Comparison between FreeBSD server and Windows 2k3 server

[mabua]

Can you guys give me some of your opinions regarding these questions stated below:

Advantage of servers running on FreeBSD

Disadvantage of servers running on FreeBSD

Advantage of servers running on Windows 2003 Server:

Disadvantage of servers running on Windows 2003 Server:


Thanks in advance

Mabua

[oliverh]

No comparision, but:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/12/16/most_reliable_hosting_companies_in_november_2008.h tml

or

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

So you see, it's better to ask about the real-world application but advantages on paper.

This e.g. http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html is rather nonsense.

[Pushrod]

I would choose the OS based on what software I needed to run. If I was hosting some .NET applications and other Windows whatnot, it would be crazy to use FreeBSD. Likewise, it makes sense to use FreeBSD if all of your applications run under it.

[Voltar]

I would say some of the major pros for FreeBSD would be stability/robustness, no requiring reboots for updates unless you install a new kernel, ports & packages make for easy software installation.

Cons would be the learning curve if you don't have *nix experience, some would say configuration via the command line is a con, but it can be vastly faster than a GUI.


Pros for Windows...

Cons for Windows would be rebooting for just about all updates and some software installs.


Just a quick type up, I know there are a lot of other reasons but that's what I have for now.

[Pushrod]

One pro for Windows is that people actually know how to use it. At my work, there are three people that know unix-like OSes well enough to admin and maintain them. It doesn't make sense to use an OS that will require a lot of training.

[tingo]

It doesn't make sense to use an OS that will require a lot of training.

That's kinda like saying it doesn't make sense (for anybody) to learn new things... but of course that wasn't what you meant. �e

[Speedy]

Yep, it's like saying: our driver is too lazy to get CDL training to deliver this load at once, so we let him drive a small truck 10 times instead.

[rliegh]

Advantages of Windows: larger pool of people experienced with it, friendlier interface, better hardware support

Advantages of BSD: better performance, much more secure, a lot of information available through google on how to do specific tasks, large variety of absolutely free server software and add-ons

Disadvantages to Windows: Security (both in matters of design as well as the fact that there is more information out there on how to exploit weaknesses with windows), performance, less freely-available software for it

Disadvantages to FreeBSD: less hardware support, less commercial software written for it, unfriendly interface as far as configuring things goes. Smaller pool of people experienced with using it.

[matthew]

Can you guys give me some of your opinions regarding these questions stated below:

Advantage of servers running on FreeBSD

Disadvantage of servers running on FreeBSD

Advantage of servers running on Windows 2003 Server:

Disadvantage of servers running on Windows 2003 Server:


Thanks in advance

Mabua

FreeBSD is the intelligent, less attractive hard working no nonsense anti-social chick who doesn't talk much but take care of things and does her job well every time, aka "wife/mother material".

Windows 2003 on the other hand is the dumb, cute and easy going high maintenance chick everyone sleeps with, goes nuts from time to time for no particular reason, and no matter what protection you use, you can't help but think you may have "caught something" every time you use it.

Pick wisely, my friend.

[Voltar]

Windows 2003 on the other hand is the dumb, cute and easy going high maintenance chick everyone sleeps with, goes nuts from time to time for no particular reason, and no matter what protection you use, you can't help but think you may have "caught something" every time you use it.

Well put. ;)

lol

[aragon]

One pro for Windows is that people actually know how to use it.
I'd argue that everyone knows how to use Windows. It's supposed to be easy to use after all. That doesn't mean that windows admins know what they're doing, and definitely not that they have an aptitude towards good server administration. I've never met a windows admin that I could honestly say is more technically competent than a parrot.

Unix admins are more competent because they love their art enough to continuously elevate their understanding of it, a quality that is needed to learn Unix.

[ale]

Advantages of Windows: larger pool of people experienced with it, friendlier interfaceI think that the level of the larger pool is far lower compared to others smaller pools.
I see many people that knows how to click on two or three pretty windows and pretend to be a "sysadmin" without knowing the implication of many decision they take. (EDIT: this is more or less what aragon said and I agree with him)

Disadvantages to FreeBSD: unfriendly interface as far as configuring things goes.This is your POV.

[dave]

I think a combination of Windows and BSD machines makes for a very nice network. I use Windows for windows stuff, like windows file server, hosting Microsoft SQL Server applications, and as domain controllers. I add BSD as a frontline caching DNS machine, Nagios network monitoring (it can monitor the Windows boxes, and notify me of trouble), outgoing SMTP server, and hosting intranet web site(s) if applicable, etc. In short, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Choose the OS based on the application, and assume that one cannot completely replace the other.

[pcfxer]

Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition

Integer Score: 997
Floating Point Score: 797
Memory Score: 584
Stream Score: 557

Overall Geekbench Score: 800

Ubench CPU: NA
Ubench MEM: NA
--------------------
Ubench AVG: NA

Client -> Server (upload 1.6GB one large file)
FTP: 2:58
SMB: 2:58
AFP: NA

Server -> Client (download 1.6GB one large file)
FTP: 3:00
SMB: 2:45
AFP: NA
HTTP:3:27

Startup and Shutdown (power - off, power-on login screen)
Startup: 0:34
Shutdown:0:08

NOTE: When using FTP, the client would stay at 100% completed but would never receive the acknowledgement that the file was okay. The time recorded was until the TCP stack was no longer saturated. The issue is serious and a functional flaw somewhere with the server and/or clients used.


FreeBSD 7.2 - i386


Integer Score: 1005
Floating Point Score: 1237
Memory Score: 621
Stream Score: 660

Overall Geekbench Score: 974

Ubench CPU: 57013
Ubench MEM: 47686
--------------------
Ubench AVG: 52349

Client -> Server (upload 1.6GB one large file)
FTP: 2:27
SMB: 2:57
AFP: 2:43

Server -> Client (download 1.6GB one large file)
FTP: 2:28
SMB: 3:13
AFP: 3:08
HTTP:2:27

Startup and Shutdown (power - off, power-on login screen)
Startup: 0:34
Shutdown:0:21


Server:
Pentium 4 2.0GHz (Northwood)
2x 256MB DDR PC 2100
Western Digital 80GB 2MB cache, 7200RPM (WD800JB)
Realtek RTL8100B

Client:
Intel Pentium Dual Core E2140 (1.6GHz)
2x 1GB DDR2 800
Western Digital 250GB 16MB cache 7200RPM (WD2500AAKS)
Marvell Giagbit (Asus P5NSLI, I forget the exact model)
OSX 86 (iDeneb 1.3)

Router: Linksys WRT54GL (DD-WRT, forget version, but it's the std affair)

[CodeBlock]

FreeBSD is the intelligent, less attractive hard working no nonsense anti-social chick who doesn't talk much but take care of things and does her job well every time, aka "wife/mother material".

Windows 2003 on the other hand is the dumb, cute and easy going high maintenance chick everyone sleeps with, goes nuts from time to time for no particular reason, and no matter what protection you use, you can't help but think you may have "caught something" every time you use it.

Pick wisely, my friend.

This made my night :)

[graudeejs]

FreeBSD is the intelligent, less attractive hard working no nonsense anti-social chick who doesn't talk much but take care of things and does her job well every time, aka "wife/mother material".

Windows 2003 on the other hand is the dumb, cute and easy going high maintenance chick everyone sleeps with, goes nuts from time to time for no particular reason, and no matter what protection you use, you can't help but think you may have "caught something" every time you use it.

Pick wisely, my friend.

Awesome..... I think I will putt this on my blog. lol

[Alt]

rofl))

mabua you choused poor place to ask this q)))
And of course, i advice you NEVER use windows to any purpose except housewife's using or gaming ))

[dennylin93]

@matthew: Nice post. :e

I also agree with Pushrod. It somtimes depends on what you are going to run on the server.

Learning FreeBSD is actually quite easy. The Handbook is great, and I now find the console much more comforting than a GUI.

[graudeejs]

now find the console much more comforting than a GUI.

Welcome to the club :)

[pcfxer]

Welcome to the club :)

When in doubt, embrace the power of the great command line. :stud

[CodeBlock]

When in doubt, embrace the power of the great command line. :stud

Indeed :D, I remember the first time I tried *nix about 5 years ago... Then little by little I started using the commandline more, starting with apt-get from ubuntu, messing with nano, etc... Now I use it as much as I use a GUI, if not more :)... but I've moved on to vim :P.

[graudeejs]

Indeed :D, I remember the first time I tried *nix about 5 years ago... Then little by little I started using the commandline more, starting with apt-get from ubuntu, messing with nano, etc... Now I use it as much as I use a GUI, if not more :)... but I've moved on to vim :P.

almost exactly my story, except, that I was using gentoo, and that was distro, that made me learn command line

[vivek]

Checkout this real life experience comment where FreeBSD performed extremely well under heavy load (20k uniq hits per hour for popular weather website) http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/comparison-linux-vs-freebsd-bsd-oses.html#comment-140610

Yahoo uses FreeBSD because of its superb performance.