On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tim Holmes wrote: > There are quite a number of differences between BSD and Mandrake. > > For one, BSD isn't Linux. It's more UNIX if you have to classify it, > but BSD is, well, BSD. Yeah, they all move along the same lines with > the kernel, but it's closer to UNIX then it is Linux. A lot of people > say BSD is a scaled down UNIX. > Cool, I guess FreeBSD finally was able to pay for the "Unix" moniker. I've always found it amazing that some big companies can purchase a license, and no matter for deviant their OS is, they can claim to be Unix.
> Linux has gone and created things like /etc/rc.d/init.d/ for users to > make it easier more "intuative" to restart services etc;. BSD has > somethings that are like that, but basically stick with the regular > means of starting up processes and starting them. However, check out > /usr/share/etc/rc.d for a list of scripts that do things like > /etc/init.d/network start. I agree -- I do find the Linux system more intuitive. There are differences among the distributions though. In fact, I'm at this moment trying to build a new distribution and sorting out the init scripts to use. > > FreeBSD is a true 128 bit OS. Others claim they are, but not to the > true extent. BSD is very robust and is frankly a warrior. It can take > the same hardware a Linux OS has, and handle much more stress. Is FreeBSD 128bit? Can you explain what that means? Is it running on IA-64 or similar processors or does that matter? What other processors does FreeBSD run on? I would enjoy loading it on one of the Itaniums here to see how it stacks up. > > Recent, professional tests, we've tried to build and maintain a Linux > box that every 15 minutes or so, xinet would crash/restart. The server > was basically used for mail server, webserver, IMAP server. Same > hardware working with the same servers, including FTP, webmail, and > others, took the load and is now going to be taking on more tasks. > Hmmm... There may be something hosed with your xinetd configuration. I can help you tune it if you'd like. I've run Linux with thousands of connections per hour using xinetd without any stability problems. What sort of load/hardware/kernel revision were you using? > FreeBSD, specifically, is used at a lot of ISPs. Webservers, DNS > servers, mail servers, and more. > > Yes, Linux can do well in that platform, but for after some hefty > configurations, and rebuild kernels. > > FreeBSD kernel is very easily rebuilt. And reboots (which you should > never have to do.) in about 25 seconds. That's shutdown, then booted > to a prompt. I don't remember EVER seeing a Linux box shutdown in that > amount of time, let alone reboot. > The Linux kernel is also pretty easy to rebuild. If you need help with it, I have a guide at: http://www.digitalhermit.com/linux/kernel.html You can also do a rebuild of new sources with your defalult configurations with maybe five commands. It can down quickly; but as you know, the shutdown time depends upon what's been started up. The main problem I have with many distributions (Mandrake included) is that many unneeded services are enabled by default. This has gotten much better than before, though. I understand the reasoning from an ease-of-use perspective, but firmly believe that if a person wants to load a particular protocol/service, she should have enough knowledge to turn it on herself. FreeBSD, by default, starts fewer services and thus is faster to shutdown. In my case it doesn't matter a bit. My machines run for months at a time and a minute here or there is inconsequential. As for slow shutdowns, verify that your DNS configuration is good. The usual suspects (and this applies to Solaris, BSD/OS, etc) is often NFS problems or misconfigurations. > I know quite a number of people that use FreeBSD as their > router/firewall. It's great for that. Does a lot better at that then > Linux. A lot of people have FreeBSD on a floppy, boot the server, and > there you go with your firewall and router. > The FreeBSD TCP/IP stack has a good reputation. I once used it for my website and had absolutely no complaints. However, can you explain how it's better than ipchains or iptables? Please be as technical as you'd like; in fact, I would prefer it... :) BTW, Linux also has a router on a floppy. I've booted it once or twice, mostly at customer sites when demonstrating routing. > FreeBSD, right up the the most recent release, 4.4, will run on any > hardware. P100's and slower, no problem. Is it even possible to > install Mandrake 8.1 or RedHat 7.x on anything that slow? (IT may be > possible, I've never heard it being done, or the machine being usable.) > I've installed RedHat 7.2 on a Dell Inspiron P100/64M. It runs well as a router/firewall/http/DNS server. Mandrake 8.0 powers my CVS, MySQL, NFS and Samba servers on a similar machine. Most Linuxes will run fine on older machines; of course, no matter if you use FreeBSD or Linux, if you install Enlightenment or KDE, you will have performance issues. What sort of installation are you using? Did you choose a server or workstation configuration? > There are pros and cons in the comparison, it all depends on what you > want to use the machine for. If you were looking to have a workstation > with FreeBSD, you'd need more of what people call "advanced UNIX > knowledge." (Whatever that is! :') If you want an internal > webserver, and mail server and file server, that's also doing the > routing and firewalling for your home network, FreeBSD will easily take > the load. (I know, it's currently doing that and more for a local > university.) > > FreeBSD is fast and very robust. I can server as a great > workstation/desktop if that's what you want, but to administer the box, > you'll need to bone up on your UNIX knowledge.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
