[bf1942] server errors gone MAD

[ScratchMonkey]

--On Friday, April 04, 2003 4:11 PM -0800 THE SEEKER 
<goldseeker_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm new to Linux and running a server, but not new to
> knowing how stable Linux is over Windows.

Note that this is not a Windows-bashing list. Speaking as a Linux fan, I've 
found that the stability of both OS's is more dependent on the quality of 
the admins than the quality of the developers.

> So here's my
> question, does this means my server is running or does
> it mean it's not running. I've attached a log file
> that makes me think it's not running but has several
> errors that need to be addressed

One of the strong points of most software on Unix platforms is its 
verbosity. Windows tends to hide the "scary stuff" to avoid putting off the 
computer-illiterate. I generally sell other admins on the strength of Linux 
(and its Unix brethren like BSD and Solaris) by reporting that Windows is 
easier to set up, but Linux is easier to fix when it breaks. This is 
because Linux has greater visibility, and reports more details about what's 
happening under the hood.

I was working with a Win2k admin from our new parent company to join our 
networks. I was making our Linux server accessible from their Win2k 
servers. He watched as I bounced from log file to log file with obvious 
envy at the copius amount of information I had available to work problems.

If you want to sell a Win2k admin on the value of Linux, take him for a 
tour of /var/log when something is broken.