FreeBSD vs Linux

[Tracer]

Well we have beaten the MySQL vs Postgre debate and Linux vs Windows debate to death.

Don't worry, I thourgh my windows box out the window years ago..... 🙂

Does anyone have any oppinions on FreeBSD (or NetBSD) vs Linux?

Personally all my production platforms are Linux boxes runnign apache/PHP/MySQL. However, I have recently considered running FreeBSD on a production server instead of linux.

From my understanding FreeBSD provides a lower footprint, is quicker, and more secure.

Any Comments From people experienced with both FreeBSD and Linux?

[Bunkermaster]

i liked the devil character humping the penguin one in a cartoon... That as far as my knowledge goes.

[jstarkey]

I played with FreeBSD a few years ago and have worked on a few servers running it, but that's the extent of my knowledge. I stick to Linux.

The BSDs have the longest uptimes though, according to netcraft.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

Of course that's not really a good thing to base a decision on, since power outages, etc can affect it.

[yamcha2021]

Rumor has iit that MSN still runs some FreeBSD servers for their hotmail.com e-mail service.

True story is ... when MSN aquired hotmail.com, the original network ran all FreeBSD. When MSN tried to switch over to Windows-based servers/network, things slowed down to a halt, many of the servers crashed from the load.

Eventually, some of the back-end routing, sendmail-type servers had to be returned to FreeBSD.

Anyone got direct proof on existance of FreeBSD servers now?

[cahva]

I work for a webhosting company(small one). We have had FreeBSD from day one(we have been in business for 3 years). We havent got any problems with it. If our servers have crashed, the problems have allways been hardware related(power, harddisk etc.). We have 4 servers: one for Post, 1 for web/mysql and 2 for nameservers. The nameservers arent so important so we havent updated the kernels for 2 years. Guess whats the uptime for those? 😉

So to sum it up, freebsd is very reliable. If there has been problems, they are allmost all related to hardware or our buggy shellscripts.

For the MS-Hotmail issue.. LOL! Even that tells that FreeBSD is the way to go! 🙂

[Weedpacket]

Microsoft's own page about migrating Hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows 2000 describes the original Hotmail site as having "a two-tier architecture built around various UNIX systems" and goes on to say that the front end was running on FreeBSD. They go on at length (and in typical Microsoft fashion) about the hows and whys of converting it to Windows 2000.

They say nothing about the other tier...

[dalecosp]

The Hotmail issue is kicked around on various lists @freebsd.org from time to time. Microsoft has bought other shops that ran FBSD or GNU/Linux as well. The Register's article was here. (can't say it's much help to this thread, though).

As for BSD vs. Linux, here's what I see as differences, form your own opines...

1. Centralized control over the entire OS is a strength for FBSD, and also a weakness. Linux distros are simiple a set of arbitrarily selected GNU software packaged with a UNIX-type kernel maintained by Mr. Torvalds. There are literally hundreds of distributions. Occasionally you may have to modify your practices or the advice you obtain via whitepaper or web in order to match what your distro can or cannot do. Something that worked for Bob from New York (who was running Chainsaw Linux) may not work for Sally running RH in San Fran. Just a generalization, though. In contrast, with FBSD everything comes from the project: all of the OS from kernel to userland... All security advisories come from one office; all source code comes from one central repository that is mirrored in over 20 countries worldwide. The strength of this is impressive; There's one handbook for the OS (which is quite well written if not particularly attractive) and one "mother of all list servers" at freebsd.org. The community is, perhaps, a bit less fragmented that the Linux community.

2. However, the size of the user base, and the size of the project, is quite smaller than the Linux movement as a whole. Therefore, hardware support may tend to lag behind Linux (for example, there may be two guys in all of BSD land that care about porting a certain video driver, while there are hundred who run Linux who want it done NOW) and also, with a smaller user base, there is little commercial support (in FBSD you occasionally hear "we couldn't get nVidia [insert name of corp. here] to release code for porting yet, so try using VESA drivers for the immediate future". Companies that may attempt to support Linux will not give you the time of day with a BSD. Of course, this is often a problem for Linux as well. (Consider buying a DELL laptop and wiping the Windoze install in favor of Tux or Beastie, and then calling in with a hardware problem you want serviced under warranty...likely they'll blame your OS instead of their hardware).

3. The installation of software seems much easier with the BSD 'ports' system. Consider an install of Apache/MySQL/PHP (module).

   #cd /usr/ports/www/apache-13/
   #make install clean
   
   #cd /usr/ports/www/mod_php4
   #make install clean
   
   #cd /usr/ports/databases/mysql13-server
   #make install clean

   Contrast that with your standard 'fetch/untar/README/.configure/switch to php/.configure...etc., etc.,' OTOH, I've not much experience with Linux RPM's.... Of course, maybe sometimes you want source tarballs, maybe; however, search for 'portupgrade' and read up on upgrading all your userland software at once, including all dependencies and shared objects. It's not quite perfect yet, but it's maybe close.

   4. The availability of software for FBSD is interesting. There is a large number of ports available (some 5000, built into FBSD and ready to go), but it probably doesn't compare with the absolutely mind-boggling quantity of SW out there that can be attained, untarred, and installed via the traditional methods. However, FBSD has had for some time "Linux-binary-compatibility" built in, so maybe this isn't so much of an issue.

   5. Security. This is something you mention, and perhaps a strong point of FreeBSD. If you really want security, perhaps OpenBSD is something you should look into. Mr. DeRaadt is, well, very um, tight with his versions of the code, and that project claims "no open holes in the default install for X years," where X is about as long as they've existed...

      On FBSD, I do think that maybe more people keep up with the fixes than Linux users do. I still see people, even on this forum, who mention that they're running on RH6, for example. That might be akin to running FBSD 3.x, and most people running mission critical boxes on FBSD are much closer to 2003 than that, I believe, not withstanding things like "I started this nameserver in '97 and haven't rebooted since" as you see above (congrats, BTW). The real issues with security would deal with how vigilant you are in keeping all patches installed, I guess....

   As for stability, if your Linux system has ever crashed or needed a reboot because of a SW malfunction, then FBSD in my experience is more stable than your Linux.

   originally posted by yamcha2021
   Anyone got direct proof on existance of FreeBSD servers now?

   Yup, I have a few.... :p

[yamcha2021]

quote:originally posted by yamcha2021
Anyone got direct proof on existance of FreeBSD servers now?Yup, I have a few....

I know there are FreeBSD servers/boxes out there silly ;-) I have a small box running it in my bedroom

I was refering to existance of FreeBSD within Hotmail.com's server farm. Do you got info/proof on those?

[dalecosp]

Yes, I know what you meant, but how was I to resist?

Also, FWIW, is you really want to get rid of your S.O. it's:

#cat /dev/null > girlfriend

😉

[jerdo]

For usability I would go with Linux, it's more user friendly. For stability I have had good luck with both. I've heard that OpenBSD (not the same as Free/NetBSD) is the way to go for stability/security, as it only has one reported security hole in seven years.