Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Unix or Linux

  1. #1

    Unix or Linux

    What is easier to work with, unix or linux?

    I am studying freebsd, but some things are not easy to understand for me. As a start, is linux less difficult to run?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    As a start, is linux less difficult to run?
    Generally. But, unix isn't necessarily hard either. In fact, it may be easier in certain ways...the ports system is very nice in BSD...
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Fleet Street
    Posts
    3,243
    I learned on bsd and thought it was much easier than linux.

    I guess it's personal preference.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    44
    I belive if you strongly don't need UNIX then beter choice would be to go for Linux
    FC would be the best I think

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,068
    Linux is just another Unix, there isnt a real difference. You seem to refer to BSD in particular, which is often considered as more stable than Linux.

    There was already a similar topic at http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=165073 with the overall consensus that BSD is often the better choice.

    In terms of simplicity I'd quote
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Sitemeer.com - Is your site up?
    Multi-Location Service Availability Check ● yes, we do HTTPS & IDN!


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    You seem to refer to BSD in particular, which is often considered as more stable than Linux.
    For the BSD installs that I've ran, I have actually noticed less performance than CentOs. To be honest, a CentOs box can be almost just as stable if managed correctly.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,068
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0
    For the BSD installs that I've ran, I have actually noticed less performance than CentOs. To be honest, a CentOs box can be almost just as stable if managed correctly.
    If managed properly every system is stable. I am not saying that a Linux machine tends to fail more often, but only stated the overall consensus of the thread I mentioned that BSD is often/usually considered as slightly "better".
    Sitemeer.com - Is your site up?
    Multi-Location Service Availability Check ● yes, we do HTTPS & IDN!


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Francisco/Hot Springs
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Krans
    What is easier to work with, unix or linux?
    Just to clarify quickly - Unix is a trademark, nobody really sells Unix brand Unix anymore, people unfortunately use it as a generic term.

    If you're not familiar with a unix-like system, I don't reccomend using either
    If you want a nice fast small stable system - look at FreeBSD.
    Linux is fine as a unix-like system...
    AppliedOperations - Premium Service
    Bandwidth | Colocation | Hosting | Managed Services | Consulting
    www.appliedops.net

  9. #9
    I was thinking about freebsd. If freebsd is better, more stable and a bit easier, then why is linux as server management getting so popular?

  10. #10
    i prefer freebsd environment as a personal reference!
    its easy and stable prolly more secure than linux.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Krans
    I was thinking about freebsd. If freebsd is better, more stable and a bit easier, then why is linux as server management getting so popular?
    Simply because a certain Richard Stallman created a certain GNU organization with a certain GPL license. In his point of view this is freedom and also business(!!!), while microsoft is evil and unix (or better his open license) is dead.

    I think you must read first differences between GPL, EULA and BSD licenses.

  12. #12
    Why?
    I haven't talked about MS. So this isn't a part of this discussion. I have no intention of using MS for server OS.

    Maybe you misunderstood. It is about OS for a dedicated server.

    FreeBSD is free and Linux very often not. I think Linux was created as competition for Bill and not for unix. Now Linux has entered the server world, but as far as I can tell, they can't beat FreeBSD.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Francisco/Hot Springs
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Krans
    If freebsd is better, more stable and a bit easier, then why is linux as server management getting so popular?
    The shortest answer is that Linux is popular for the same reason that Windows is popular.

    It managed to get a foothold and nobody's let go of it.
    AppliedOperations - Premium Service
    Bandwidth | Colocation | Hosting | Managed Services | Consulting
    www.appliedops.net

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    3,498
    Quote Originally Posted by appliedops
    The shortest answer is that Linux is popular for the same reason that Windows is popular.

    It managed to get a foothold and nobody's let go of it.
    It also works pretty well.

    I would recommend CentOS, as it is very main stream (most providers use it or have expertise with it). Once you are proficient with CentOS, you can graduate to messing with Debian or BSD.


    Alex

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Krans
    Why?
    I haven't talked about MS. So this isn't a part of this discussion. I have no intention of using MS for server OS.

    Maybe you misunderstood. It is about OS for a dedicated server.

    FreeBSD is free and Linux very often not. I think Linux was created as competition for Bill and not for unix. Now Linux has entered the server world, but as far as I can tell, they can't beat FreeBSD.
    Don't mess Linux creation with GNU GPL creation... They are different!
    Linux has not entered now in server world... it was created properly for server world, and now is trying to enter in desktop world.

    I didn't mention MS as a part of discussion. You were asking why Linux is so popular if Freebsd is better. I mentioned GNU religion. And to understand better what means GNU i invited you to read GNU license as well as BSD license and EULA (microsoft license).

    Personally i'll never use a product with GPL license, while i'll be happy with every product with BSD license or even commercial license.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    746
    http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html

    Fiddle with them all, see which you like.

    Awknet - DDoS Mitigation, Upstream ACLs/Filtering, Unmanaged Dedicated Servers, BGP IP Transit & More!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Francisco/Hot Springs
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by renis75
    Linux has not entered now in server world... it was created properly for server world, and now is trying to enter in desktop world.
    Linux wasn't created for the "server world", it was created as a pet project by Linus Torvalds. Its first iterations didn't even run multiuser, it wasn't unixlike - it took a while to get there...
    AppliedOperations - Premium Service
    Bandwidth | Colocation | Hosting | Managed Services | Consulting
    www.appliedops.net

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Linux and FreeBSD are both great operating systems, and which one you use in most cases just comes down to personal preference. I personally prefer FreeBSD due to its cleaner design and more liberal license, but Linux will get the job done as well.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by appliedops
    Linux wasn't created for the "server world", it was created as a pet project by Linus Torvalds. Its first iterations didn't even run multiuser, it wasn't unixlike - it took a while to get there...
    I didn't spoke about first 10.000 lines written by Linus. Linux is popular because of server capabilities and is clear that was developed for server infrastructure in mind (not desktop). Is not important if this was the first idea or was just developed later in this way.

    Anyway i don't like discussing about history or technical capabilities.

    My bigest issue with Linux is GPL license. That's all!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Teh Interweb
    Posts
    314
    ..."This week on OS Wars: FreeBSD vs Linux -- Which one to choose?!?!"

    I have seen this posted on so many threads so here it goes again:

    There is no best { Distrobution || Operating System }, there is only a best { Distrobution || Operating System } for you.

    Get out there and get your feet wet. you may actually enjoy it!

    [[email protected]] ~ $ cat .signature
    cat: .signature: No such file or directory

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by CaroTech04
    ..."This week on OS Wars: FreeBSD vs Linux -- Which one to choose?!?!"

    I have seen this posted on so many threads so here it goes again:

    There is no best { Distrobution || Operating System }, there is only a best { Distrobution || Operating System } for you.

    Get out there and get your feet wet. you may actually enjoy it!
    Properly... thats why i was discussing licensing issues, not technical capabilities.

  22. #22
    My opinion is that FreeBsd is the best for a server environment. I can turn them up and out quickly. But Linux does come with better packaging.

  23. #23
    they are quite similar...

    SSH

  24. #24
    How is Linux in a dual processor scsi/raid environment? FreeBsd preforms flawlessly. I remember testing OpenBsd a couple of years ago and that variant would'nt even boot on a dual processor box.

    OC

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    San Francisco/Hot Springs
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by ObjectCoder
    My opinion is that FreeBsd is the best for a server environment. I can turn them up and out quickly.
    No doubt, it takes like 10-15 minutes to install a FreeBSD box from a CD and get it online. Last time I installed Ubuntu Server it seriously wasted a good hour waiting for packages to load/etc....

    Someone really needs to put some effort into making a really speedy linux installer.
    AppliedOperations - Premium Service
    Bandwidth | Colocation | Hosting | Managed Services | Consulting
    www.appliedops.net

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    41
    A lot of Linux distributions have what's called a kickstart (or similar) that allow you to install the server without any install media and you can add/delete packages (or package groups) as needed. FreeBSD also has something kind of similar but not quite as flexible. Regardless which OS type you use, assuming you've installed from a RELEASE version, none of them should be put online without doing updates to the OS and packages. Linux distributions typically make this pretty easy with binary updates via apt-get or yum (*cough* up2date too), the BSD's do offer binary updates but they usually aren't applicable for all server roles. You'll see alot of BSD server administrators doing updates on their own either by hand of via script because of the finer grained control you can have.

    When it boils down to it I almost always pick FreeBSD as the OS of choice. Even considering that MySQL and Samba operations typically perform better on Linux (mostly due to the application being tuned and developed on a Linux platform) I normally try to absorb the extra cost of lower performance for what I believe is a better OS.

    As many have said before it's important you try both parent distributions out for yourself and take the time to try Free, Net, Open BSD as well as RedHat/Fedora/CentOS, Debian/Ubuntu, Slackware etc. All are going to be slightly different and you will undoubtedly find one you prefer over the others. Remember, you or someone you hire is going to be responsible for maintaining the server, not anyone providing you with their opinion on the forum. Pick the best OS from your own experience.
    Caro.Net: Support is everything
    Offering High Quality Dedicated Servers.

  27. #27
    FreeBSD is more advanced, but in a way much simpler than Linux, it doesn't have all the clutter that Linux does. I would definitely recommend FreeBSD. It's been around for a long time, and is developed by a single organization, whereas linux distributions appear and disappear all the time. The ports system is also the best packaging system I have found in all unix like oses.

Posting Permissions

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