Distro comparison

[josephc at etards.net (josephc at etards.net)]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, David Kramer wrote:

> As I've said, I need to upgrade my server's software.  I'm just done with 
> Red Hat.  I've been using Red Hat on my server since version 4.0, but they 
> finally pushed me over the edge.  My decision is a tough one, because my 
> box is both my firewall/server and my workstation, so the mix of software 
> is a little different than what most people need.

Can I ask what exactly you dislike about Red Hat? The most common 
complaint I hear is dependency issues, but up2date and apt4rpm have all 
but eliminated that concern.

> FreeBSD would be the greatest departure from Red Hat.  It would also offer a 
> cleaner kernel and possibly more efficient operation.  The ports system 
> seems better than RPM's because I hate binary databases for system 
> configuration.  I wish I knew more about FreeBSD, but what I've read about 
> it I like.
> Questions:
> - Are ports for new versions of software generally available soon after
>   release?

Yes and no. Popular software is generally ported within days. The more 
obscure, though, the longer you'll have to wait.

> - How different is it to maintain than Linux?

Not very. There is almost no SysV relation (which, despite claims to the 
contrary, does have some influence on Linux).

> - Is all the talk about extra security and stability a bunch of crap?  I
>   know it certainly used to be true, but is it still true?
> 

It really is rock solid. Linux is more cutting edge, while FreeBSD is 
tried and true. That's why hardware support tends to be months or even 
years behind linux. That's not to say I have a FreeBSD box with more than 
a year between reboots. In fact, people who boast about that are probably 
running the most insecure systems not named Windows. You'll be a little 
thrown the first time you recompile the entire OS, rather than just the 
kernel.