FreeBSD vs Redhat Linux - GoFuckYourself.com

dewpoint · 04-18-2002, 07:37 PM

I am adding another dedicated server tonight. Any opinions out there as to which OS is better (and why).

Techie Media · 04-18-2002, 07:43 PM

Red Hat is very good and stable, but Free BSD is a bit better in my opinion.

thepiper · 04-18-2002, 07:56 PM

They are both fine operating systems. Which are you more familiar with? That should be the determining factor.

In my opinon, Freebsd is a tighter system for a server. Less packages of crap that has no business on a server, doesnt install X windows, etc. You don't have to wade through lists of 6,000 packages deselecting things you don't need. Much cleaner out of the box install.

I have also had huge VM problems with the earlier 2.4 linux kernels under load. However, I can't speak for the current 2.4 release. I am not sure what the lastest Redhat Ships with. I have never had any performance problems with FreeBSD, in fact we had a significant performance increase after switching to FreeBSD from Linux 2.4. Whether that is due to the quality of the operating system, or my ability to tune a linux machine compared to a BSD machine is for someone else to decide.

Dreamman010 · 04-18-2002, 08:11 PM

4FreeTGP is FreeBSD powered. I'd definately go with FreeBSD.

Ludedude · 04-18-2002, 08:23 PM

FreeBSD is definitely a better choice, but you should go with what you're more familiar with if your administering the server yourself. If not, then see what your hosts tech guys are better versed in...the last thing you need is them to fry something cause they're not familiar with it.

dewpoint · 04-18-2002, 08:46 PM

Thanks for all the great suggestions. To be honest, all of my existing servers are loaded with GUI's or my datacentre's staff look after the configuration, so I do not have the faintest clue on how to configure a "raw" server. Any suggestions? Is there a GUI for FreeBSD that I could purchase that would make setting up domains, email, etc fairly idiot proof.

Thanks!!

Lensman · 04-18-2002, 08:57 PM

RedHat Linux can run ColdFusion. FreeBSD cannot.

For a lot of people, that takes the decision power away.

-=HOAX=- · 04-18-2002, 10:58 PM

We set up a redhat and a freebsd box in the office as honey pots...we ran each os with default installs and again with some patches...

In both instances the redhat box was the first to fall victim to malicious computing...

I think freebsd is a better choice personally...that's what tomkat runs...and for my first unix box its easy to admin.

ColdFusion is a drawback I guess...but if you don't need it....well....fuckit.

(edited to add)

Webmin is a fairly good gui for freebsd. Although learning the command line is not only good practice, but I find gui's don't always do their jobs...

There's so much documentation out there that there's really no excuse to use gui's although again webmin was pretty fucking cool.

Shoplifter · 04-18-2002, 11:21 PM

Redhat has a lot of security pitfalls...But if it is updated correctly it is a nice system. Install it in text mode to get rid of the unnecessary packages.

BSD/OS on SCSI is the way to go, if you can find it.

railz · 04-18-2002, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
RedHat Linux can run ColdFusion. FreeBSD cannot.

For a lot of people, that takes the decision power away.

Could you point me at a host that accepts adult stuff and supports cold fusion?

StupidNewbie · 04-18-2002, 11:55 PM

red hat is a great desktop or workstation OS but freebsd is a powerful server. It isn't really a choice here. FreeBSD all the way, it's what it was breed to do.

kmanrox · 04-18-2002, 11:56 PM

freebsd = more secure

VeriSexy · 04-19-2002, 12:16 AM

You can install plesk, ensim or cpanel if you want gui like the cobalt servers. Plesk seems to be the most stable of them all. You can get a free 1 domain license with plesk if that's all you need.

boldy · 04-19-2002, 07:22 AM

Debian my Friends ... Debian...

I only run redhat on my compaq boxes. Compaq have nice proggies to monitor the hardware, raid systems etc...

For the rest i run Debian, it's a pain in the ass like FreeBSD but MORE secure than Redhat.

Redhat's : installs all the shit you dont need.
Debian/FreeBSD : installs nothing, install it yourself if you need a certain proggie.

Big E · 04-19-2002, 07:26 AM

A Unix box is only as good as its admin.

The default installation of FreeBSD is definitely more secure, but that shouldn't matter because you're going to lock the box down anyway right? [oops, you said you use a GUI.. guess not].

ServerGenius · 04-19-2002, 08:45 AM

Big E is right, it depends who admins the thing.
I use both FreeBSD and Linux out of the box FreeBSD is more
secure.

But if you install any linux version and make sure you leave
the crap out which you´re not going to use it really is a nice
system.

All these different distro´s don´t matter either. All Linux versions
use the same kernel anyway it´s just the layout what´s different
and the stuff that gets installed.

Make sure you firewall you´re machine which is necesary no
matter what OS you use

DynaMite

FATPad · 04-19-2002, 08:50 AM

Both are fine with me.

As long as I don't have an NT server I'm happy.

KC · 04-19-2002, 09:03 AM

PayCounter uses nothing but FreeBSD!

Our machines only go down when we do security patches... They are extremely stable.

If you're not familiar with FreeBSD, get familiar... it will save your ass some time and money.

-KC

whoreans · 04-19-2002, 09:51 AM

freebsd > *

dewpoint · 04-19-2002, 12:02 PM

Thanks again for the great answers. I am on my way down to Chapters to buy books on both systems. Everyone's comments let me know that command line is the best way to go and not GUI.

Thanks!

04-18-2002, 07:37 PM	#1
dewpoint Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 144	FreeBSD vs Redhat Linux I am adding another dedicated server tonight. Any opinions out there as to which OS is better (and why).

04-18-2002, 07:43 PM	#2
Techie Media Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,092	Red Hat is very good and stable, but Free BSD is a bit better in my opinion. __________________ sales [AT] techiemedia.com

04-18-2002, 08:11 PM	#4
Dreamman010 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 1,081	4FreeTGP is FreeBSD powered. I'd definately go with FreeBSD. __________________ <a href="http://www2.famoushost.com/home.php" target="_blank"><b><FONT COLOR="FFFF00">www.FamousHost.com</font></b></a><br>Free Hosting With No Headers, Real FTP, <u>Get listed on the biggest TGP's with us!</u>

04-18-2002, 08:23 PM	#5
Ludedude Suck it! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Who wants to know? Posts: 4,432	FreeBSD is definitely a better choice, but you should go with what you're more familiar with if your administering the server yourself. If not, then see what your hosts tech guys are better versed in...the last thing you need is them to fry something cause they're not familiar with it. __________________

04-18-2002, 10:58 PM	#8
-=HOAX=- Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: CrackYaMental Posts: 4,365	We set up a redhat and a freebsd box in the office as honey pots...we ran each os with default installs and again with some patches... In both instances the redhat box was the first to fall victim to malicious computing... I think freebsd is a better choice personally...that's what tomkat runs...and for my first unix box its easy to admin. ColdFusion is a drawback I guess...but if you don't need it....well....fuckit. (edited to add) Webmin is a fairly good gui for freebsd. Although learning the command line is not only good practice, but I find gui's don't always do their jobs... There's so much documentation out there that there's really no excuse to use gui's although again webmin was pretty fucking cool. __________________ Insert Value Here. Last edited by -=HOAX=-; 04-18-2002 at 11:02 PM..

04-18-2002, 07:56 PM	#3
thepiper Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Santa Monica, CA Posts: 31	They are both fine operating systems. Which are you more familiar with? That should be the determining factor. In my opinon, Freebsd is a tighter system for a server. Less packages of crap that has no business on a server, doesnt install X windows, etc. You don't have to wade through lists of 6,000 packages deselecting things you don't need. Much cleaner out of the box install. I have also had huge VM problems with the earlier 2.4 linux kernels under load. However, I can't speak for the current 2.4 release. I am not sure what the lastest Redhat Ships with. I have never had any performance problems with FreeBSD, in fact we had a significant performance increase after switching to FreeBSD from Linux 2.4. Whether that is due to the quality of the operating system, or my ability to tune a linux machine compared to a BSD machine is for someone else to decide.

04-18-2002, 08:46 PM	#6
dewpoint Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 144	Thanks for all the great suggestions. To be honest, all of my existing servers are loaded with GUI's or my datacentre's staff look after the configuration, so I do not have the faintest clue on how to configure a "raw" server. Any suggestions? Is there a GUI for FreeBSD that I could purchase that would make setting up domains, email, etc fairly idiot proof. Thanks!!

04-18-2002, 08:57 PM	#7
Lensman GFY Chaperone Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Adult.com Posts: 9,846	RedHat Linux can run ColdFusion. FreeBSD cannot. For a lot of people, that takes the decision power away.

04-18-2002, 11:21 PM	#9
Shoplifter Richest man in Babylon Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Posts: 10,002 Posts: 5,697	Redhat has a lot of security pitfalls...But if it is updated correctly it is a nice system. Install it in text mode to get rid of the unnecessary packages. BSD/OS on SCSI is the way to go, if you can find it.

04-18-2002, 11:55 PM	#11
StupidNewbie Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 864	red hat is a great desktop or workstation OS but freebsd is a powerful server. It isn't really a choice here. FreeBSD all the way, it's what it was breed to do.

04-18-2002, 11:56 PM	#12
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,290	freebsd = more secure __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

04-19-2002, 12:16 AM	#13
VeriSexy Join The Royal Family Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 25,463	You can install plesk, ensim or cpanel if you want gui like the cobalt servers. Plesk seems to be the most stable of them all. You can get a free 1 domain license with plesk if that's all you need. __________________ Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN! Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos. With TOP RATIO Sites like TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!! ATMovs.com \| iTeenVideo.com \| TeenSexMovs.com \| TeenSexMania.com

04-19-2002, 07:22 AM	#14
boldy Macdaddy coder Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: MacDaddy pimp coder Posts: 2,806	Debian my Friends ... Debian... I only run redhat on my compaq boxes. Compaq have nice proggies to monitor the hardware, raid systems etc... For the rest i run Debian, it's a pain in the ass like FreeBSD but MORE secure than Redhat. Redhat's : installs all the shit you dont need. Debian/FreeBSD : installs nothing, install it yourself if you need a certain proggie. __________________ MacDaddy Coder.

04-19-2002, 07:26 AM	#15
Big E Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 935	A Unix box is only as good as its admin. The default installation of FreeBSD is definitely more secure, but that shouldn't matter because you're going to lock the box down anyway right? [oops, you said you use a GUI.. guess not].

04-19-2002, 08:45 AM	#16
ServerGenius Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 9,377	Big E is right, it depends who admins the thing. I use both FreeBSD and Linux out of the box FreeBSD is more secure. But if you install any linux version and make sure you leave the crap out which you´re not going to use it really is a nice system. All these different distro´s don´t matter either. All Linux versions use the same kernel anyway it´s just the layout what´s different and the stuff that gets installed. Make sure you firewall you´re machine which is necesary no matter what OS you use DynaMite __________________ \| http://www.sinnerscash.com/ \| ICQ: 370820 \| Skype: SinnersCash \| AdultWhosWho \|

04-19-2002, 08:50 AM	#17
FATPad Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,693	Both are fine with me. As long as I don't have an NT server I'm happy. __________________ <a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

04-19-2002, 09:03 AM	#18
KC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 1995 Posts: 2,417	PayCounter uses nothing but FreeBSD! Our machines only go down when we do security patches... They are extremely stable. If you're not familiar with FreeBSD, get familiar... it will save your ass some time and money. -KC __________________ Jupiter Hosting, Inc. Vice President, Business Development kc (AT) jupiterhosting.com

04-19-2002, 09:51 AM	#19
whoreans Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Queens NY Posts: 1,407	freebsd > *

04-19-2002, 12:02 PM	#20
dewpoint Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 144	Thanks again for the great answers. I am on my way down to Chapters to buy books on both systems. Everyone's comments let me know that command line is the best way to go and not GUI. Thanks!