LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Other *NIX Forums > *BSD
User Name
Password
*BSD This forum is for the discussion of all BSD variants.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 04-04-2005, 05:31 AM   #1
matthew5
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: 15
Is FreeBSD a server distro or a desktop distro with good server capatabilities?


Just earlier, I was thinking what the purpose of FreeBSD is for. I think it's a distro that runs a server, but I was thinking that it may be a desktop distro with server capatabilities. I want to run it as a server distro. I want to read your opinion.
 
Old 04-04-2005, 06:55 AM   #2
t3gah
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, ubuntu, Debian
Posts: 734

Rep: Reputation: 30
Re: Is FreeBSD a server distro or a desktop distro with good server capatabilities?

Quote:
Originally posted by matthew5
Just earlier, I was thinking what the purpose of FreeBSD is for. I think it's a distro that runs a server, but I was thinking that it may be a desktop distro with server capatabilities. I want to run it as a server distro. I want to read your opinion.
That depends on the end user.

There are many FreeBSD servers all over the place and they don't run the X-Windows System, they just run console mode.

And then there are many people that use it with the X-Windows System GUI as their home box with server services enabled because they can and have the constant bandwidth to back them up.

So the question or query you are pondering can be asked of any operating system with the same answers I supplied, plus more for them and from me if so inclined.

Track record is what you need to research.

FreeBSD bugs and exploit reported versus Linux bugs and exploits reported.

And one last thing from me.... FreeBSD isn't a distro, it's an operating system. RedHat or SuSE are distro's because they are based on Linux.
 
Old 04-04-2005, 08:47 AM   #3
sigsegv
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Third rock from the Sun
Distribution: NetBSD-2, FreeBSD-5.4, OpenBSD-3.[67], RHEL[34], OSX 10.4.1
Posts: 1,197

Rep: Reputation: 46
All the BSD's are servers.

Having said that -- I run the same release of FreeBSD on my webservers (No X or anything like that) that I have on my laptop (X and XFCE).

A machine's roll in life is defined by the duty that it fulfills. To answer the question I think you're really asking though -- Yes, BSD makes for better servers than Linux does.
 
Old 04-05-2005, 07:39 PM   #4
matthew5
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 23

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Your right sigsegv! I read an article about setting up a Samba server and all of the setting up requires puttting text commands into the console, and really the obvious distro that supplies Samba is Red Hat.
 
Old 04-05-2005, 10:09 PM   #5
sigsegv
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Third rock from the Sun
Distribution: NetBSD-2, FreeBSD-5.4, OpenBSD-3.[67], RHEL[34], OSX 10.4.1
Posts: 1,197

Rep: Reputation: 46
I'm not sure I follow what you mean. You can build samba on just about any *NIX, and SWAT (a GUI kind of thing) is available on all of them. RedHat, Drake, Fedora, *BSD, Solaris and just about everything else.

I'd personally recommend doing the configuration in vi in a console, but mostly just so the user will learn something about what the parameters actually do ...
 
Old 04-06-2005, 11:15 PM   #6
rehab junkie
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: /var/local/pub/bar
Distribution: OSX 10.4.9
Posts: 259

Rep: Reputation: 30
If you select End User or above during a Solaris install, samba will be installed with the OS. Ditto apache and a variety of other servers.


In the past I have used FreeBSD/X/KDE as a desktop. Now that I have a Mac, I use OSX on it and my PC has been rebirthed with an X-less FreeBSD install, and acts as a file server using NFS.
 
Old 04-07-2005, 08:15 PM   #7
mortal
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Soviet Kanuckistan
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 206

Rep: Reputation: 30
I use FreeBSD soley as a desktop right now.It's great with quake 1 2 and 3 offering better mouse reaction time/feel than XP or some linux distros.

Doom3 runs pretty well on it to.

I plan to use it for a quake server as soon as I find a hard drive for the box in my basement.
 
Old 04-09-2005, 04:02 PM   #8
thebored
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: 15
It isn't really either. Thanks to ports you can mold it however you want.
 
Old 04-11-2005, 11:00 AM   #9
halo14
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Surprise, AZ
Distribution: Debian | CentOS | Arch
Posts: 1,103

Rep: Reputation: 45
FreeBSD definitely makes a better server than Linux. But it also makes a very nice desktop. In general Linux is far more geared towards being a desktop OS than *BSD is. But that by no means makes it any less capable. The only things that require a little more work is stuff like Java and other multimedia plugins and whatnot.. I'm currently dual-booting FreeBSD 5.3 and ArchLinux on my notebook. FreeBSD is fantastic with portupgrade and portaudit. Portupgrade is the system updating tool, and portaudit checks against all installed ports to see if there have been any security advisories released against them. If so, it tells you what is wrong with what program, then you simply portupgrade it to it most current version. Personally I do a full cvsup daily of ports, and a full portupgrade rebuild every weekend. (I don't have gnome/kde/openoffice installed so I just start it before I go to bed and it's finished by the time I get up.
 
Old 04-13-2005, 04:25 PM   #10
chort
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Silicon Valley, USA
Distribution: OpenBSD 4.6, OS X 10.6.2, CentOS 4 & 5
Posts: 3,660

Rep: Reputation: 69
First, BSDs are not "distros". "Distro" is a Linux term that only applies to OSs with Linux kernels. Each BSD has entirely it's own kernel.

FreeBSD is predominately a server OS. It makes a good functional workstation for network engineers, security engineers, etc especially for NOC or such duties. You can use whatever desktop environment you want on it, but personal user functionality really isn't a huge priority for FreeBSD.
 
Old 06-04-2006, 08:20 AM   #11
kdrlx
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Distribution: Ubuntu Hardy Heron
Posts: 130

Rep: Reputation: 16
Server - no doubt

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew5
Just earlier, I was thinking what the purpose of FreeBSD is for. I think it's a distro that runs a server, but I was thinking that it may be a desktop distro with server capatabilities. I want to run it as a server distro. I want to read your opinion.
Yahoo servers have been running on FreeBSD for many years now .. thats answer enough .. I am using FBSD on my laptop for about 1 year now and I can say its really not geared towards a desktop .. in the sense .. dont expect graphical anything .. installation/configuration/patches etc ... all BSDs are more servers and less workstations ..
 
Old 06-04-2006, 12:06 PM   #12
reddazz
Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: N. E. England
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Debian
Posts: 16,298

Rep: Reputation: 74
FreeBSD is what you make it. It can be a very good server OS or a very good desktop OS (although I think many Linux distros makes a better desktop OS than FreeBSD out of the box). Many big companies use FreeBSD on their servers, but I think its a bit questionable to say FreeBSD is a better server OS than Linux because this depends on many things including the sysadmin.
 
Old 06-06-2006, 01:21 PM   #13
introuble
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: Debian -unstable
Posts: 700

Rep: Reputation: 31
I find FreeBSD to be a very good development workstation.
 
Old 06-06-2006, 03:20 PM   #14
uselpa
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Luxemburg
Distribution: Slackware, OS X
Posts: 1,507

Rep: Reputation: 46
I wouldn't use FreeBSD on a desktop or laptop because everything is compiled from source. To me, it does not feel right to have your desktop run all night for upgrades. On a server, that might be OK because you have it up 24/7 anyway.

For the same reason, I wouldn't use Gentoo or any other source-based Linux distro as a desktop.

So to me, FreeBSD is really a server OS.
 
Old 06-06-2006, 03:33 PM   #15
primo
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 542

Rep: Reputation: 34
KDE runs on FreeBSD. Everything you need in a desktop exists in FreeBSD. nVidia ships some drivers for FreeBSD too. An interesting feature is that you can run Linux binaries. It's used to run Acrobat Reader and the Flash plugin.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which distro is good as a server? ladeadhead General 23 12-05-2005 12:33 PM
What Is A Good Server Distro? jbruty Linux - General 5 10-05-2005 02:09 PM
Good distro for network/file/print/ftp/web server... AudioMechanic Linux - General 3 03-09-2005 11:12 AM
good server distro for an old computer jaakkop Linux - Distributions 3 03-04-2005 10:08 AM
Good distro for long term server support chaan Linux - Distributions 2 01-20-2004 11:04 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:12 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration