On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:54:24PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> stuartv wrote:
> >I might have just about talked my boss into replacing our
> >current WindowsNT (soon to be Win2003) primary file server
> >with an OpenBSD server. Unfortunately, since most of our
> >work is done using Access databases (and other Microsoft
> >Office products) we will have to continue using Windows
> >systems for our desktop systems (for now). This is a mix
> >of Win98 and WinXP systems. The File server will have to
> >act as a primary domain controller on a windows network
> >handling logins and permissions for various shares around
> >the network and share a couple network printers. I would
> >also like to use an encrypted file system on which to store
> >important data that needs to be protected (in case of theft
> >etc).
>
> Your setup is easy to do with OpenBSD but the encrypted filesystem
> OpenBSD does not offer. And it is not needed. Nobody will steal your
> file server.
Actually, OpenBSD does offer encrypted filesystems - well, technically,
svnd(4) is an encrypting block device, but that's close enough.
> >This project is all part of my devious plan to gradually
> >convert to an all (or at least mostly) OpenBSD environment
> >here at work (psst... don't tell my boss). If this pans out,
> >I think replacing our SQL server with MySQL on an OpenBSD box
> >will be the next big conquest. :)
>
> Replacing any SQL server with MySQL is just plain stupid. Use
> PostgreSQL, which unlike the crappy MySQL toy is a real database system.
Depends on what you want to do. MySQL might not be a real SQL server,
but it's damn fast at simple lookups.
That said, I'll stick with PostgreSQL.
Joachim
