Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,226

    linux advantages on freebsd?

    i don't want to start a flame war here, but isn't freebsd considered more suitable than linux for running a mainly webhosting server?

    i never used freebsd, just read about... and points that I see are:
    1) freebsd run linux apps (sometimes better than linux!)
    2) freebsd is more secure (less vulnerabilities are found)
    3 and only bad one) it's more difficult to use

    i don't know if it consume more resource...

    is there some comparison between "freebsd" and "linux with grsecurity kernel patch"?

    it seens that grsecurity try to make linux as secure as freebsd (for example, limiting PS to users own process)

    basically what i'm asking is what you'd say to disencourage me to use freebsd

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    819
    The only reasons I can think of to stop you using FreeBSD is that it might put some people off as Linux is a bit of a buzz word these days and the fact that some people like to do certain things through SSH but are less likely to be familiar with BSD than Linux.

    Andrew
    NetHosted - UK based hosting solutions.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    218

    EZEZ

    FreeBSD is much easier to admin than linux. It has to do with there being a lot less BS than linux has (also a little less useful stuff =[), and what I consider a better init config and filesystem layout.

    It can run MOST linux apps. the most useful ones it can't, tho. And it may be able to run linux standard binaries, but there are enough differences in the filesystem, libraries, and bsd style program interactions that you sometimes can't even get to a point where you have a binary to run, if you don't have a port specifically for freeBSD.

    The ports collection is better than anything i've seen on any linux (don't even bring up debian).

    Certain relatively undocumented features of linux are present, but even less documented on FreeBSD.

    We've run debian, caldera, red hat, freeBSD since the 3.x, and gentoo. We like FreeBSD the best, gentoo comes second, and the rest fall along side.

    The freeBSD is more secure/stable thing is dependant on too many bits, (mainly the admin), so it's not really a valid argument one way or the other.

    I think I just said one wasn't 2much better than the other, which is really amazing, since I personally hate linux...
    -- My software isn't buggy; it develops random features --

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    78
    If you just need apache/php/ssh/cpanel/ftp then it makes no difference (well not much). It's more matter of taste. FreeBSD ports are really cool thing.

    I prefer FreeBSD, but linux is just as good if you find distro you like. FBSD 5.2.1 and Linux 2.6 are both excellent choices.

    Don't listen to anyone...just try them both

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,290
    it seens that grsecurity try to make linux as secure as freebsd (for example, limiting PS to users own process)
    add to /etc/sysctl.conf

    kern.ps_showallprocs=0

    that will alow the user to see only their proccess.
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bucks, UK
    Posts
    9
    Personaly I prefer Fedora/RedHat Linux (Mainly because I am most comfortable with them). Main problem with FreeBSD is no yum!

    Other advantages of Linux is that most the big servers run best on it (MySQL for example).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    13,290
    Originally posted by nickc7
    Personaly I prefer Fedora/RedHat Linux (Mainly because I am most comfortable with them). Main problem with FreeBSD is no yum!

    yeah but you have ports! ports are way cooler then yum
    Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
    Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
    FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    World Wide Web
    Posts
    581
    what I like the most is the firewall. ipfw is way less fuzzy than iptables.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South East U.K.
    Posts
    1,295
    I disagree that FreeBSD is more difficult to use. I'd been using various distro's of Linux for four years before making the switch & didn't have any trouble finding my way around. Ok, you're going to have to do some reading to learn how to use the different stuff available but it's not that hard.

    p.s. Don't know what yum is but the ports collection is a must have!!!

  10. #10
    Yellow dog Updater Modified

    It's the RPM-compatible package manager

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Ick, binary packages. Ports system all the way
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •