I use debian as my server and workstation. I think that stable is enough for a mini-server and Debian testing is really very stable compared with many other distributions including fedora core. So Debian testing can be used as server if needed, though I only use Debian testing as desktop. The unstable distribution of debian is not a bleeding edge, however, the unmatched packages may cause trouble if you rely on it.