PDA

View Full Version : BSD vs Linux



forrest44
08-01-2003, 03:56 PM
Someone told me that the BSD operating systems are more secure than Linux. Is this true?

Would you recomend Linux or the BSD operating systems?
Which ones is easier to use?

Thanks,

Forrest.

Chilling_Silence
08-01-2003, 04:02 PM
From what I have been informed, BSD's motto is:
Secure by Default
So to enable extra functionality and other things, defaults must be changed, as the system is "secure by default".

This would lead me to believe that Linux would be easier to use, as the likes of Lycoris come with Functionality and User-Friendliness in mind, not being secure by default as much.

I havent personally used BSD so cannont really make an impartial statement, but apparently BSD is great for web-servers?!

Graham L
08-01-2003, 04:09 PM
Yes. Linux. :D

One of the BSDs (FreeBSD I think) is built with security as the top priority. They don't add "features" or try to make it look like Windows. It's very much a Unix. :D NetBSD which I have looked at, and will get going one day isn't as nice and "user-fiendly" to install as most of the Linux distibutions I have used. I will have to use it because it has been ported to the Vax.

The common Linux distibutions are much easier to install. They will have more support (here for example) than a BSD, which are used more on servers than the desktop.

Linux distributions will be "secure enough" if you check for the patches, and don't do silly things.

Chilling_Silence
08-01-2003, 04:13 PM
Agreed, and I love the new RedHat 8 installer :) Very good looking!

segfault
08-01-2003, 04:52 PM
> One of the BSDs (FreeBSD I think) is built
> with security as the top priority.

You must be thinking of OpenBSD - Its very secure. Their slogan is "One remote hole in the default install in 7 years". Eg, apache is installed in a chroot, ssh doesn't allow root access by default - I can't think of any others right now but there are a LOT more. They also audit a lot of code that goes into it.

> NetBSD which I have
> ave looked at, and will get going one day isn't as
> nice and "user-fiendly" to install as most of the
> Linux distibutions I have used. I will have to use
> it because it has been ported to the Vax.

NetBSD's aim is to port it to just about every architecture as possible. It runs on just about anything except a toaster. :D (Sorry that looks wierd - had to cut Grahams reply short)

BSD certainly is a very "Good Thing" (TM). Not so good for the desktop but very good for servers (FreeBSD and OpenBSD at least).

Graham L
08-01-2003, 05:04 PM
Agreed, I was thinking of OpenBSD. ;-) In fact, if you try "BSD security" in google you will find that they are all emphasising security. ("Linux security" finds you a project in the Linux community, too).

The cute thing about NetBSD is that if you get the proper CD, it will autoboot on a PC, and let you install on that. ( I think it will autoboot on some others). But you don't have 2 or 3 (or 8) CDs to install: you have one CD with distribution files for lots of machines on one CD. About 68M for each machine. :D

-=JM=-
08-01-2003, 07:17 PM
FreeBSD servers have some of the best uptimes in the world as well.

Have a look here (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html)

1000+ days uptime :O