Ok... I have my choices between Debian and FreeBSD to settle in for my production server OS of choice.

I'm probably going to stick with Mandrake and/or Fedora (I like dabbling ) for my Desktop OS, but I need alternatives for my production non-eyecandy OS, now that Redhat had decided to discontinue official support for opensource version of Linux (meaning security updates in one fell swoop, an easy mouse click or two)

I like FreeBSD very much- I lease 3 FreeBSD web/email servers at Dulles VA at a really robust datacenter with lots lots of bandwidth (multiple OC-12, OC-3, etc.)

I'm fairly comfortable with FreeBSD. However, all my desktop OS's are various forms of Linux...

So this translates into me feeling more adventurous in Linux than I do in FreeBSD, despite the fact they have common roots.

So what I am asking of you guys...

1. Opinions of FreeBSD vs. Debian GNU/Linux?

2. How easy each is to keep updated with all the various security patches? One thing I REALLY liked about Redhat is the fact they kept an eye out for me for security vulnerabilities I should update against, so that I DO NOT HAVE TO. I really liked being alerted every time I logged in about if I needed to update, and then click a few things, and lo- and belo, I'm updated.

My biases:

1. I use FreeBSD everyday for my webserver OS.. but honestly I haven’t had the install experiences. They are leased servers.

2. My son's name is Ian. For those who don't know the story behind Debian.. Ian is the one who came up with it, and his girlfriend (wife?) name was Deb= Debian. Heh. I also really like the GNU aspect.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

ToBe

ps: Cross posting to FreeBSD forum and Linux Debian forum to get a full spectrum of thoughts...

Okay, with due respect to your son, the name's not necessarily a great reason to pick an OS. As for opinions (and not necessarily good ones), I'll offer up mine. I've used both FreeBSD and Debian for a little while; FreeBSD for about 6 months, and Debian for almost two years now. I'm an "expert" on neither. With that, my comments:

1) FreeBSD: Setup about as tough as Debian/Linux, just different names for things. Nice, easy, comfortable update system. Standard software, ability to run a good amount of Linux software, as long as it's been around for a bit. All in all, a very powerful OS, but lacking in some of the "newness" and pretty things most people expect. For a server, excellent. For a desktop, probably not the best option, unless you needed stability over all.

2) Debian: Disclaimer: My preferred system. Several OS options. Stable as a rock, if not a bit outdated. Testing, stable enough for most people to use as a working system. Unstable, think MS software. Setup tends to go a little easier, mostly "hit enter" kind of stuff, and if you miss something, it's pretty easy to pop backwards or use another program to fix it. For Linux users, I mean. For others, it's as challenging as FreeBSD. Advantage: It's relatively easy to mix the "newest" software with the older, more stable stuff, once you get the hang of apt.

Overall: If you were happy with Redhat, Debian will impress you. Upgrades are a breeze, especially if you're using stable/testing (stable if you're using a server). Bugfixes tend to hit quicker than RH's, because it's a specific developer's reputation on the line, not a companies. (Unless they're on vacation, quit, etc...just kidding.) On the other hand, FreeBSD is the "safe" choice, and perhaps a preferred choice if your boss is afraid of SCO. Yahoo! is FreeBSD. On the other hand, Google is Linux. I think both systems are great, but I prefer the extra provisions in Linux that prevent companies from grabbing the code and running. From a RH system, I'd stick with Linux. If I had problems with RH (big problems), I'd consider FreeBSD.

BTW, RH didn't kill it's OS. It simply outsourced it to the community. Check out fedora (maybe give it some time to stabilize), or consider RH's corporate-level support. As far as the media/pundit thing, it's way--way--way overblown.

I definitely and wholeheartedly agree with how the media really went nuts over Redhat's latest antics. It is nowhere as severe as the media portrays it to be.

That being said, I do not have the funds to mix enterprise level, with opensource solutions. My clients, and myself can pay for some, but not all. Therefore, I'm looking for pretty much a single solution for my servers.

I bet despite it all, I will probably dabble with both FreeBSD and Debian anyway, being the curious cat I am. They look oddly similar especially in regards to the file structure. Debian seems to be more Unix-like than most other Linux'es out there. Slackware I understand is like that too.

I really appreciate your thoughts, and dont worry, I won't pick a distro just cause of my son;s name.. hehehe That was tounge in cheek

My interest is piqued about the testing (is that "Sid?") release of Debian.. If its as stable as say, Fedora or WinXP (both which flake out on me on occasion), then I think it's definately worthwhile for me to explore as my desktop. I like playing with all the bleeding edge stuff, as long as its not on my production servers.. and it just seems to be really cool to be able to do that and sticking with two versions of Debian.

Thanks again, and I'm interested in what others have to say too.

ToBe

FreeBSD because i cant stand the hypocrisy of the GPL.

Sorry but that is a lot of misguided bull... Please if you havent used the operating system dont speak of it. FreeBSD is more up to date than Debian. The last release of Debian was what 19th of July, 2002? FreeBSD has released

5.0 Sun, 19 Jan 2003
5.1 Mon, 9 Jun 2003
4.8 Thu, 3 Apr 2003
4.9 Tue, 28 Oct 2003

4 releases from two different code branches in a year? Who is not new? FreeBSD has wifi drivers before linux and has the newest nvidia drivers everytime a new card is released.

i run xchat 2.0.5_1
i run KDE 3.1.4
i run MPlayer 0.92-3.2.2

How the hell is that lacking "newness"? Also ANY linux software will run on BSD regardless if it has been ported or not. There is linux emulation built into FreeBSD that ironically enough in most cases ends up running the linux software faster than it does on linux...

A new version of FreeBSD has been released? No problem "make world" and bingo the userland is all updated and you have a shiny new BSD operating system. You need to update your software? No problem cvs-up then "portupgrade -a" and bingo all the ports that are out of date are recompiled and updated.

Lastly FreeBSD is what you make of it. It can be a great desktop.

As a side note FreeBSD has a larger development team than most linux distrobutions so to say it is not up to date or old or dying is foolish. And for a production server OS hands down FreeBSD 4.9, if it is good enough for hotmail + yahoo + Compaq + Sentex Communications, and NTT/Verio... You might also want to look at the uptime charts on netcraft and see which operating system is getting the best uptime.

I wasn't aware of all these upgrade options in FreeBSD. Awesome. I lease Verio's FreeBSD VPS servers (and now VPS2) so that end is more or less taken care for me.

I'm comfortable in maintaining a freebsd server, but am much more familiar with the installation of Linux systems- is how this thread got started.

Boy, makes me wish I had ample time on my hands... I really would like to play with them all and decide on my own leisurely pace which to use in the majority of the times I need an *nix OS

It almost looks like the choice lies mostly with the GPL vs BSD License.

I want an distro that is as free from corporate antics as possible is why I have debian and FreeBSD on my decision table. I got a bit burned over the Redhat fiasco, discontinuing redhat network support..

Er, corporate antics? Well neither FreeBSD nor Debian is controlled by a corporation, so I'm not sure what exactly you're saying there? In fact, the only BSD that is controlled by a corporation is Darwin which is the core of Mac OS X and I don't see Mac OS on your list of options... Linux, on the other hand, has several distributions owned by corporations: Mandrake, SuSE, etc...

If your issue is with discontinuation of updates, then I hate to say it but you're barking up the wrong tree. You would need to buy a commercial product and make sure the contract guarantees updates and support for a certain amount of time. Even that doesn't protect you against the company going bankrupt, though, but you may be able to sue to recover some of your support fees.

The debate about licensing models is petty and borders on religious fanaticism. The GPLers are making much ado about nothing, IMHO. They're conveniently ignoring the realities of the corporate world. As long as you're not developing commercial applications that are modified forms of the kernel source code, you don't have to worry at all about which license to go with.

For a server platform, I would choose FreeBSD hands down. Why? Because it's the choice of so many companies that build high-performance networking equipment. Juniper Networks, BigIP, Alteon (I think?), CipherTrust, IronPort Systems (I think?), Nokia, BorderWare, etc... Debian is an excellent hobbiest OS, but let's be honest: it just isn't developed with High Availability, Highly Scalable hosting in mind. Give me a list of corporations that run Mission Critical applications on Debian... right. Give me a list of network appliances built on Debian... right. You could say that Linux is well suited for hosting, and that would be correct, but you want a distribution that is geared for it. Red Hat ES/AS actually are geared for hosting, but of course that would cost several thousand dollars.

I think most of linux users talk a lot about FreeBSD without really knowing the system. I spend 2 minutes per day checking my server (Which runs loads of stuff), I can update the port tree in some seconds, if I have any port outdated i can upgrad it in some seconds, if there is a new release of the system i can build a new world, if there is any patch either update my source with make world or patch it with a simple line.
I trust freebsd, I use freebsd, and to be honest, linux is having some problems with security, mostly local kernel exploiting. FreeBSD don't have a high security flaw in a long time mates, that ARP chache flood didn't affected anyone, that procfs vulnerability don't affect 3/4 of the 4x users because most of us don't even have the procfs mounted. Now check linux, you have a bunch of holes in that kernel that simply gets your little sysadmin job to be a complete mess. I won't trust linux soon, I trust FreeBSD because it's a mature and well tested system, built and mantained by a group of professionals, not with some kid donating code to the linux kernel, a kernel with 13 years made from the scratch that has a lot of testing to do.
Well, but to be really honest, the system is a reflect of his sysadmin, just take care of your system, check it every day, keep your eyes open for new problems and everything will work just fine.

Not trying to fight - I'm pretty BSD-sympathetic but, like you say, don't know the system - PicoBSD doesn't count. But the 'professionals/kid' thing sounds like it came straight from Microsoft's agitprop machine. I think that's as least as unfair to Linux as some Linux users are to BSD. Though you're absolutely right about recent security. And why does your distro say 'Red Hat' and not FreeBSD, or both?

Anyway - while I doubt I'd ever switch from Slack, I am curious about a few more and someday I'll try it - FreeBSD, Gentoo, LFS. Then I'm done. I hope.

Completely ignorant opinion but just trying desparately to be on topic, I'd probably go with BSD for dedicated server but maybe OpenBSD.

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

I don't see Linux on this page, probably all those reboots to install kernel patches

I have Red Hat because every time i would post in a linux forum the guys ignored me/trashed me.

Whenever I see this OS-bashing threads I tend to ask this: can you please point me to any real proof that shows that BSD is worse or better than Linux?

Nobody has answered me yet. So pick whatever you like best.

thank you for contributing nothing to the conversation

I smell a troll, huh?

In fact, I think my contribution is important: if anybody wants a technical answer to this question (Linux vs. BSD), there isn't one. Just choose one and learn to use it well.

EDIT: I forgot to say that Hotmail only used FreeBSD for load balancing; DB and mail servers were Solaris.

OpenBSD has superior security because of the following (which is just a summary of what was posted earlier, but everyone seems to have ignored)

Non executable stack, PROT_purity, W^X, Propolice, securelevels, systrace, regular code audits, fanatical attention to detail and correctness, and thoughtful default configuration (daemons chroot'd, bound only to lo0, etc).

The great thing is that even if a userland program manages to overflow something, Propolice will catch it and prevent the exploit. OpenBSD doesn't just assume everything is safe from exploit, it builds in a bunch of checks that assume exploits will happen and tries to prevent them from doing damage.

I am a few months into my "linux learning" and I am currently trying out Red Hat 9 and will soon install Fedora and give that a whirl. So, I have to say I have no loyalty to any dist, at least at the moment!

But, about three years ago, I tried out FreeBSD 3.1, I think it was at that time. I thought it was pretty cool and didn't have any problems with it and it looks like it might be much farther along than other *nix systems. But, here is my question: of the BSD releases, which is best? I have already read the little there is in this thread, but I am still unsure if OpenBSD or FreeBSD are the two major ones.

Anyway, that was my two cents...looking for more BSD information.