Re: a new BSWare

[Bruce Smith <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > We had one gent at the KLUG meeting tonight who used openBSD for his
> > firewall/gateway. His phrase for it was "most obscure." :)
>
> I'd be very interested on a presentation about the BSDs.

Someone from a different LUG gave me a *BSD presentation he 
made in StarOffice 5.1 Presentation (StarImpress) format,
but I'm not qualified to give it.    :(

> Slashot uses *BSD firewalls, so they must be pretty good. 
> Supposedly it has a significantly better IP stack,

He also gave me this quick comparison of FreeBSD & Linux
in a recent email exchange we had:


------start-quote-----

>> Right now I'm in the middle of writing a book (on FreeBSD).
>
> How's it compare to Linux?


First off, the debate is LONG AND HEATED.  Secondly, you have the
_history_ and _licensing_.  So, here's my 60 second response:

[ *NO FLAMES* -- THIS IS A 60 SECOND "SUMMARY" AND I'M *NO* ]
[ EXPERT!!!  I'M PROBABLY ALSO LEAVING SEVERAL DETAILS OUT! ]

Linux major "technical" advantages:
  - KISS scheduling and memory management (speed efficient)
    [ KISS = keep it simple stupid ]
  - Least fragmenting filesystem (Ext2)
  - Reported (by FreeBSD users) faster GUI response and speeds
  - NFS client has full locking (v3 client is almost done)
  - SMBfs client for mounting SMB/Window shares

Linux major "technical" DISadvantages **:
  - Some 32-bit limitations and NON-journaling filesystem (Ext2) 
  - Scheduler and TCP/IP buckle on performance under extreme loads  
   (not noticable on Internet servers, just for local fileserving) 
   (kernel 2.4 really reduces issues quite a bit)
  - NFS v3 support is lacking (experimental, but server is behind)
    (even kernel 2.2 kernel-mode NFS v2 server has its problems)
  - Lack of volume manager (kernel 2.4 introduces this, finally!)

** BIG NOTE:  A *LOT* of this is being solved with kernel 2.4 and
technologies.  Still, there is the "maturity" factor (especially
with its NFS v3 server)

FreeBSD major "technical" advantages:
  - Age proven kernel, especially TCP/IP stack
  - True 64-bit filesystem with not only journaling, but a new,
    more efficient, non-journaling "softupdates" technology
  - Volume manager for advanced disk usage
  - Capable scheduler and memory management (size efficient)
  - Faster networking response times (Apache, Samba, etc...)
  - Proven NFS v3 server with full locking

FreeBSD major "technical" DISadvantages:
  - NFS v3 client does NOT have locking capability (as of 4.0?)
  - Scheduler and memory manager is not efficient for small # of
    processes
  - Lack of applications in general, although emulator is very good
  - Some BSD binaries are out of date compared to GNU alternatives
    (which is being solved by simply using the GNU ones ;-)

In a nutshell, Linux is the better workstation (e.g., a lot of
FreeBSD converts I've seen are disappointed with the GUI
performance).  FreeBSD is clearly the better server (although for
lower bandwidth Internet servers, either is fine), with a proven
NFS v3 server whereas Linux's NFS v3 server is still experimental
(the client is fairly done though).

There are many other arguments that can be plus/minus.  They are
usually political though.  GPL vs. BSD.  Single commercial vendor
(BSDi/Walnut-Creek) versus many (Linux).  Single kernel, base distro
(Linux) versus many (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSD/OS, 4.4BSD
core).  Packaging (Linux) versus source-oriented "ports" (FreeBSD).
 Yada, yada, yada ...

My take is that Linux is fine for Windows serving.  But if you've
got UNIX clients, FreeBSD is better IMHO.  FreeBSD runs the
Internet's busiest servers:  Yahoo, Hotmail and Walnut Creek
(cdrom.com -- the ftp/http archive of da'net, used by everyone like
download.com, etc...).

-------end-quote------


--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------