 |
 |
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 04:21:55PM -0500, Koos, Missy wrote: Is anyone considering going with a BSD based system?? FreeBSD isn't based on any specific company so it would be immune from something like RedHat is pulling.? Its also secure, stable, fast and has a Linux compatibility library.? OpenBSD is another great OS and is (In many people's opinion) the most secure in existence. For those who aren't willing to go to a non-Linux system, what about Debian?? I just cant see paying for something that has always been, and should always be, free. Redhat will still be providing a free/community based distribution called Fedora: http://fedora.redhat.com/ It still leaves the issue of running an OS sponsored by a commercial company and whether or not Fedora will be successful in its mission, since it is a new project. If you want an OS that isn't sponsored by a commercial company, I would suggest Debian GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. Which you choose will most likely come down to personal preference and intended use. I'm partial to Debian because of their philosophy, package/system management tools, and security. The fact I've been using it over 8 years (yeah, feeling old now...), I'm a Debian developer, and host a Debian mirror make that much more suitable for our environment as well. You'll definitely have someone to answer questions if you choose it! I have one FreeBSD system... I like some of the kernel design elements and features more than Linux, but haven't switched to it as my primary OS simply because of my ties to Debian and I see no huge advantage. still a great OS/project and I'll continue to learn/use it. Just to keep the conversation alive, I'll throw in that I haven't used OpenBSD, but dislike it enough on paper and discussion alone that I'll never run it. I think the only people that consider it the most secure OS are those running it. I know many others and have reasons myself, why it is not. An indication being they brag about their security all the time...when they fail at being the most secure, are they going to be humble/open about their failure? A number of past experiences show otherwise. The merits of secure OS design shouldn't be overlooked, but how secure an OS is more than likely boils down to how secure the admin makes it. Misconfiguration can make a secure OS worse off than a supposedly less secure one. People should run something they feel comfortable with and understand, not one that so-and-so (including me!) deems as more secure and one appropriate for the intended application. Hope this helps, dpk