Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : FreeBSD vs Redhat

[Jackula]

BSD is more secure, yes, yes, I know that. And Redhat would be almost as secure with the gr patch.

Any other advantages and disadvantages?

Cheers
Jack

[datums]

You have the ports functionality, where you can easily install an application and all it's dependencies will be installed.

Freebsd is more of a stable OS for webservers than RH.
There are less holes found with FREEBSD. This is because RH is a linux kernel with a bunch of apps GNU/LInux, FREEBSD is considered a complete OS and it is more of a Unix OS than RH.
RH is alot easier for Home users to install and configure.

I have used both. Freebsd has been alot easier to maintain.

[innova]

Use what you know best. The benefits of FreeBSD over Redhat will not be realized if

1) you dont know what they are
2) you dont know how to take advantage of them

I would go so far as to say FreeBSD could be markedly less secure if you are not a comfortable administrator, whereas if you are a skilled linux person you would be much better off with Redhat.

[Jackula]

Okay, anyways, thanks for the input, but besides security, which is better? should I choose freebsd if i don't understand either? does cpanel work well with bsd as it does with redhat? is redhat faster or is bsd? which has better support etc etc.

Thanks again

[drhonk]

I think cpanel work best with redhat .. but I agree with everybody here that fbsd is way more stable than redhat.

[neonlexx]

Well If you take into account RedHat's EOL, thats a big reason to NOT use RH.

[eBoundary]

FreeBSD is a more robust OS, it copes with load and resource usage alot better than RedHat or linux in general. Memory and resource useage is more efficient since the underlying OS structure (read kernel) is more robust and organized.

The kernel itself is much easier to customize and configure as it is a single text file.

You dont have to rely on redhat for updates.

FreeBSD allows you to recompile the entire operating system while still running and operating as normal, using build/makeworld.

obviously I'm biased towards FreeBSD, so try both and see which one suits your needs more.

[neonlexx]

FreeBSD config files are sooo much eaiser to edit then Linux, everything is in plain english and you don't have to mess with about 100 things to make one thing work right.

Due to RH EOL, we're switching all RH systems to FreeBSD.

[jarek]

Originally posted by Jackula
BSD is more secure, yes, yes, I know that. And Redhat would be almost as secure with the gr patch.
Any other advantages and disadvantages?

Default FreeBSD is more secure as you said.

FreeBSD has ports (also pkg_*), not stupid RPMs.

Server config can be done by editing nice text files. All is in correct place and in the right order. You know where to find everything. System is easy to manage.

FreeBSD has unique solutions for many problems. For example jail is great tool, you don't find it in any other OS. Next example: ipfw can drop/accept packets by uid/gid. It's powerful solution of shell account hosting companies.

In redhat and other linux (like mandrake) is terrible mess. All is in the mess. IMO it's similar to windows. redhat approach to windows... color, stupid tools to system administration... - That's my opinion.

[jarek]

Originally posted by eBoundary
You dont have to rely on redhat for updates.

FreeBSD allows you to recompile the entire operating system while still running and operating as normal, using build/makeworld.

[/B]

YES! Also we've cvsup.
It's easy to automatically upgrade all system&kernel sources.

[Jackula]

Yeah, I think I'll go with FreeBSD for my hosting company

btw, why do ppl offer Redhat when FreeBSD is better obviously?

J

[Corky]

Just a guess but because Redhat is more popular, it's much easier to find a support group and help starting up.. Control panels are also important for some people, and many of them seems more stable under Redhat because of the popularity and support.

[Cephren]

hands down to FreeBSD!

[Dave Bell]

Actually, RedHat 7.3 remains the most stable operating system for web hosting compared to BSD, purely because it has a huge community following, more developers and better support.

FreeBSD is often touted as more "robust" and "more Unix like". The latter isn't a good thing, FreeBSD is based on a codebase running back 30 years. Linux on the other hand may have been written around Unix principles, but Torvalds never looked at a peice of the Unix source code to develop the Linux kernel.

In the end RedHat is easier, and does have the stability to match.

[Jay Cornwall]

Originally posted by Dave Bell
FreeBSD is often touted as more "robust" and "more Unix like". The latter isn't a good thing, FreeBSD is based on a codebase running back 30 years. Linux on the other hand may have been written around Unix principles, but Torvalds never looked at a peice of the Unix source code to develop the Linux kernel.

Actually, using a codebase based on code from 30 years ago is indeed a good thing - it's been tried and tested after all those years, and is likely to be fairly bug-free.

But that's a moot point, really, because only a very tiny fraction of FreeBSD's code dates back that far - most of it has since been rewritten, updated, and changed in many ways. In the same way that only a small amount (more than FreeBSD's code from 30 years ago, admittedly) of the Linux kernel still contains code unchanged since Linux 1.x.

On the subject of stability? I couldn't comment, I've used both but only under little load - neither will crash in those circumstances. It's the heavily loaded machines that will truly demonstrate the stability of each kernel, and that I'll leave up to others.