BSD or linux? - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: BSD or linux?

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    16
    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 ?

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    458
    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.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    689

    Post

    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.
    Wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.
    --Ecclesiastes 10:19

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    712
    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...
    \"Windows has detected that a gnat has farted in the general vicinity. You must reboot for changes to take affect. Reboot now?\"

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    64
    BSD is the better choice but love my solaris

  6. #16
    Leftie Linux Lover the_JinX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Beverwijk Netherlands
    Posts
    2,535
    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
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI.
    When in Russia, pet a PETSCII.

    Get your ass over to SLAYRadio the best station for C64 Remixes !

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    425
    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.

  8. #18
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628

    Exsqueeze me??

    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.

    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  9. #19
    Computer Forensics
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    672
    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.
    Antionline in a nutshell
    \"You\'re putting the fate of the world in the hands of a bunch of idiots I wouldn\'t trust with a potato gun\"

    Trust your Technolust

  10. #20
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    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.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides