*BSD discussion Mark Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:38:32 -0700 I spent the weekend playing around with FreeBSD 4.3 from a downloaded ISO and was able to get everything I needed working (networking, ppp dialup, pose, etc). So I've gotten bitten by the BSD bug and want to learn about the other BSD distros and how they compare to each other. I also really am interested in knowing if anyone has gotten java to run on any BSD variant and whether or not the jvm is production quality. I've heard that OpenBSD is the most secure distro. Is that accurate? What are the major differences between FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD? What has everyone's experience been in terms of stability, upgradability, usability, and coolness factors? Also, I read an atricle that favored FreeBSD overall (performance, security, usability). Any comments? Maybe this is a little different subject, but why did the CS department choose linux over bsd? I was terribly surprised when I found out that FreeBSD is easier to secure and configure once installed than any linux distro. Thanks, Mark
Re: *BSD discussion Frank Sorenson Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:10:48 -0700 On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Mark wrote: > I spent the weekend playing around with FreeBSD 4.3 from a downloaded ISO and > was able to get everything I needed working (networking, ppp dialup, pose, > etc). So I've gotten bitten by the BSD bug and want to learn about the other > BSD distros and how they compare to each other. I also really am interested > in knowing if anyone has gotten java to run on any BSD variant and whether or > not the jvm is production quality. > > I've heard that OpenBSD is the most secure distro. Is that accurate? What > are the major differences between FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD? What has > everyone's experience been in terms of stability, upgradability, usability, > and coolness factors? > > Also, I read an atricle that favored FreeBSD overall (performance, security, > usability). Any comments? > > Maybe this is a little different subject, but why did the CS department > choose linux over bsd? I was terribly surprised when I found out that > FreeBSD is easier to secure and configure once installed than any linux > distro. > > Thanks, > > Mark Whew. That's a tough question. Why did we choose Linux? About two years ago, the CS department was using Solaris x86 and still had some HPUX boxes. The Solaris was unimpressive, and the HPUX very expensive. Both had been hacked at some point before I took over. The department knew that we wouldn't be buying any more HP boxes (PC platform much cheaper, but still has great performance), and that nobody was very attached to Solaris. We limped through a semester with Solaris while I convinced the department that we'd be better off with either *BSD or Linux (that wasn't really too hard, but people just needed time to get annoyed with Solaris). I had used BSD for 2-3 years, and Linux for over 4, so I knew that both had good/bad points (imagine 7 booting Windows 95, NT 4.0, NT Server 4.0, an old Slackware install, RedHat Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenLinux on one computer). One big problem with switching to something else was convincing people that things would still be okay. They liked the idea that "someone is responsible, and can provide support" (ie. Sun or HP supposedly fixes problems or stands behind their product). Add to that the fact that "everybody knows Linux is insecure" and "at least fewer people know the bugs/holes in Solaris" and other fun arguments. I think some of the biggest reasons that we went with Linux over BSD are that I was more familiar with Linux and it was easier to find students to work for me who knew or could learn Linux (I couldn't manage 75+ open machines, 15 or so servers, and all the professor and research machines without my great employees!). I also think that Linux was easier to get and (in my opinion) install (it's quite possible/likely that I'm wrong and/or that things have changed since then). Since a lot of the applications are the same between *BSD and Linux, I don't see post-installation configuration as a very big deal (for example, if it's Apache, I don't think it's significantly more difficult/easier in one OS than another). In then end, I was basically given the go-ahead in changing from Solaris because I convinced enough people that we could make it work (after a limited trial period). Really, all most of the users (and particularly the professors) really care about is that they can write code, compile & debug, read and send email, use their odd window manager and favorite terminal, that it runs whatever program their class requires, and that they can have it at home too. Both *BSD and Linux are good choices. Both are pretty easy to obtain and install. Both have tons of programs (required when you have 4000 people with accounts telling you they absolutely _HAVE_TO_HAVE_ just one simple program, and "why didn't you install/upgrade that"). In the end, I had to make a choice, so I picked the option that made the most sense to me (and what I felt I could support best). By getting good employees and paying careful attention to security holes and bug fixes, we've managed to keep a lot of machines running without too much problem. All our machines run portsentry and some ipchains, they log to a remote host, we regularly check for, download, and push out updates to applications, and we keep track of network traffic and monitor the logs for signs of problems. To our knowlege, we haven't been hacked since the change, though several CS users have tried, and we're always getting attempts from elsewhere (please don't start now:). We feel that we've succeeded in making most people happy with our implementation of Linux on the machines (we hope). Sorry about the long post. It's just a tough question to answer without the background. Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Sorenson, MCP CNA CSR Computer Science Department Brigham Young University [EMAIL PROTECTED]