Linked by Alejandro Tamayo Castillo on Wed 20th Oct 2004 18:48 UTC
In this article I will analyze the features and costs to select which is the best operating system for servers as well as the services that each one of them brings to us.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
a lot of the things he complains about for FreeBSD can be done rather easily on Linux, and I very much doubt that FreeBSD is any worse in that respect.
*disclaimer* I am not windows expert by a long shot, I can install XP and secure it. I have never used it in large deployments.
1. Easy Deployment on a Network (Clients)
This probably takes more knowhow than a windows wizard. But there is NOTHING that prevents you from doing network installs using a bootcd. If you wish to customize your installation you could use perl to change any file in /etc as you see fit.
Windows - Wins on ease of use (assuming what he says is true).
FreeBSD/Linux - Wins on flexibility
Which do you prefer? take your pick.
2. Easy administration.
The author mentions SSH and then complains about a lack of wizards. I ask what do we need a wizard for? all configuration is done by text files, simple and fast if you use ssh. I agree that a point-and-click wizard is a lot simpler for an amatuer. But I would not recommend any unix flavor as a server for a non-pro.
Once more, simplicity vs. transparency and flexibility.
3. Easy Adaptation to Changes
I will refrain from commenting since I do not understand Active Directory, and it is unclear to me what the author wishes to accomplish.
4.Easy Client-Server Integration and Flexibility
Once again I feel my lack of windows technologies. The only thing I know of is Exchange. My expirience with Exchange has been horrible and I would prefer ANY unix MTA as an alternative, even sendmail.
As for groupware functions Kroupware might be a good option.
5. Easy administration of LAN Networks
I suppose that under Unix you would use PAM and LDAP to do something similar to active directory, but I can only speculate.
6. Consumption of Resources
I agree with him there Window Server 2003 can eat every ressource you can throw at it. So can FreeBSD given the right conditions. But out of the box FreeBSD consumes less thank Win2K3 server
7. Best performance (OS) in the same Hardware
Windows has strong spots, FreeBSD has strong spots, 'nuff said
8. Cost of Licenses
Nothing beats free if you have the proper personnel to handle FreeBSD and other Unix variants. But technical unix people don't come cheap. Whereas MSCE's are a dime a dozen these days. It might just cost more to use FreeBSD in the long run, I leave the decision whether it is worth it up to the informed reader.
9. Secure system
In FreeBSD we trust, at least the track record proves that Windows is full of holes. There has been security problems in BSD, but at least there is full disclosure and you can evaluate the problem first hand. With MS you pray and wait for the update.
FreeBSD wins hands down because of the flexibility..
This is my personal opinion, feel free to post comments and replys. and of course correct me if I have said something wrong.
Michael