kevin.wilcox at gmail.com
Fri Jan 14 19:41:48 UTC 2011
On 14 January 2011 14:19, Tim Daneliuk <tundra at tundraware.com> wrote:
> On 1/14/2011 12:46 PM, Alessandro Baggi wrote:
>> Hi list, I don't want make a flame post but I would ask an objective opinion, then not a camp opinion, about using FreeBSD or Debian Linux in a production environment
< snip >
> IOW, your selection has less to do with the OS kernel and more to do
> with the set of tools, applications, and hardware that surround the OS.
> If all things are equal, I prefer FreeBSD because it has a smaller
> footprint on the hardware and is easier to install/maintain than Linux.
> However, whether we like it or not, there is far more commercial and
> third party support for *some* linux distros (RHEL and SLES).
I agree completely with what Tim has said. I'm not in that large of an
environment (but not terribly far from it) and we run a mix - Windows
for some things, various Linux distributions where it makes sense,
FreeBSD and OpenBSD in other areas. There is never one solution that
fits every scenario in a large environment unless you provide one set
of services and make it a point to specialise on offering those
services on one platform.
> Given what you've told us, if it really does come down to Debian
> or FreeBSD, it sounds like you don't need much in the way of
> third party stuff. In that case, I'd use FreeBSD.
Indeed. From the sound of it, everything he needs is available in
ports and can be broken into roles for management by a combination of
something like puppet and OSSEC (I like the FIM component).
As a general rule, unless Linux is required for hardware support or
because <foo> application runs better on Linux, I'll opt for one of
However, that is MY personal opinion...if everything else is equal and
it's a true toss-up, I'd recommend you go with the OS you're the most
familiar with hardening and managing.
More information about the freebsd-questions