freeBSD and Linux and windows... how?

Hi all,
I am faced with dilemma and googling since morning but can't decide , so putting my question here.
I have got all new 120 GB hard disk, and after loading windows XP, i am left with 50 GB free space.
Now i have latest version of freeBSD( never used free BSD before) and linux( both mandrake and Suse). now i want to learn more about ( to increase my knowledge) OS and network security and so on. So can't decide that do i install both of them, and if i do , how to use this existing space in best way?

now 2nd question:
I have single PC, this one, no current access to any network for lab practice, so how do I improve my skills about various tools and commands and other things considering I have DSL broadband connection? any suggestion.

This question is little debateful if i think right:

Out of freeBSD and Linux(any popular flavour) which one is best for learning purposes and then user purposes, as i found this on internet:

http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html

I used to run windows and linux... Then I started using FreeBSD.. When I got used to FreeBSD I ditched linux.. The ports system on FreeBSD rocks! Want to install apache? Just cd /usr/ports/www/apache and issue make all install.. Everything you need will get fetched and build..

Fbsd and linux both have the same look and feel eventhough they're different "under the hood"... You can run most (if not all) applications available for Linux on FreeBSD (natively).. You can even run linux binaries on FreeBSD..

One side note though.. AFAIK Nvidia are the only ones that support FreeBSD.. So if you want hardware accelerated 3D in Xorg/XFree86 you're stuck with NVidia..


If it was me I'd stick with windows and FreeBSD..

Some pointers you might need:

FreeBSD Handbook
Freshports Everything you wanted to know about the ports that are available..

when working on a windows box for testing - i just run them all in vmware. you just need the disk space & mem capacity. the benefit is you can save snapshots and totally nuke the VM OS and return to normal in under 1 minute.

as far as learning - i personally prefer FreeBSD.

IMO, I don't think it's such a good idea to install both. If your planning on learning them, wouldn't it be better if you install one of them, learn all you can about it (atleast until you get fed up with it) and then shift over to the other OS. I mean ... between linux and FBSD, not windows. If your just starting out, you'll need windows.

thanks all for support, so its decided I am going to install freeBSD, and as i have nvidia card so that won't be problem.

Have a question though, i have DSl broadband but my ISP supplied me with USB based ZyXel Prestige 630 modem , which don't have drivers for linux. i had found drivers for it on sourceforge.net,( still use them), but don't know if they will work on freeBSD. Any ideas how to make it work? It uses PPoE.

Once again thanks for support. :-)

My suggestion is to install Windows/Linux and then get Vmware installed. You can install FreeBsd or
any other Os as a client Os using Vmware. Most people talk about buying pcs and creating a LAN
to learn about network security. Vmware allows you to create virtual networks with the various
client Os's . Currently i have a network consisting of two virtual boxes running FreeBsd and Whoppix and the host box running Xp.

www.vmware.com

For those who use vmware, does this software can (nearly) completely imitate a real lab if I install 2 or 3 different OS on it ? For if it can than i can have real benefit of lab enviroment to practice network skills.

Yeah dude ! .... Thats what i was talking about. You can run lots of virtual boxes at a time.
The number of virtual boxes will ofcourse will depend on the power of the host box. And
they COMPLETELY respond as if they were in a real network

pack as much memory as you can in the box. VMWare uses 256M per OS. A good rule of thumb is 256 x each OS + the host OS.

I am running my "Nix" machines within MS Virtual Machine. MS Virtual Machine assignes each VM 128MB of RAM. It can be adjusted, but as mentioned earlier, you need as much RAM as you can stuff into your real box. You can send and recieve data from the real (Host) machine and the virtual machines. I have found that your software firewall will treat the virtual machines as if they are real attackers. I am sure you would have the same results with VMWare. I would suggest a minimum of 512 MB and atleast a 2 GB proc. I'm proud of my machines.

I will attach a .jpg image of the console.

Just an added note...I managed to get all of the various distro's installed and now I need to learn how to use them. I will admit that my favorite is FreeBSD, but as far as ease of install, I have to say that SuSE was the simplest. I have an AMD/Via based system and drivers are an issue. Virtaul machines can prove to be a great learning environment!

i just tried out the new redhat enterprise linux ws 4.x ( i know - i am a late bloomer!). a very nice commercial OS.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Clp727
I would suggest a minimum of 512 MB and atleast a 2 GB proc. I'm proud of my machines.

---

When did they invent processors with 2GB of cache? That is absolutely amazing.

I'm bored and I'm high, dangerouse words if you run a bullshit talking web page like this:

http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html



Let me see here:








Reliability ;

FreeBSD


FreeBSD is extremely robust. There are numerous testimonials of active servers with uptimes measured in years. The new Soft Updates1 file system optimizes disk I/O for high performance, yet still ensures reliability for transaction based applications, such as databases.



Linux

Linux is well known for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or power failure. But for the average user, Linux is a very dependable OS.




Nice to see they leave **** up for what 5 years? Nto liek the info has changed right?











Performance ;

FreeBSD

FreeBSD is the system of choice for high performance network applications. FreeBSD will outperform other systems when running on equivalent hardware. The largest and busiest public server on the Internet, at ftp.freesoftware.com, uses FreeBSD to serve more than 1.2TB/day of downloads. FreeBSD is used by Yahoo!, Qwest and many others as their main server OS because of its ability to handle heavy network traffic with high performance and rock solid reliability.





Linux


Linux performs well for most applications, however the performance is not optimal under heavy network load. The network performance of Linux is 20-30% below the capacity of FreeBSD running on the same hardware 2. The situation has improved somewhat recently and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel will introduce a new virutual memory system based on the same concepts as the FreeBSD VM system. Since both operating systems are open source, beneficial technologies are shared and for this reason the performance of Linux and FreeBSD is rapidly converging.





Uhhhh huh....









Security

FreeBSD

FreeBSD has been the subject of a massive auditing project for several years. All of the critical system components have been checked and rechecked for security-related errors. The entire system is open source so the security of the system can and has been verified by third parties. A default FreeBSD installation has yet to be affected by a single CERT security advisory in 2000.3

FreeBSD also has the notion of kernel security levels. These are much more powerful than simple run-levels since they allow the administrator to completely deny access to certain operating system functions such as reading /dev/mem, changing file system flags, or writing to disks without mounting a filesystem.

FreeBSD includes a very robust packet filtering firewall system and many intrusion detection tools.






Linux


The open source nature of Linux allows anyone to inspect the security of the code and make changes, but in reality the Linux codebase is modified too rapidly by inexperienced programmers. There is no formal code review policy and for this reason Linux has been suceptible to nearly every Unix-based CERT advisory of the year. This problem is compounded by the fact that distributions like Red Hat tend to turn on notoriously insecure services by default.

However, Linux does include a very robust packet filtering firewall system and many intrusion detection tools.





The open source thing is good for Free BSD because everyone sees it, yet Linux isn't as secure because everyone sees it?.... Good to see they consider every version of Linux "Linux"...






Filesystem



FreeBSD

FreeBSD uses the UFS (Unix File System), which is a little more complex than Linux's ext2. It offers a better way to insure filesystem data integrity, mainly with the "sofupdates" option. This option decreases synchronous I/O and increases asynchronous I/O because writes to a UFS filesystem aren't synced on a sector basis but according to the filesystem structure. This ensures that the filesystem is always coherent between two updates.

The FreeBSD filesystem also supports file flags, which can stop a would-be intruder dead in his or her tracks. There are several flags that you can add to a file such as the immutable flag. The immutable (schg) flag won't allow any alteration to the file or directory unless you remove it. Other very handy flags are append only (sappnd), cannot delete (sunlnk), and archive (arch). When you combine these with the kernel security level option, you have a very impenetrable system.






Linux

The Linux ext2 filesystem gets its performance from having an asynchronous mount. You can mount FreeBSD UFS filesystems as asynchronous but this is very dangerous and no seasoned Unix admin would do this. It's amazing that Linux is designed this way by default. Often a hard carsh permanently damages a mount. FreeBSD or Solaris can sustain a very hard crash with only minor data loss, and the filesystem will be remountable with few problems.

There are several new journaling filesystems in development for Linux that will fix some of these issues, but these will not be ready for the 2.4 release of Linux.



It won't be ready for 2.4??? Hmmm, oh look at that this lying **** said it won't yet my 2.4 Kernel on my laptop is using a journaled file system! Oh and Debian does too!....







Device Drivers


FreeBSD

The FreeBSD bootloader can load binary drivers at boot-time. This allows third-party driver manufacturers to distribute binary-only driver modules that can be loaded into any FreeBSD system. Due to the open-source nature of FreeBSD, it is very easy to develop device drivers for new hardware. Unfortunately, most device-manufacturers will only release binaries for Microsoft operating systems. This means that it can take several months after a hardware device has hit the market until a device driver is available.




Linux

The Linux community intentionally makes it difficult for hardware manufacturers to release binary-only drivers. This is meant to encourage hardware manufactureres to develop open-source device drivers. Unfortunately most vendors have been unwilling to release the source for their drivers so it is very difficult for Linux users to use vendor supplied drivers at all.






You have GOT to be shitting me. Free BSD has more hardware support than Linux my ****ing ass. The paper I've been writing about BSD and Slackware, I had to change machiens for testing because Free BSD couldn't find the damn hardware in it even though Linux runs great on that box.




Commercial Applications





FreeBSD

There are many, many gigabytes of FREE software available for FreeBSD. FreeBSD includes thousands of software packages and an extensive ports collection, all with complete source code. Many people consider the FreeBSD Ports collection to be the most accessible and easiest to use library of free software packages available anywhere.






Linux

Many new commercial applications are available for Linux, and more are being developed. Unfortunately, Linux can only run binaries that are specifically compiled for Linux. It is unable to run programs compiled for FreeBSD, SCO Unix, or other popular operating systems.


Yea, it's not like WINE has been around for years and years....








Development environment


FreeBSD

FreeBSD includes an extensive collection of development tools. You get a complete C/C++ development system (editor, compiler, debugger, profiler, etc.) and powerful Unix development tools for Java, HTTP, Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, Awk, Sed, etc. All of these are free, and are included in the basic FreeBSD installation. All come with full source code.





Linux

Linux includes all the same development tools as FreeBSD, with compilers and interpreters for every common programming language, all the GNU programs, including the powerful GNU C/C++ Compiler, Emacs editor, and GDB debugger. Unfortunately due to the very splintered nature of Linux, applications that you compile on one system (Red Hat 7) may not work on another Linux system (Slackware).




WTF was this dude on????? If I download the source for XMMS, I can compile and install it on Slackware AND RedHat......




Development infrastructure



FreeBSD

FreeBSD is an advanced BSD Unix operating system. The source code for the entire system is available in a centralized source code repository running under CVS. A large team (200+) of senior developers has write access to this repository and they coordinate development by reviewing and commiting the best changes of the development community at large. FreeBSD is engineered to find elegant solutions for overall goals, rather than quick hacks to add new functionality.





Linux

Linux is a Unix-like kernel that must be combined with the GNU system to make a complete operating system. Linux does not use any version control system so all bug-fixes and enhancements must be emailed back and forth on mailing lists and ultimately submitted to the one person (Linus) who has authority to commit the code to the tree. Due to the overwhelming amount of code that gets written, it is impossible for one person to adequately quality control all of the pending changes. For this reason there is a lot of code in Linux that was hastily written and would never have been accepted into a more conservative operating system.



A more conservative OS?...... You have to be kidding.







Support



FreeBSD

Several organizations, including BSDi, offer a wide range of support options for FreeBSD. In addition to 24x7 professional support, there is a large amount of free, informal support available through Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists, such as [email protected]. Once a problem is found, source code patches are often available within a few hours.





Linux


Many organizations provide professional support for Linux. All the major Linux vendors offer some level of support, and several offer full 24/7 service. There are many forums where Linux questions are answered for free, such as newsgroups and mailing lists. As a last resort, you can always use the source to track down and fix a problem yourself.



Heh funny, I remember today checking my mail, Free BSD had 8 security flaws. SUSE had 2... I've read this and he tried fabricating the greatness of Free BSD to look better than Linux which is of course ****, because Free BSD is about as ready for the desktop as a hooker is for an AIDS test.

Quote:

---

This document was prepared by Bob Bruce and Murray Stokely, with input from Matt Dillon, Nathan dude, and many others.

---

From that web link you posted earlier Gore,
I would guess and say that they themselves run FreeBSD and is just giving their sides of the story.
As for many of us here that have tried many OS's, we have all basically agreed that it is up to the individual to make the system as secure, reliable, dependable...etc. as it can be.
Seems those that have written that web site either needs to better understand the other OS's they are comparing, or need to update thier comparisons. Those comparisons are basically just opinions anyway and should not be taken seriously.
Any system is a great system if you know what to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by PeasleeR
When did they invent processors with 2GB of cache? That is absolutely amazing.

---

Oops! That should be 2 GHz. Sorry about that.

IMHO, load linux, although I still don't advocate multiple OSs on a single drive. ( I like separating them on physical drives, at least until you know what you are doing. Find a used six or ten gig drive, hell, even a two if that is all you can find. )

Again, this is for your learning purposes. I am not advocating one over the other for any other specific uses.

There is more information and help available for Linux then you could possibly absorb. Stay away from anything to do with SELinux until you have a full working knowledge of the OS ( as evidenced of the very recent debacle with the Fedore Core 3 targeted policy. )

As Gore said ( somewhere ) that Linux is more user friendly as a workstation ( I think that was in there :) I liked the comparisons! )

Once you have a good working knowledge of Linux, you can experiment with FreeBSD, and have a better appreciation of it. Again, both have their uses and strong points.

( BTW, As for the relevance of the linked reference to today's available operating systems, did anyone check out the date last modified? My browser indicates

Quote:

---

Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:32:27 PM

---

)

I do wonder why Linux would be more "userfriendly". Both Linux and Freebsd use X.org, KDE/GNOME etc... With a running X you can't even tell one from the other.. You'll have to open an xterm and type uname -a to know which is which..

But, for educational purposes, try both.. See which one you like.. I know which one I like :D

Getting X running on Free BSD VS Linux, heh, THAT is one difference. Just for arguement:

SUSE Linux boots up and finds your hardware and loads X for you. Free BSD boots up without X, you have to configure it by hand, and you nee to know all your hardware, for a newbie this not easy.

Most Linux distros have a configuration tool of some sort, free SD uses text files. /stand/sysinstall is all you get in BSD.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore

Most Linux distros have a configuration tool of some sort, free SD uses text files. /stand/sysinstall is all you get in BSD.

---

yup. thats true. but he wants to learn "UNIX" right? if you want to learn unix, IMHO, the first thing you need to do is stay away from X. learn how to use the CLI. there is nothing worse than a Linux/UNIX guy who can't do basic things line move folders or search for files without the aid of a GUI.

a cool book,

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTi...471164836.html

google for it or get is from a discount cheapie book store. worth every penny.

Sorry this is kind of newbish but what is freeBSD?

This will help you more, as I have learnt a lot from here from new user point of view to know what it is all about

http://www.freebsd.org/

Yeah Thanks man

So ambitious!

Why not slap Solaris 10 x86 on there someplace too... :)

Yea... what about slap openbsd and netbsd too :) http://www.openbsd.org, <a rel="nofo...etbsd.org</a>. BSD family is my fav.. :cool:

sweet_angel , and others;

Quote:

---

Yea... what about slap openbsd and netbsd too www.openbsd.org, www.netbsd.org. BSD family is my fav..

---

I believe this was for learning purposes of someone who has little or no experience with *nix, just has copies.

Again, I would suggest a second OS be put on a separate hard drive ( I like making the *nix hard drive the primary; after installing the M$ OS on the primary master, change that drive to a primary slave, make the *nix drive the primary master and boot from that using GRUB or Lilo, which ever is available. This can cause certain problems when attempting to boot into safe mode on the M$ drive, but also somewhat protects the boot sequence from M$ based attacks when using that OS. ) ***

*** Oh, I just realized, that has never ( AFAIK ) been discussed before here ( or anywhere else. ) Anyone care to comment on this?

And I would still suggest Linux. Solely because of the available documentation.

BSDs are nice. Useable, reliable, etc. But as Gore pointed out, not necessarily for the novice. And not ready for the desktop. Better to start with a GUI, learn what they can, learn they can do pretty much the same thing with a little more knowledge from the command line, then start using the system solely from the command line. Then, once they can control the system and do exactly what they want from the command line they can then have an appreciation of a true UNIX system. They can then migrate.

GUIs are nice for the desktop. No, more then that, they are mandatory.

GUIs are nice for network management. But here, they are not mandatory, just convenient.

GUIs are convenient for managing servers, firewalls, etc., but are obstacles for security.

Every service a network runs places more possibilities for an exploit or vulnerability.

In the same vain, every service a network perimeter runs also places more possibilities for an exploit or vulnerability.

My point in the context of this thread? No different then anywhere else. A newbie to *nix has to become acclimated to the Operating system first, then become cognizant of controlling the systems, then of its possible minimalist applications. Learning this the old way, when GUIs didn't exist, took years to master the structures and nuances of an OS. With the advantage today of the GUI, one can learn the structures, then turn to a shell ( even within a GUI ) to learn the nuances. Once learned ( again, I believe Linux is much better documented for this ) can abandon the GUI and control the system completely absent a GUI. At that point, learning a *BSD variant should be no problem.

Just my thoughts on the matter.