[ale] RedHat Enterprise vs. FreeBSD

[KingBahamut]

My only gripe about BSD (cvsup is a cool deal , much like apt-get is in
Ubuntu/Debian) is the installer is somewhat antiquated. If your familiar
with Redhat , id stay with it. Honestly, Id ask for ubuntu conversion but ,
that might be unrealistic PJ. =)


On 8/16/06, Eichler, Paula J. (CDC/OCOO/ITSO) <pja0 at cdc.gov> wrote:
>
>  Thanks for the replies, guys.  I will have to do more research into the
> tools you describe.  I am pretty familiar with how RedHat works, but I have
> never used a BSD installation.  RHEL seems pretty straightforward to patch,
> but I was told that FreeBSD was easier to maintain.  I need to know why and
> sound like I know what I am talking about ;) ...pj
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] *On Behalf Of *fd0man??The
> Magical Floppy Man
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:37 PM
> *To:* Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> *Subject:* Re: [ale] RedHat Enterprise vs. FreeBSD
>
> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 13:51 -0400, Eichler, Paula J. (CDC/OCOO/ITSO)
> wrote:
>
> Can anyone point me to any comparison documentation on RedHat Enterprise
> and FreeBSD?  Firsthand experience is relevant, as well.  Specifically, I am
> interested in the advantage either one has over the other in installation,
> maintenance/patch management and ease of hardening.  Thanks ..pj
>
> I have no first-hand experience with RHEL, however, I do have experience
> with FreeBSD and Linux in general, in many forms.  The best advantage that I
> can say for FreeBSD is the easy to use *file system snapshots*functionality, which eases the back-up process, providing
> on-line backups for UFS2 file systems in any arrangement,<http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/snapshots.html>and is even integrated with the "dump" utility.  Linux supports file system
> snapshots as best as I can tell for the XFS file system, but only if LVM is
> used.  I have never used a system with LVM on it, nor the XFS file system,
> so somebody else would be better equipped to tell you more about that.
>
> Other than that, FreeBSD is about as easy to install as Slackware or older
> versions of Red Hat, and after it is set up is not that hard to get up and
> running.  There are many ways to harden the system, including OPIE (One-time
> Passwords In Everything), and various IP filtering capabilities are
> available.  It is a well thought out system, and has excellent reference
> documentation that is available for the current releases.
>
> Not to sound like Linux is bad?it is far from it.  However, I have found
> that I rather like FreeBSD if I need to set up a server very quickly for
> someone and it needs to be reliable, secure, and easy for them to
> administer.  Of course, your mileage may vary.  However, I think that the
> very easy to set-up and use filesystem snapshots are an invaluable thing to
> have, and they are the reason that I have chosen FreeBSD over Linux for
> production servers.
>
>     ? Mike
>
> --
>   The fd0man??The Magical Floppy Man! (fd0man at gmail.com) *"One world, one
> web, one program"  ?Microsoft promotional ad *
> *"**Ein** Volk, **ein** Reich, **ein** Fuehrer"  ?Adolf Hitler *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
>


-- 
KingBahamut
http://doc.gwos.org - Definitive Ubuntu Documentation
"I could tell you the probability, but you wouldnt like it."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...