[ale] RedHat Enterprise vs. FreeBSD

[Jeff Lightner]

Mostly work on Linux and UNIX here.  One of the things I liked about
FreeBSD was that in fairly quick order I was able to find out ways to do
some things.  One of the coolest was finding an easy way to bundle up an
installed package on one server so that the bundle could be used as a
package to install on another server.  At the time I'd done nothing on
FreeBSD so feared it would take days to figure out even if it were
possible.

Probably possible with RHEL Linux rpm and UNIX (HP-UX swpkg for example)
but not quite so easily done from the times I've needed to do it in a
hurry.

My one gripe about FreeBSD is the fact it uses some old style init
script stuff so sometimes tracking down what actually kicked of some
automated task takes some digging.  

I'm a lot more comfortable with RHEL but mainly due to having installed
it several times.   The FreeBSD stuff here was installed before I got
here.

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
To: ale at ale.org
Christopher Fowler
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:26 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: Re: [ale] RedHat Enterprise vs. FreeBSD

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(tm)-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(tm)-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

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale