this comparison is way too outdated!!
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:47:58 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > salam 3likom > for all how don't know > > > > FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000 > > FreeBSD > Linux > Windows 2000 > Reliability FreeBSD is extremely robust. There are numerous testimonials of > active servers with uptimes measured in years. The new Soft Updates1 file > system optimizes disk I/O for high performance, yet still ensures reliability > for transaction based applications, such as databases. Linux is well known > for its reliability. Servers often stay up for years. However, disk I/O is > non-synchronous by default, which is less reliable for transaction based > operations, and can produce a corrupted filesystem after a system crash or > power failure. But for the average user, Linux is a very dependable OS. All > Windows users are familiar with the "Blue Screen of Death". Poor reliability > is one of the major drawbacks of Windows. Some of the major issues have been > fixed in Windows 2000, but "code bloat" has introduced many more reliability > problems. Windows 2000 uses a lot of system resources and it is very > difficult to keep the system up for more than a couple of months without it > reverting to a crawl as memory gets corrupted and filesystems fragmented. > Performance FreeBSD is the system of choice for high performance network > applications. FreeBSD will outperform other systems when running on > equivalent hardware. The largest and busiest public server on the Internet, > at ftp.freesoftware.com, uses FreeBSD to serve more than 1.2TB/day of > downloads. FreeBSD is used by Yahoo!, Qwest and many others as their main > server OS because of its ability to handle heavy network traffic with high > performance and rock solid reliability. Linux performs well for most > applications, however the performance is not optimal under heavy network > load. The network performance of Linux is 20-30% below the capacity of > FreeBSD running on the same hardware 2. The situation has improved somewhat > recently and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel will introduce a new > virutual memory system based on the same concepts as the FreeBSD VM system. > Since both operating systems are open source, beneficial technologies are > shared and for this reason the performance of Linux and FreeBSD is rapidly > converging. Windows is adequate for routine desktop apps, but it is unable to > handle heavy network loads. A few organizations try to make it work as an > Internet server. For instance, barnesandnoble.com uses Windows-NT, as can be > verifyed by the error messages that their webserver produces, such as this > recent example: Error Message: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL > Server]Can't allocate space for object 'queryHistory' in database 'web' > because the 'default' segment is full. > For their own "Hotmail" Internet servers, Microsoft used FreeBSD for many > years. > Security > > FreeBSD has been the subject of a massive auditing project for several years. > All of the critical system components have been checked and rechecked for > security-related errors. The entire system is open source so the security of > the system can and has been verified by third parties. A default FreeBSD > installation has yet to be affected by a single CERT security advisory in > 2000.3 > > FreeBSD also has the notion of kernel security levels. These are much more > powerful than simple run-levels since they allow the administrator to > completely deny access to certain operating system functions such as reading > /dev/mem, changing file system flags, or writing to disks without mounting a > filesystem. > > FreeBSD includes a very robust packet filtering firewall system and many > intrusion detection tools. > > The open source nature of Linux allows anyone to inspect the security of the > code and make changes, but in reality the Linux codebase is modified too > rapidly by inexperienced programmers. There is no formal code review policy > and for this reason Linux has been suceptible to nearly every Unix-based CERT > advisory of the year. This problem is compounded by the fact that > distributions like Red Hat tend to turn on notoriously insecure services by > default. > > However, Linux does include a very robust packet filtering firewall system > and many intrusion detection tools. > > Microsoft claims that their products are secure. But they offer no guarantee, > and their software is not available for inspection or peer review. Since > Windows is closed source there is no way for users to fix or diagnose any of > the security compromises that are regularly published about Microsoft > systems. > Filesystem > > FreeBSD uses the UFS (Unix File System), which is a little more complex than > Linux's ext2. It offers a better way to insure filesystem data integrity, > mainly with the "sofupdates" option. This option decreases synchronous I/O > and increases asynchronous I/O because writes to a UFS filesystem aren't > synced on a sector basis but according to the filesystem structure. This > ensures that the filesystem is always coherent between two updates. > > The FreeBSD filesystem also supports file flags, which can stop a would-be > intruder dead in his or her tracks. There are several flags that you can add > to a file such as the immutable flag. The immutable (schg) flag won't allow > any alteration to the file or directory unless you remove it. Other very > handy flags are append only (sappnd), cannot delete (sunlnk), and archive > (arch). When you combine these with the kernel security level option, you > have a very impenetrable system. > > The Linux ext2 filesystem gets its performance from having an asynchronous > mount. You can mount FreeBSD UFS filesystems as asynchronous but this is very > dangerous and no seasoned Unix admin would do this. It's amazing that Linux > is designed this way by default. Often a hard carsh permanently damages a > mount. FreeBSD or Solaris can sustain a very hard crash with only minor data > loss, and the filesystem will be remountable with few problems. > > There are several new journaling filesystems in development for Linux that > will fix some of these issues, but these will not be ready for the 2.4 > release of Linux. > > The Microsoft FAT filesystem and the newer NTFS are both plagued by over 15 > years of backwards compatability with the earliest of PC-based filesystems. > These filesystems were not designed for today's demanding server > applications, they weren't even designed with a multi-user OS or networking > in mind! > Device Drivers The FreeBSD bootloader can load binary drivers at boot-time. > This allows third-party driver manufacturers to distribute binary-only driver > modules that can be loaded into any FreeBSD system. Due to the open-source > nature of FreeBSD, it is very easy to develop device drivers for new > hardware. Unfortunately, most device-manufacturers will only release binaries > for Microsoft operating systems. This means that it can take several months > after a hardware device has hit the market until a device driver is > available. The Linux community intentionally makes it difficult for hardware > manufacturers to release binary-only drivers. This is meant to encourage > hardware manufactureres to develop open-source device drivers. Unfortunately > most vendors have been unwilling to release the source for their drivers so > it is very difficult for Linux users to use vendor supplied drivers at all. > Microsoft has excellent relationships with hardware vendors. There are often > conflicts when using a device driver on different versions of Microsoft > Windows, but overall Windows users have excellent access to third party > device drivers. > Commercial Applications The number of commercial applications for FreeBSD is > growing rapidly, but is still below what is available for Windows. In > addition to native applications, FreeBSD can also run programs compiled for > Linux, SCO Unix, and BSD/OS. Many new commercial applications are available > for Linux, and more are being developed. Unfortunately, Linux can only run > binaries that are specifically compiled for Linux. It is unable to run > programs compiled for FreeBSD, SCO Unix, or other popular operating systems. > There are thousands of applications available for Windows, far more than for > any other OS. Nearly all commercial desktop applications run on Windows, and > many of them are only available on Windows. If you have an important > application that only runs on Windows, then you may have no choice but to run > Microsoft Windows. > Free Applications There are many, many gigabytes of FREE software available > for FreeBSD. FreeBSD includes thousands of software packages and an extensive > ports collection, all with complete source code. Many people consider the > FreeBSD Ports collection to be the most accessible and easiest to use library > of free software packages available anywhere. There are huge numbers of free > programs available for Linux. All GNU software runs on both Linux and FreeBSD > without modification. Some of the free programs for Linux differ between > distributions, because Linux does not have a central ports collection. The > amount of free Windows software is much less than what is available for Unix. > Many Windows applications are provided as "shareware", without source code, > so the programs cannot be customized, debugged, improved, or extended by the > user. > Development environment FreeBSD includes an extensive collection of > development tools. You get a complete C/C++ development system (editor, > compiler, debugger, profiler, etc.) and powerful Unix development tools for > Java, HTTP, Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, Awk, Sed, etc. All of these are free, and > are included in the basic FreeBSD installation. All come with full source > code. Linux includes all the same development tools as FreeBSD, with > compilers and interpreters for every common programming language, all the GNU > programs, including the powerful GNU C/C++ Compiler, Emacs editor, and GDB > debugger. Unfortunately due to the very splintered nature of Linux, > applications that you compile on one system (Red Hat 7) may not work on > another Linux system (Slackware). Very few development tools are included > with Windows 2000. Most need to be purchased separately, and are rarely > compatible with each other. > Development infrastructure FreeBSD is an advanced BSD Unix operating system. > The source code for the entire system is available in a centralized source > code repository running under CVS. A large team (200+) of senior developers > has write access to this repository and they coordinate development by > reviewing and commiting the best changes of the development community at > large. FreeBSD is engineered to find elegant solutions for overall goals, > rather than quick hacks to add new functionality. Linux is a Unix-like kernel > that must be combined with the GNU system to make a complete operating > system. Linux does not use any version control system so all bug-fixes and > enhancements must be emailed back and forth on mailing lists and ultimately > submitted to the one person (Linus) who has authority to commit the code to > the tree. Due to the overwhelming amount of code that gets written, it is > impossible for one person to adequately quality control all of the pending > changes. For this reason there is a lot of code in Linux that was hastily > written and would never have been accepted into a more conservative operating > system. Microsoft Windows is a closed-source operating system driven by > market demand rather than technical merit. New technologies are rushed into > the product before they have been properly designed or fully implemented. > Very little is known about the internal development infrastructure of > Microsoft but the "blue-screen of death" speaks for itself. > Support Several organizations, including BSDi, offer a wide range of support > options for FreeBSD. In addition to 24x7 professional support, there is a > large amount of free, informal support available through Usenet newsgroups > and mailing lists, such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once a problem is found, source > code patches are often available within a few hours. Many organizations > provide professional support for Linux. All the major Linux vendors offer > some level of support, and several offer full 24/7 service. There are many > forums where Linux questions are answered for free, such as newsgroups and > mailing lists. As a last resort, you can always use the source to track down > and fix a problem yourself. Although support is available for Windows 2000, > you should be prepared to spend as long as an hour on hold, with no guarantee > that your problem will be resolved. Because of the closed source nature of > Windows, there is no informal, free support available, and bugs are fixed on > Microsoft's schedule, not your's. Since Windows 2000 is not updated > frequently, you may wait years for bugs to be fixed. > Price, and Total Cost of Ownership FreeBSD can be downloaded from the > Internet for FREE. Or it can be purchased on a four CDROM set, along with > several gigabytes of applications, for $40. All necessary documentation is > included. Support is available for free or for very low cost. There is no > user licensing, so you can quickly bring additional computers online. This > all adds up to a very low total cost of Ownership. Linux is FREE. Several > companies offer commercial aggregations at a very low cost. Applications and > Documentation is available for little or no cost. There are no licensing > restrictions, so Linux can be installed on as many systems as you like for no > additional cost. Linux's total cost of ownership is very low. > > The server edition of Windows 2000 costs nearly $700. Even basic applications > cost extra. Users often spend many thousands of dollars for programs that are > included for free with Linux or FreeBSD. Documentation is expensive, and very > little on-line documentation is provided. A license is required for every > computer, which means delays and administrative overhead. The initial > learning curve for simple administration tasks is smaller than with Unix, but > it also requires a lot more work to keep the system running with any > significant work load. > Total > FreeBSD = 8 > = 2 > = 0 > > Linux = 4 > = 4 > = 2 > > Windows 2000 = 2 > = 1 > = 7 > 1 http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/papers/CSE-TR-254-95/ > 2 http://advisor.gartner.com/n_inbox/hotcontent/hc_2121999_3.html#h8 > 3 Recent CERT Advisaries affecting Linux : > CA-2000-22 - Input Validation Problems in LPRng > CA-2000-21 - Denial-of-Service Vulnerabilities in TCP/IP Stacks > CA-2000-20 - Multiple Denial-of-Service Problems in ISC BIND > CA-2000-17 - Input Validation Problem in rpc.statd > CA-2000-13 - Two Input Validation Problems In FTPD > CA-2000-06 - Multiple Buffer Overflows in Kerberos Authenticated Services > CA-2000-03 - Continuing Compromises of DNS servers Recent CERT Advisaries > affecting Windows : > CA-2000-16 - Microsoft 'IE Script'/Access/OBJECT Tag Vulnerability > CA-2000-14 - Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express Cache Bypass Vulnerability > CA-2000-12 - HHCtrl ActiveX Control Allows Local Files to be Executed > CA-2000-10 - Inconsistent Warning Messages in Internet Explorer > CA-2000-07 - Microsoft Office 2000 UA ActiveX Control Incorrectly Marked > "Safe for Scripting" > CA-2000-04 - Love Letter Worm > > Additional Information > Is FreeBSD a Superior Server Platform to Linux? > Microsoft Windows NT vs Unix by John Kirch, MCP > > This document was prepared by Bob Bruce and Murray Stokely, with input from > Matt Dillon, Nathan dude, and many others. > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://jolug.org/mailman/listinfo/general_jolug.org > > > -- --------------------------- http://tumbak.preempted.net --------------------------- _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jolug.org/mailman/listinfo/general_jolug.org
