Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:43:02 -0500
From:      "DaleCo Help Desk" <daleco@daleco.biz>
To:        "Dan Pelleg" <daniel+fbsdq@pelleg.org>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, <ryallsd@datasphereweb.com>
Subject:   Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <002901c27b07$17d70430$fa00a8c0@DaleCoportable>
References:  <15799.20287.620654.923723@gs166.sp.cs.cmu.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Dan Pelleg" <daniel+fbsdq@pelleg.org>
To: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; <ryallsd@datasphereweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:39 PM
Subject: RE: Linux vs. FreeBSD


>
> As has been said, the clients don't care much what the router is
> running as long as it handles the packets correctly.
>
> I would strongly recommend FreeBSD for this and this is based on my
> experience in a mixed FreeBSD/Linux shop.
>
> FreeBSD has excellent support for intelligent and traditional
> packet filtering. ipfw can do all of the following:
> - header-based filtering
> - stateful filtering
> - bandwidth shaping (make sure some server doesn't use more
> than N bits/second, or even make sure no one server hogs the
> entire bandwidth) - via dummynet
> - "limit" rules (cap the number of connections a particular
> server can have open at any given time)
>
>  And all of these can be applied to either the internal, external,
> or DMZ networks. NAT is also supported.
>
>  I'm sure Linux has similar capabilities. But with FreeBSD you get
> them in the base system - no need to go hunt for tarballs or
> kernel patches (see below more on stability).
>
> As far as security is concerned, FreeBSD's record is excellent.
When
> people say "Linux" they often mean "Red Hat", who seem to have
> a major mis-configuration problem and virus/worm attacks with every
> single version they put out. I am sure there are Linux distros that
> fare better on security but they rarely the advantages that Red
> Hat is enjoying (these being support and large user base).
>
> FreeBSD systems are easy to maintain. You can do a source upgrade,
> or a binary upgrade, and the system will go through it and boot
> to the new version without a hitch. On one system I have I've gone
from
> FreeBSD 4.1 to 4.7, including every release in between, without
ever
> touching the console. When a major version comes out, I typically
> upgrade 10 systems in multiple locations, all within half a day
> without leaving my office.
>
> When security advisories come out, they are published quickly, and
yet give
> accurate description of the problem and its impact, letting you
make an
> informed decision. They also provide tested workarounds and
pointers to
> source and binary patches, which make your life as administrator
> easy. Again, being on both the FreeBSD and Red Hat security
advisory
> mailing-lists, I can tell you none of these points are to be taken
for
> granted for even the biggest and most trusted vendor.
>
> Linux and its various distros has its merits and is certainly a
system of
> choice for certain uses. But if your time and sanity are worth
anything to
> you, you'd better put FreeBSD on this system.
>
> --
>  Dan Pelleg

I'd second a great deal of this.  When I was first introduced to what
lay behind the Internet, everyone was talking about the Penguin, but
I've discovered that FreeBSD has a richer background, classic roots,
and extremely confident and competent individual users and
maintainers
who go an extra mile to make it a top-notch server OS.  Kudos to all!

Kevin Kinsey


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002901c27b07$17d70430$fa00a8c0>