[ale] RedHat Enterprise vs. FreeBSD
Christopher Fowler
cfowler at outpostsentinel.com
Wed Aug 16 15:26:11 EDT 2006
PcBSD. It uses KDE and I'm am familiar with gnome
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 14:17 -0500, KingBahamut wrote:
> 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, 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."
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
More information about the Ale
mailing list