Linux vs. FreeBSD

[FreeOnes]

Which one do you like better for a webserver?
Also give your comments on which version you specially prefer.

[bringer]

freebsd 4.9

[Manansala]

I like both coz I use both. My FreeBSD machines makes coffee while my Linux machine makes beer. Also, my FreeBSD machine can now make tea as well.

[darksoul]

why make another thread for this.
known fact freebsd is the shit.

[xclusive]

I like linux i'm familure with it

[darksoul]

I'm a failure with it too.
thing is, if you didn't worked with them both you can't really
tell which one is better.

[ytcracker]

freebsd no fucking questions

[Showman]

FreeBSD is my choice.

[FreeOnes]

bizz thread bump

[spideriux]

For me linux !

[calmlikeabomb]

Well, for a webserver I like apache.

I don't know what you guys are smoking, but I'll take some.

I use Fedora Core 2 (new red hat) opertating system.

[hydro]

Freebsd all the way

[PornGeneral]

Webserver = Zeus
OS = Linux

I will use either CentOS or Debian.

FreeBSD is a really good OS. I've used them both.

[fris]

freebsd is a server os. 4.x

built tough.

[UniversalPass Pete]

Freebsd!

[adultguus]

FreeBSD puts a little less load on the server than most Linux versions. I use FreeBSD 4.11 for my servers myself. I would say it's much better than the almost commercial Linux distributions like RedHat, but a little better or equal too a distribution like Debian. I like the ports system in FreeBSD, but I guess it all depends on which OS you're used too.

For a webserver I would also rather take Apache ;)

[the alchemist]

FreeBSD for servers, Debian for desktops/workstations

[FreeOnes]

Well, for a webserver I like apache.

I don't know what you guys are smoking, but I'll take some.

I use Fedora Core 2 (new red hat) opertating system.

Anyone running FreeBSD version 5 on a production server?
Is it good or bad?

[boldy]

Freebsd SMP sucks, threading sucks, SCSI support under high load sucks. ports are outdated. Firewire, usb support sucks, HCL is old ... for the rest is an okay system is you know how to get around these problems ..

Linux is my choice but you already knew that ...

[FreeOnes]

Some more votes would be nice, but I understand though that most of you prefer to post crap.

[sjoerdv]

I use SuSE Linux for servers without controlpanel and Fedora for servers with controlpanel.

[woj]

freebsd

[Shaze]

Well, for a webserver I like apache.

I don't know what you guys are smoking, but I'll take some.

I use Fedora Core 2 (new red hat) opertating system.

you know what he meant smart ass! just pulling your leg.

i've tried both and i don't have a preference although i'm running on linux now.

[Moose]

Linux = Pinto (for you young fucks on gfy its a real shitty car..but still got you there.)

Freebsd = Viper. nuff said.

[PHPdude]

freebsb would probally be the better choice i recon.

[Der Schleicher]

I think its where are youmore comfortable to use.

[elmy]

linux #1

[Tipsy]

Freebsd for use on a server box, linux for home/other use

[PbG]

FreeBSD4.xR

[Prof.Dr. Den]

free bsd all the way

[broke]

Well, for a webserver I like apache.

[fuzebox]

Linux = Pinto (for you young fucks on gfy its a real shitty car..but still got you there.)

Freebsd = Viper. nuff said.

Linux is a dude on a skateboard. FreeBSD is a twin turbo Hummer with a canon mounted on the roof...

[fuzebox]

Freebsd for use on a server box, linux for home/other use

Agreed, I stubbornly tried to run FreeBSD as a desktop for well over a year, but in the end the lack of support for newer hardware got to me. Running Fedora on my desktop, FreeBSD on my servers.

[http]

Never used FreeBSD and satisfied with Centos 3.3

I am well aware that FreeBSD is "in" but I wonder if FreeBSD w/ ports is indeed better than Centos w/ yum

Half of the FreeBSD crowd has prolly never used a decent Linux distro such as Centos, or compared ports with yum

[fuzebox]

Half of the FreeBSD crowd has prolly never used a decent Linux distro such as Centos, or compared ports with yum

99% of the FreeBSD crowd had several years of Linux experience behind them before they made the switch.

It's pretty hard to compare ports to yum on a technical level, given that the two are complete different methods of managing your software... Besides, yum is still catching up to apt isn't it?

[slipkid]

I prefer freebsd for servers. Using 4.11 version currently

[swedguy]

I prefer the Debian (Linux) distribution

[RFlagg]

FreeBSD 4.9...
Server-wise especially webserver no doubts...

[Boss Traffic Jim]

FreeBsd 4.10 Stable baby.no questions asked

[Trion]

Linux Slackware

Use both as a deskop and a server with millions of visitors dayly apache+php+mysql
Extremely stable fast and easy

[maddox]

I use redhat enterprise linux on all of my servers

[FrankWhite]

freebsd 4.x or 5.x on the servers
apache for webserver
gentoo for mysql server and desktops.

[fuzebox]

However... MySQL performs faster on Linux, so I usually go with Linux for a dedicated database server... For web though, there's no comparison.

[jazzll]

FreeBSD Apache qmail

[jazzll]

Not one Linux server in the top 50 longest uptime servers on the Internet:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

[TheSaint]

I use redhat enterprise linux on all of my servers

Yep correct answer in my opinion for a money making venture - pay a few $ - its worth it. Sure technically freebsd may be better, but who gives a shit? A mac might be better than xp too, but it ends up being harder to use because fewer programs are available.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in about 35 servers - all updated and patched with one command (including kernel) and takes 1/2 a person maintain all 35. I could really give a flying fuck if something besides RHEL is slightly faster.

And Last I heard freebsd doesn't even have iptables, i can't afford (and don't want) hardware firewalls on remote servers. This issue alone seals the deal for me.

[FrankWhite]

Yep correct answer in my opinion for a money making venture - pay a few $ - its worth it. Sure technically freebsd may be better, but who gives a shit? A mac might be better than xp too, but it ends up being harder to use because fewer programs are available.

I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux in about 35 servers - all updated and patched with one command (including kernel) and takes 1/2 a person maintain all 35. I could really give a flying fuck if something besides RHEL is slightly faster.

And Last I heard freebsd doesn't even have iptables, i can't afford (and don't want) hardware firewalls on remote servers. This issue alone seals the deal for me.

yes there is iptables for freebsd its called IPFW

[rickholio]

yes there is iptables for freebsd its called IPFW

Has freebsd resolved its SMP problems yet? That was a 100% deal-killer for me a couple years ago.

[Oliver Klozov]

FreeBSD all the way!

We used to be on Linux and while it worked we had lots of problems

Switched to FreeBSD and smooth sailing for over 2 years now.

More programmers around that know Linux and they are often cheaper than FreeBSD programmers but hey you get what you pay for.

[JulianSosa]

FreeBSD its hard to ever go back to not having ports