[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: how to convince that debian is one the three major choices for a stable server environment?

> 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.

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.

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

Reply to: