If you have an option, which one do you choose?

R

Reyner

Verified User
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
63
Hello all,

I'm collecting information on which OS would be most recommended on DA for:
1. stability
2. security
3. upgradeability
4. speed

Would you choose FreeBSD over RedHat 9.0 or vice versa or any other OS perhaps? And if it's not too much trouble, would you include your reason or experience if you have one?

Thank you very much!

Reyner
 
We personally use ONLY Redhat Enterprise 3.0 for our managed dedicated servers at the moment, and may well be considering debian once DA supports it.

I'm not going to compare with FBSD, since I dont use it nor do I have any extensive knowledge of it.

In my opinion, RHEL3.0 covers all 4 of them points, although we have another few years until we see how it really handles the upgradeability part - if its anything like the RH9 > fedora upgrade, or better I certainly wont be complaining :)

Chris
 
Chris,

Thank you for the input and I really appreciate it. So, would you recommend the AS or the ES version?

Best regards,

Reyner
 
We use ES, AS appears simply overkill for what we want - we certainly dont use systems running 16 CPU's and 64GB of RAM.

Chris
 
Apparently, FreeBSD is more secure out-of-the-box than a lot of linux distros. That's just what I've gathered from general opinion.

I'm quite happily running RedHat 9. When the FreeBSD version of DA has been out a little longer, or when they release a version for Debian, I'll consider that for new servers.

Matt :)
 
Thanks a lot thoroughfare. I heard the same thing too regarding freebsd. And thanks for the recommendation on the AS/ES version Chris.

I heard about Debian a lot lately. Is there something special about it?

Best regards,

Reyner
 
Nothing special particularly, it's just a well-designed and very stable distro. I use it on my backup server.

Debian tends to sacrifice cutting-edge technology for stability - which is good for most server environments. You can choose how cutting-edge you want it to be... there are stable, testing an unstable branches available. Also, the package management is excellent using apt-get.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-basic_defs.en.html#s-difference

Hope that helps,
Matt :)
 
I am currently using FreeBSD 5.2.1 with DA. It's stable (you might as well say rock-solid), fast, easy to upgrade and secure.
 
I read FreeBSD book yesterday and I must say, everything is very similar to Linux. One thing I really like is the security history and the core team that maintains the kernel. I am also surprised that there are a lot of applications out there for FreeBSD! Patching seems to be very easy and practical. I think I will have FreeBSD server very soon.

Thanks for the tip wdv!

Best regards,

Reyner
 
thoroughfare said:
Apparently, FreeBSD is more secure out-of-the-box than a lot of linux distros. That's just what I've gathered from general opinion.
Click to expand...
It is. But it's no more secure "out-of-the-box" than RHEL, and all Linuxes are easy to secure and to keep secure.
I'm quite happily running RedHat 9.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything in place for keeping it up to date now that Red Hat no longer supplies security updates? We use Progeny Transition Service as we find that the volunteer Fedora Legacy effort just doesn't produce everything in a timely manner (we use it for RHL 7.3, not for RHL 9).
When the FreeBSD version of DA has been out a little longer,
Click to expand...
We studied FreeBSD for a while and decided it was just different enough from Linux that at the time we decided we didn't want to switch base OSes that readily.

Jeff
 
Do you have anything in place for keeping it up to date now that Red Hat no longer supplies security updates? We use Progeny Transition Service as we find that the volunteer Fedora Legacy effort just doesn't produce everything in a timely manner (we use it for RHL 7.3, not for RHL 9).
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm using Progeny for my workstation and the server, for RedHat 9. I modified their Perl script a bit to update things automagically.

We studied FreeBSD for a while and decided it was just different enough from Linux that at the time we decided we didn't want to switch base OSes that readily.
Click to expand...

For me it doesn't make much difference, I've only been using Linux for a few months and I have plenty of free time after July to test different OSes. My administration company is fully competent in FreeBSD though. Generally, they do most admin tasks but I'll do the odd job like simple installs, checking logs, non-mission critical stuff. For example, I've recompiled my kernel at home with GRSecurity with no problems, but I wouldn't want to do it on my servers because I wouldn't feel comfortable adminning a production server myself. It works out well. Anyway, to cut it short - switching to FreeBSD wouldn't be much of a problem for me.

Matt :)
 
My vote is Debian or FreeBSD for "SERVER" with these reason

1. The definition of "SERVER" means a real production machine, less or non graphic (which consume less resources ie. memory, cpu than graphical server) Most are operate 24/7 with zero or near zero down time. Some will place in server room not developer desktop, some will place in datacenter with ssh or vnc for remote access.

2. Debian cost me 0 (zero) = Totally free.

3. If you want something easy to installation I recommended to choose Microsoft Windows.

4. If you love to pay your money for make a sweet dream I recommended RedHat Enterprise Linux AS with 24/7 support 15 minute response time or MS Windows.

6. I suggest you to read all of below article

6.1 http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian
6.2 http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3334021
6.3 http://www.debianplanet.org/node.php?id=831
6.4
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7314

I also recommend FreeBSD if you don't have a plan to work with Oracle(for Linux) or BEA WebLogic (for Linux) or other "PAID" software vendor who try to get a money from Linux.
 
Goteddy,

As long as you realize that Debian is not supported by DA at this time.

Jeff
 
goteddy said:
My vote is Debian or FreeBSD for "SERVER" with these reason
Click to expand...

In my opinion, none of those reasons are FBSD / Debian specific, and dont at all give a reason for choosing them over the variety of other distros available.

goteddy said:
1. The definition of "SERVER" means a real production machine, less or non graphic (which consume less resources ie. memory, cpu than graphical server) Most are operate 24/7 with zero or near zero down time. Some will place in server room not developer desktop, some will place in datacenter with ssh or vnc for remote access.
Click to expand...

go lookup the definition of server, I think you will find things such as "real production" and "non graphic" are in no way associated with the word, or the purpose of a "server"

goteddy said:
2. Debian cost me 0 (zero) = Totally free.
Click to expand...

As is Fedora, WBEL, FBSD, knoppix, suse, slackware etc etc....

goteddy said:
3. If you want something easy to installation I recommended to choose Microsoft Windows.
Click to expand...

I really cant see how any one can pick a servers OS based on the initial installation only..... consider this:

30 minute install - reboot required daily
45 minute install - reboot required.... generally only when you update the kernel or the power supply dies!

In my opinion, installation of redhat / fedora / wbel / debian is just as easy as windows anyway... its pretty much press ok a couple of times :)

Chris
 
jlasman said:
As long as you realize that Debian is not supported by DA at this time.
Click to expand...

That's why "If I have an option, which one do I choose?"

I'd like to add "my opinion" from my point of view about Linux Distro. I'd like to choose for me. I think everybody has their own reason for choose OS for themself. (Including Mr.Gate who chooses Windows for himself)

1. I want OS which easy to install in text mode. I saw www.distrowatch.com talked about some Linux distro has a default installation in graphic mode from www.distrowatch.com So, it hardly to do "press ok a couple of times" you need to "click ok a couple of times" ;)

2. I don't want XFree or something to waste my harddisk space. I saw somebody install "default linux distro" and it consumes 500MB+ just for os. While some distro [like debian] use only 80MB for be come a LAMP server. I agree with somebody who will say "who care about 80MB or 500MB since I can buy 120GB harddisk" That's fine, I just share my experience.

3. I'm not an expert I only do like expert did. I look at the website in each distro find a pro/con for each distro and looking for their reference which's give me my personal choice

4. Most of famous distro when you buy dedicate server are Red Hat, FreeBSD, Debian. Some of you might say my provider provide kuppix or slackware. This's fine for you if you feel comfortable to use them.

5. I think most of Linux's user want to spend their money wisly. So for myself, I can't afford $$$$ RHEL AS/ES. I prefer to spend $299 for DA instead of pricey OS.

Again, these are my opinion would like to share with you and I don't want to point to any distro for bad Linux. Becasue everything has a pro/con for itself. (Including my opinion has a pro/con for itself)

Please give me a DA for Debian pretty soon. :D
 
Yes, Debian is very portable and small. It seems to be very practical too! Thank you for sharing Goteddy.

And yes, I hope that you will get the DA version for debian soon (I am sure that our wonderful DA programmers are preparing it). :)

Best regards,

Reyner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top