> 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
has been published under General Public License. This limits the
hacks" that can be included into kernel priveledged drivers.
The Linux kernel has captured a larger mind-share, and with backing
companies like IBM, Dell, and HP, has inherited some of the best
of several systems. Linux also supports a good number of platforms.
BSD has always had a problem with code forks. Even today you have
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
Quote:> 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
directly to Solaris quite easily.
Quote:> 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.
Quote:> 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
Linux programs work quite well on FreeBSD and BSD programs work quite
FreeBSD supports things like sub-partitioning (managing a single
as a set of BSD partitions and mount points). Linux has more dynamic
self-tuning memory management.
Quote:> 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
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
can. This one allows automated installation of nearly all packages in
distribution. The standard version tends to require more manual
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
other distributions. SuSE has become very popular with the Financial
Red Hat is a good "work-horse". Red Hat auto-installs the "standard
gives you the option of requesting things like KDE. Several other
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
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
learn the cli interfaces much earlier.
Quote:> TIA to all you take the trouble to reply.