Very Computer

>> I've tried to read all the relevant threads on this topic, but they
>> don't really address my questions. I also realize that the question of
>> the 'better' OS, Linux or Free BDS, is irrelevant. I'm coming from
>> Windows, and have limited experience with Solaris Unix, and am entirely
>> ignorant of Linux/FreeBSD.

>> I want to set up a box running MySQL and PHP and Apache, for the
>> purpose of developing e-commerce sites to run on said Solaris server.
>> This will run on an x86 system. I don't want to focus on the OS, but
>> instead want to focus on internet functionality. From the info I've
>> read, I'm favoring FreeBSD because it seems to be better supported and
>> more stable than Linux and more 'server-like', but at this point I have
>> a completely open mind.

>> Question: I want as transparent an OS as possible, and don't want to
>> spend any time fooling with the OS. Which would better suit my purpose,
>> Linux or FreeBSD? Or does it really make any difference?

> Go with Mandrake Linux.  It is the most transparent free (or otherwise)
> UNIX out there, other than buying a machine with UNIX pre-installed on
> it.

> If you use FreeBSD, you're *going* to have to get your hands dirty
> (which is actually a *fun* thing, at least in my opinion :).

> I've tried to read all the relevant threads on this topic, but they
> don't really address my questions. I also realize that the question of
> the 'better' OS, Linux or Free BDS, is irrelevant. I'm coming from
> Windows, and have limited experience with Solaris Unix, and am
> entirely ignorant of Linux/FreeBSD.

> > I've tried to read all the relevant threads on this topic, but they
> > don't really address my questions. I also realize that the question of
> > the 'better' OS, Linux or Free BDS, is irrelevant. I'm coming from
> > Windows, and have limited experience with Solaris Unix, and am
> > entirely ignorant of Linux/FreeBSD.

> The primary distinction between Linux and FreeBSD is that the Linux
> kernel
> has been published under General Public License.  This limits the
> "hidden
> hacks" that can be included into kernel priveledged drivers.

> The Linux kernel has captured a larger mind-share, and with backing
> from
> companies like IBM, Dell, and HP, has inherited some of the best
> features
> of several systems.  Linux also supports a good number of platforms.

> BSD has always had a problem with code forks.  Even today you have
> FreeBSD,
> NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi, and System Vr4 with BSD 4.4 enhancements.

> Unless you are a kernel hacker you would have a hard time telling the
> difference.

> > I want to set up a box running MySQL and PHP and Apache, for the
> > purpose of developing e-commerce sites to run on said Solaris server.

> Both platforms will work equally well.  And both Linux and BSD will
> port
> directly to Solaris quite easily.

> > This will run on an x86 system. I don't want to focus on the OS, but
> > instead want to focus on internet functionality.

> Probably good thinking.

> > From the info I've read,
> > I'm favoring FreeBSD because it seems to be better supported and
> > more stable than Linux and more 'server-like', but at this point I
> > have a completely open mind.

> Linux has a much larger market share, but BSD, especially FreeBSD is
> widely used for it's fast performance.  This performance comes at the
> cost of more restrictions on hardware configurations, the willingness
> to do more manual or scripted configuration.

> In many ways, FreeBSD is essentially another "Linux Distribution" in
> that
> Linux programs work quite well on FreeBSD and BSD programs work quite
> well
> on Linux.

> FreeBSD supports things like sub-partitioning (managing a single
> partition
> as a set of BSD partitions and mount points).  Linux has more dynamic
> self-tuning memory management.

> > Question: I want as transparent an OS as possible, and don't want to
> > spend any time fooling with the OS. Which would better suit my
> > purpose, Linux or FreeBSD? Or does it really make any difference?

> I would suggest that you start with Mandrake Linux, either 7.2 or 8.0.
> These are very user friendly, support a number of devices, and have
> been
> specifically targeted toward users with little or no UNIX experience.
> Even UNIX gurus tend to like Mandrake because they don't have to focus
> on the details.

> I would strongly suggest that you start with the "Deluxe" edition if
> you
> can.  This one allows automated installation of nearly all packages in
> the
> distribution.  The standard version tends to require more manual
> installation
> effort.

> SuSE is the "Luxury Car" of Linux distributions.  It's big, filling a
> DVD or 7 CDs,
> and contains many applications on the standard selection list that are
> isolated from
> other distributions.  SuSE has become very popular with the Financial
> sector.

> Red Hat is a good "work-horse".  Red Hat auto-installs the "standard
> distribution" and
> gives you the option of requesting things like KDE.  Several other
> applications, including
> commercial applications, must be installed separately from the
> Toolbox, Workstation, Server,
> and/or Commercial Applications CDs.

> FreeBSD 5.0 or later is very powerful, and can be carefully tuned for
> optimal performance
> as a server.  Back in the days of FreeBSD 4.x and Linux 2.2, Linux was
> not as fast or reliable
> as FreeBSD, but unless you are running a large bank of servers, it's
> really hard to tell the
> difference.  My ISP like FreeBSD because they can manage everything
> from a vt100 telnet
> connection.  That may seem arcane, but given that they have set the
> system to page them
> when there are problems, and they call in from remote locations, and
> there is often NOBODY
> in the server room for hours, this is an effective way to resolve
> problems without having
> to run back to the server room.

> Linux offers similar features.  It's just that FreeBSD users have more
> incentive to
> learn the cli interfaces much earlier.