andy7789
asked on
Upgrading *nix server: FreeBSD vs. CentOS vs. Fedora
Hi X-perts,
I am upgrading to a new server and not sure which OS to choose: FreeBSD, CentOS or Fedora. Currently i am running FreeBSD, but having read many comment on that subject, think that CentOS is the way to go.
Any recommendations here?
Thanks
I am upgrading to a new server and not sure which OS to choose: FreeBSD, CentOS or Fedora. Currently i am running FreeBSD, but having read many comment on that subject, think that CentOS is the way to go.
Any recommendations here?
Thanks
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
""got it installed and it seems to work" on FreeBSD, I'd fire him."
Wow, that's harsh. Would you fire people for putting their pens on the wrong side of the desk too?
Andy, Mysidia gave you a great overview, IMO. :)
Wow, that's harsh. Would you fire people for putting their pens on the wrong side of the desk too?
Andy, Mysidia gave you a great overview, IMO. :)
:-)
Maybe harsh, but there are reasons
1) If you spend money on a commercial product, then choose to create an unsupported installation of that product, you are a bit mad.
2) Normally it takes longer, and therefore wastes time that good be spent elsewhere, getting stuff working in "unusual" scenarios.
3) There's always going to be someone else who has to take over the installation/systems. Version X might work OK on <unsupported OS>, but X+1 might not.
It's a good IT principle to keep things as simple as possible.
Of course, it's opinion here. I don't disagree with much of what Mysidia wrote (though not quite convinced by the performance claim from the links he posted, which is why I said "test yourself").
K
Maybe harsh, but there are reasons
1) If you spend money on a commercial product, then choose to create an unsupported installation of that product, you are a bit mad.
2) Normally it takes longer, and therefore wastes time that good be spent elsewhere, getting stuff working in "unusual" scenarios.
3) There's always going to be someone else who has to take over the installation/systems. Version X might work OK on <unsupported OS>, but X+1 might not.
It's a good IT principle to keep things as simple as possible.
Of course, it's opinion here. I don't disagree with much of what Mysidia wrote (though not quite convinced by the performance claim from the links he posted, which is why I said "test yourself").
K
I don't want to hijack the thread, so this'll be my last post.
;)
I agree with pretty much all of what you said. However, I think trying 'unsupported' installations is often a great way to learn about the product and the system you're on. For example, there's plenty of open source products that only have instructions for a few different distros. Running them on other distros is great practice and experience, even if it ends up not working fully. Just a thought.
Andy, good luck with whatever you decide to go with. :)
;)
I agree with pretty much all of what you said. However, I think trying 'unsupported' installations is often a great way to learn about the product and the system you're on. For example, there's plenty of open source products that only have instructions for a few different distros. Running them on other distros is great practice and experience, even if it ends up not working fully. Just a thought.
Andy, good luck with whatever you decide to go with. :)
ASKER
thank you guys!. it looks as my old FreeBSD is the way to go, though I was thinking to get hands on Centos first.
I will try Centos on another server where we will be installing Adobe FMS.
I am sharing the points
I will try Centos on another server where we will be installing Adobe FMS.
I am sharing the points
I do suggest trying CentOS. It's not a bad platform, and it does some things
very well, and it is a very good platform for desktops (Desktop suitability
surpassed by Fedora and Ubuntu).
I would have to say that the Linux distributions are much better platforms
for Desktop systems (out of the box) than *BSD.
For example, installation of packages and upgrading is very easy.
Once you have the proper repositories loaded
(and many vendor packages are available by default).
"yum install (software package name)"
"yum update (package package name)'
'iptables' and 'ip' commands provide some NAT'ing and policy
options BSD does not.
FreeBSD is a workhorse; CentOS has many more bells and whistles
available, which can be very useful in the right situations.
very well, and it is a very good platform for desktops (Desktop suitability
surpassed by Fedora and Ubuntu).
I would have to say that the Linux distributions are much better platforms
for Desktop systems (out of the box) than *BSD.
For example, installation of packages and upgrading is very easy.
Once you have the proper repositories loaded
(and many vendor packages are available by default).
"yum install (software package name)"
"yum update (package package name)'
'iptables' and 'ip' commands provide some NAT'ing and policy
options BSD does not.
FreeBSD is a workhorse; CentOS has many more bells and whistles
available, which can be very useful in the right situations.
ASKER
I do not care about installation as my server provider will do it. I am thinking about a few considerations here:
1) performance. I could not find any comparative reports how RHEL kernel is better or worse than freeBSD
2) security. i will be installing ModSecurity anyway... not sure if there are any advantages of FreeBSD vs RHEL
3) easy to install applications. With FreeBSD it takes a few seconds to install a new port. With RHEL I will have to do it all manually, though it is not a big deal
4) many commercial *nix applications are difficult to install on FreeBSD (ex adobe FMS)
Any comments?