Yaron, I have to say I could probably collapse these down to 2 points: 1) A & C 2) B & D and I am not so certain about point #1. Sun can leave you with your "cheese in the wind" waiting on a patch cluster that includes a fix for the "latest exploit", and using the standard installation routine you seem to have to install a lot of junk (cave man security - more stuff: bad! less stuff: good!). That's not to say you can't nail the box down, but you can do that with Linux too. I have to agree with you on point #2, but I wouldn't take it too far. My downtime usually comes from disks (though sometimes it's wierd video card problems) and Sun disks haven't been any more dependable than anyone elses (probably because the use anyone elses ;-). The same can't be said for i386 machines it's true, but I've found many i386 failings can be traced to the willful and purposeful inclusion of cheap (or semi-supported) hardware by the system buyer (me). The main advantage Linux has is ( bang / buck ). You can usually get the same "bang" to happen under Linux with far fewer "buck". And it has the added bonus of not tying you to Sun. There are some things I would consider Sun and exclude Linux for, but this is certainly not one of them. Good luck, Troy >>> jethro at freakzilla.com 10/08/01 02:12PM >>> Hey, On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 matthew at redroot.org wrote: > > Unless you have a really low budget, I'd recommend going with Sun/Solaris > > rather than Linux. > What advantages does Sun/Solaris have over Linux for this job? If this machine needs to be: A) Secure B) Mission-Critical C) Connected to the Internet D) Stable-as-a-Rock I personally would feel more comfortable with Solaris, is all I'm saying. I am NOT saying Linux can't handle this, but if you have the budget to throw at it, what advantages does Linux have? Another point is that I trust Sun hardware a lot more than I trust any i386. Including the bigass Compaq/Dell/whatever. -Yaron