Randy Edwards writes: > > I was wondering what sort of arguments folks would give for selecting > Linux over FreeBSD. This is for a production server in an educational > environment. The arguments used against Linux were that it was buggy > and goes through too many changes. I, of course, countered those to a > degree and my main point of advocacy was that Linux works on a wider > variety of hardware. However, I felt I did an inadequate job; any other > arguments that folks would've used in such a situation? Please feel > free to reply via e-mail; thanks in advance.
OK, while it is easy to find fault, how about this comparison: 1) FreeBSD partitions the hard drive in the traditional UN*X fashion. If a section of the hard drive goes bad, you have to replace the hard drive. Under Linux, you just 'badblock' the drive (like in MSDOS) and continue trucking. (of course, under either OS, you would backup the data) 2) If you run out of hard drive space, under Linux, you simply add a new hard drive and either attach it to the FS (logically via 'mount') or integrate it (via 'md' devices - a software RAID). FreeBSD - you either use a RAID SCSI controller (read as $$$) or logically attach (like Linux). Additionally, Linux supports a wider range of hardware (read as 'lower cost') like EIDE (and UDMA) drives. FreeBSD is mainly SCSI based (per their official documentation www.ibenet.it/FreeBSD/handbook/handbook.html) 3) Buggy kernels only apply to 'bleeding edge' development kernels. For a server application, you would use a stable (debugged) kernel. Again, Changes only apply to 'bleeding edge' development. A stable distribution will lock the system for ease of use. Of course, you can always upgrade to the next stable version. <g> 4) FreeBSD only tracks package dependencies during compilation. Once a binary is created, nothing is done to insure compatability. This action translates to having to re-compile your applications everytime you add a new package. Debian Linux tracks dependencies outside of the compiler enviroment. This action means that when you add a new package, you _don't_ have to re-compile all your applications (unless you want to <g>). The package installer _knows_ what the dependencies are before installing a new package. (I believe that Red Hat does a similar package control). 5) Finally, anything in the way of server software (i.e. FTP, networking, WWW, etc.) that you would find in FreeBSD, you will find in Linux. So, it's not like you would be sacrificing functionality if you use Linux instead of FreeBSD. Also, FreeBSD is not commercial software, Red Hat Linux is commercial software! (along with all the goodies which come with a commercial product, like tech support!) -- -= Sent by Debian 1.3 Linux =- Thomas Kocourek KD4CIK - member of ARRL @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@westgac3.dragon.com Remove @_@ for correct Email address --... ...-- ... -.. . -.- -.. ....- -.-. .. -.- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
