> > Well, we 're not Google or Facebook, and we would like to stick with > linux... > > >
I'm not 100% sure what that has to do with anything...I'm taking a a guess at maybe your thinking of high performance web sites in which case it has a lot of uses over just that, if that's what you think. <quote> What applications are you planning on running? What kind of performance do you need? As others have suggested, *BSD have a great security and stability track record. However, Linux (all distros) have much more capability than *BSD in many areas. File system choice is limited in the *BSD variants to UFS/FFS, the BSD Fast filesystem, and SFS, which reserves odd numbered inodes for ACL information, but otherwise is identical to FFS. *BSD do not often alternative high performance file systems such as XFS, the fastest filesystem available for most applications. *BSD has abysmal driver support for much modern hardware including RAID and network cards, printers, USB, etc, etc. There simply aren't enough developers coding drivers for *BSD. This has been the case for a very long time. I've not used *BSD for many years, so this driver starvation situation may have changed recently, but if so, I'm unaware of it. In summary, *BSD have a few advantages over stable Linux (Debian, SLES, RHEL). However, IMO, *BSD have far more disadvantages compared to stable Linux variants than advantages. *BSD have a better overall security track record. System stability is probably a tie, although depends on application mix and work load. Linux trounces *BSD in filesystem choice, application choice, hardware choice, active development, shorter time to bug fixes, quicker driver development for new hardware, etc, etc. Your choice of Unix like OS really boils down to your particular needs. I would never dream of selecting *BSD for an application just because of its perceived better security track records, especially if it forced me to jump through various hoops to get all of what I need running on and under *BSD. </quote> I understand a lot of what your saying, but in reality I don't think it is that clear cut. I had one server which really didn't play with OpenBSD raid at all and had to use a different OS, but I've seen very little problems in any of what your talking about. I've seen very little of these so called hoops to jump through, I think that's a bit of an over exaggeration, but I guess it all comes down to someone's experience. Also abysmall driver support?? Being in this world a while I could say Linux driver support compared to out the box windows support out the box is abysmal but, other then the odd wireless chipset, this hasn't caused me many problems at all in the past. A few years ago, MySQL performance under FreeBSD was slow and horrid, a lot of corrections and improvements have been made since then. OpenBSD is written a lot better in my opinion and security isn't just a minor issue and one to take lightly. I think it's something like 2 remote holes in the default install a long long time is very very good -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b829e5b.2050...@ionic.co.uk
