BSD or linux?

[sw2v]

OK.
Yes, it's true that UNIX (we are talking FreeBSD here) is much more faster secure and stable than linux. BUT that has changed since the kernel 2.4.x - linux now performs almost the same (or even better in some cases) as UNIX.
Don't believe me ? Check that link out !?!
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1794...112_moshe.html

P.S. I just think that the quistion here si which exactly BSD to use Free ,Open , Net or BSDi )
What do you people think? Which is best ?

[iNViCTuS]

Just to clear a couple of things up for myself. It really does not matter much which is 'more secure' 99% of security has to do with the user configuration of the box. Also Draziw...it is not possible for a TCP connection to not complete a three-way handshake, and there is no way for something to skip the six lower layers and speak directly to the application layer. For example, IP is a network layer function (layer 3), so it would be impossible to communicate with another machine's IP address without interaction from the network layer. Same goes for all layers. To get to the application layer, it must first go through all the previous 6 layers.

[ThePreacher]

Originally posted here by sw2v
OK.
Yes, it's true that UNIX (we are talking FreeBSD here) is much more faster secure and stable than linux. BUT that has changed since the kernel 2.4.x - linux now performs almost the same (or even better in some cases) as UNIX.
Don't believe me ? Check that link out !?!
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1794...112_moshe.html

P.S. I just think that the quistion here si which exactly BSD to use Free ,Open , Net or BSDi )
What do you people think? Which is best ?

I remember seeing this article a while ago and wanted to ask someone what they thought. As for the Bsd's being more secure than linux, this is only true when concerning openbsd and a completely default installation. As for stability, linux is probably just as stable as BSD, but if you are basing this on the fact that the uptimes on linux boxes arent as high as on bsd boxes, thats because the uptime counter in linux resets after 497 days.

[draziw]

Originally posted here by iNViCTuS
Also Draziw...it is not possible for a TCP connection to not complete a three-way handshake, and there is no way for something to skip the six lower layers and speak directly to the application layer. For example, IP is a network layer function (layer 3), so it would be impossible to communicate with another machine's IP address without interaction from the network layer. Same goes for all layers. To get to the application layer, it must first go through all the previous 6 layers.

Ummm... actually, it's a total of three functional layers - not the seven layer OSI. But, I assure you, this really was a bug in the early days of the Linux 2.x kernel - yes, you still had to interact on a physical layer, but the network layer would inadvertantnly pass things to the application layer (ie. poor state table handling). I'll see if I can pull some references for you...

[Snake_Byte]

BSD is the better choice but love my solaris

[the_JinX]

BSD = slower then linux.

Linux can access hardware directly thrue the kernel.
BSD uses stack 4 evrything..

takes more processor cycles to do the same thing..

and linux could be as tight / secure as BSD...
just most distro's aren't

[str34m3r]

Seven Layers: Physical Layer, Data Link Layer, Network Layer, Transport Layer, Session Layer, Presentation Layer, Application Layer

Four Layers: Network Access Layer, Internet Layer, Host-to-Host Layer, Process Layer

I don't know about this whole three layer thing.

If you really get down to it, it's all a matter of semantics anyway. It's just that people like to group things in an attempt to make things simpler.

At any rate, I agree that the default install of most linux distributions (such as redhat) has too many services running. This is why I use the "257 install" when ever I install a system at work. It's a custom install of RedHat 7.2 with all package groups unchecked. When it finishes, it has exactly one port open - sendmail, and it's only available locally. Then I can manually install exactly what is needed on the system. It's a whole lot easier to manage all those services if they're not even installed in the first place.

[KorpDeath]

Originally posted here by the_JinX
BSD = slower then linux.

Linux can access hardware directly thrue the kernel.
BSD uses stack 4 evrything..

takes more processor cycles to do the same thing..

and linux could be as tight / secure as BSD...
just most distro's aren't

I think you've been rollin' 'em too tight. I just loaded up my second box with BSD, it happens to be my backup server also. Upon installation I had to recompile the kernel to support my SCSI card. I thinkyou meant to say BSD will always be faster than linux.

[hogfly]

korp: you will be pleased to know I went over this with JinX in irc today, he is partially correct as of that article and the 2.4.x kernels,
although that has more to do with load balancing/handling than speed. I have thusfar been impressed with bsd and its ability to perform.

[KorpDeath]

Hardware support in the kernel is not a new idea, and you don't have Linux to thank for it. Simply put.....the_Jinx is way off base here. Treading in unfamiliar territory, are we?

Linux will have to mature significantly to reach the BSD level. I'm a firm believer in the 'stable' release. Linux has yet to overcome the "flavor of month" syndrome.

IMHO.