FreeBSD 4.0 Review

Brew Bird writes "32bitsonline has a nice write up on FreeBSD 4.0. Makes me think I am about do for another upgrade..."

Re:nice but its a router

[questionlp]

For one, Apache on NT/2000 is definitely not up to par when it comes to performance and stability of Apache on UNIX (be it Solaris, Linux, xBSD, etc.)

Second, Windows NT/2000 uses a hacked version of the BSD TCP/IP stack and has never showed that it was nearly as stable as BSD's TCP/IP. There are cases there it may be faster, but not likely.

There have been cases where Samba's SMB implementation beats Windows NT/2000's SMB, even though it's native for the latter :)

There are two thing I would never use Windows NT/2000 for, and that would be a router and a firewall.

Re:I submitted this 9 days ago...

[Brew Bird]

Don't feel bad, about 99.999% of what I submit is rejected too. In fact, of the about 40 or 50 stories I have submited over the last 8 months, this is the ONLY one that made it.

Just keep whacking at it. eventualy the slashdenizins wake up and actually read what you post.

Re:nice but its a router

[BasharTeg]

What are you talking about ? Surely you don't think that the FreeBSD TCP/IP implementation isn't up to the performance of NT or 2000. I've tested this several times since my work has both a FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE server and a Windows 2000 Server. The FreeBSD server will outperform Windows 2000 on FTP, HTTP, and for random I/O, Samba vs SMB, although (win)SMB will beat Samba sometimes using some apps, thats more about the development of Samba (I _love_ Samba). Anyways, as far as raw TCP/IP goes, I would NOT bet on Windows 2000, and CERTAINLY not NT4. Get a clue and research what you're talking about before you go and spout out a bunch of nonsensical grammerless bullshit. Thank you drive through.

English

[dcs]

Could you please try again in English? I'm having a hard time parsing what you said.

Speed, stability, security...

[dragonfly_blue]

Sounds like they worked really hard to make this release top-notch. I'm going to try out 4.0 when I get my hands on another box.

I've been using OpenBSD; the focus on security and the excellent docs make it my OS of choice. I'm glad to see FreeBSD taking the cue and incorporating OpenSSH [openssh.com]. It is a great improvement over connecting through telnet, especially if you need to go SU occasionally.

FreeBSD sounds tempting, though, especially for my laptop (where speed is probably more important to me than security.) One security feature I'd miss, though, is encrypted file system features; does anybody know what's available for FreeBSD? I am going to check it out; I really want more experience with the various BSD flavors.