hosted by liquidweb


Go Back   Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : FreeBSD vs Redhat
Reply

Forum Jump

FreeBSD vs Redhat

Reply Post New Thread In Dedicated Server Subscription
 
Send news tip View All Posts Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2003, 11:00 AM
Jackula Jackula is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 90

FreeBSD vs Redhat


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



Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-15-2003, 12:28 PM
datums datums is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,148
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.

__________________
Datums Internet Solutions, LLC
Systems Engineering & Managed Hosting Services
Complex Hosting Consultants

  #3  
Old 07-15-2003, 12:30 PM
innova innova is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,300
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.

__________________
"The only difference between a poor person and a rich person is what they do in their spare time."
"If youth is wasted on the young, then retirement is wasted on the old"

Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 07-15-2003, 12:53 PM
Jackula Jackula is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 90
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

  #5  
Old 07-15-2003, 01:24 PM
drhonk drhonk is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: California
Posts: 800
I think cpanel work best with redhat .. but I agree with everybody here that fbsd is way more stable than redhat.

__________________
Roy K.
Pixie Internet Services - http://www.pixiehost.com
Affordable, reliable hosting solution with Instant Activation

  #6  
Old 07-15-2003, 01:58 PM
neonlexx neonlexx is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 782
Well If you take into account RedHat's EOL, thats a big reason to NOT use RH.

  #7  
Old 07-15-2003, 02:54 PM
eBoundary eBoundary is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 968
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.

__________________
http://www.eBoundary.com - Let us help you expand your eBoundaries!
Fast, Secure and reliable FreeBSD shared, reseller and dedicated hosting.
FREE Peace of mind with every account!

  #8  
Old 07-15-2003, 03:07 PM
neonlexx neonlexx is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 782
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.

  #9  
Old 07-15-2003, 03:25 PM
jarek jarek is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 25
Re: FreeBSD vs Redhat

Quote:
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.

__________________
- FreeBSD systems administrator -
* FreeBSD: The Power To Serve *

  #10  
Old 07-15-2003, 03:30 PM
jarek jarek is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 25
Quote:
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.

__________________
- FreeBSD systems administrator -
* FreeBSD: The Power To Serve *

  #11  
Old 07-16-2003, 02:10 AM
Jackula Jackula is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 90
Yeah, I think I'll go with FreeBSD for my hosting company

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

J

  #12  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:37 AM
Corky Corky is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 60
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.

  #13  
Old 07-16-2003, 06:53 AM
Cephren Cephren is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 596
hands down to FreeBSD!

  #14  
Old 07-16-2003, 07:01 AM
Dave Bell Dave Bell is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 60
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.

  #15  
Old 07-16-2003, 08:27 AM
Jay Cornwall Jay Cornwall is offline
WHT Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 170
Quote:
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.

Reply

Related posts from TheWhir.com
Title Type Date Posted
Beta Release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Launched Web Hosting News 2013-12-12 13:01:56
Red Hat Previews Commercial Version of OpenStack Web Hosting News 2012-08-13 18:28:08
Web Host Rackspace Adds FreeBSD 9, CentOS 6.3 Support to Cloud Servers Web Hosting News 2012-07-30 12:47:10
NYI Network Administrator Launches New Version of Network Analysis Tool Net Sensor Web Hosting News 2012-06-26 13:53:47
Colocation Provider NYI Launches East Coast Mirror for FreeBSD Foundation Web Hosting News 2012-05-25 10:37:18


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Postbit Selector

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump
Login:
Log in with your username and password
Username:
Password:



Forgot Password?
Advertisement:
Web Hosting News:



 

X

Welcome to WebHostingTalk.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

WebHostingTalk.com is the largest, most influentual web hosting community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.


(4 digit year)

Already a member?