Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Redhat or Freebsd
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Redhat or Freebsd

Redhat or Freebsd

Which is preferred and what differences do you like?
Does anyone have experienced both?

«1

Comments

  • sinsin Member

    One is linux and one is bsd

  • jgillichjgillich Member
    edited May 2017

    RHEL

    • Red Hat support
    • Lots of documentation that also goes beyond the basic system
    • Widely supported by enterprise software
    • Long release cycles
    • System feels very polished and is extremely stable

    FreeBSD

    • Mostly community supported, but you can get commercial support (iXsystems etc)
    • Less software support
    • Also lots of documentation
    • ZFS, pf
    • Everything is made by one project, system feels more consistent and easier to grasp (IMO)
    • Much smaller community, therefore less information on the web
    • Also fairly long release cycles, but shorter than RHEL's
    • Hardware support lags behind Linux
    • Network stack performs better than Linux's (or at least used to)
    • Ports are continuously updated, which is a plus for features but a minus for stability
  • @tranzmedia said:
    Redhat or Freebsd
    Does anyone have experienced both?

    >

    Yes.

    Which is preferred and what differences do you like?

    >

    I really like both of them, but it depends on what your goals are.

    RHEL/CentOS are extremely stable, and as such, the software in the repos will get a bit long in the tooth. This is great when your ultimate goal is to work within the box, and not change anything for 7 years. Red Hat QA is incredible, and they can generally be trusted not to release updates into the ecosystem that will break things.

    Red Hat has also put a lot of work into making sure RHEL/CentOS is easy to use. They put a lot of work into the details to make sure everything works seamlessly, for the most part. Unlike another popular distro which checks the buzzwords, but leaves things in a half-assed state for the user to finish.

    The flip side is that everything is interconnected in RHEL/CentOS, and it needs to be taken as the holistic ecosystem it is. Once you step out of the ecosystem, the cliff is sharp, and you'll end up learning a lot more about software compilation and packaging then you probably ever wanted to know. There aren't a lot of tools to help when you get into the weeds, because that's the point of support contracts.

    The documentation for RHEL/CentOS is there, but kind of shallow. It covers everything, but but it doesn't really cover anything in any substantial depth. It's good to get you going, but you're going to spend time reading manpages and searching project documentation to really understand what's going on.

    RHEL/CentOS also have some of the best support from commercial software in the Linux/Unix-like world. If you need to run a commercial application on a Linux server, there is a good change it will support RHEL/CentOS.

    FreeBSD provides a base OS which can be modified by adding software via pkgs or ports. Having the software decoupled from the base OS is awesome. PHP, for example, can be upgraded to a newer version because it's not part of the base OS.

    FreeBSD is really designed for humans. There isn't really a sharp cliff to fall off of. There are some steep hills, but nothing that will injure you too badly. pf is a great example. pf syntax is very readable, and it makes quite a bit of sense on it's own.

    The flip-side is that FreeBSD is very much a DIY kit, and it doesn't make any pretensions about being anything else. In the old Unix tradition, you're going to have to know what you're doing. It's not going to hold your hand, but it is an excellent base to build on top of.

    The FreeBSD handbook covers quite a bit of ground, but it does have some holes in it. Reading through it will get you running though.

    RHEL/CentOS versus FreeBSD is kind of like the difference between a pre-fab shed and a DIY shed kit. You get a shed either way, but the paths are different.

  • jgillichjgillich Member
    edited May 2017

    flatland_spider said:

    The documentation for RHEL/CentOS is there, but kind of shallow. It covers everything, but but it doesn't really cover anything in any substantial depth. It's good to get you going, but you're going to spend time reading manpages and searching project documentation to really understand what's going on.

    Not true at all. The docs used to be available to subscribers only, but it seems they've now opened everything up. Just scroll down on this page: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-enterprise-linux/?version=7/

    The systems administrator guide alone is over 500 pages, and I can say from experience that it's often better than what the upstream project provides.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    FreeBSD is free as in beer, while RedHat is commercial.

    FreeBSD is free as in freedom, while RedHat is GPL. (Couldn't resist a BSD snark there).

    Do you really mean "RedHat" as in you want to pay $2500/yr per server, or do you mean CentOS?

  • @jgillich said:
    Not true at all. The docs used to be available to subscribers only, but it seems they've now opened everything up. Just scroll down on this page: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-enterprise-linux/?version=7/

    The systems administrator guide alone is over 500 pages, and I can say from experience that it's often better than what the upstream project provides.

    Upstream documentation varies quite a bit in quality. Ironically, some of the Red Hat upstream projects are really bad, and these are complex systems rather then simple command line utilities.

    They don't go into any depth on subjects. They have breadth, but it's 500 pages of base information. They used to be better about that, but it's ballooned to the point where they provide just enough detail to get people running. Being free to the public might also factor into this.

    Let's look at the Performance Tuning Guide and what it says about top, ps, vmstat, and sar. (https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Performance_Tuning_Guide/sect-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-Performance_Tuning_Guide-Performance_Monitoring_Tools-Built_in_command_line_tools.html)

    • man top
    • man ps
    • man vmstat
    • man sar

    Not exactly in-depth, comprehensive coverage there. :)

    The DNS and DHCP service configuration sections are two more pretty basic sections that come to mind.

    It's a great resource, and it's a great base. I point new users to it as a starting point for getting into Linux, so I like it quite a bit. It just has it's limitations when people start using more advanced features.

  • flatland_spider said: Ironically, some of the Red Hat upstream projects are really bad, and these are complex systems rather then simple command line utilities.

    That I can agree on. I'm looking at you, oVirt! They want you to buy support from them, poor documentation is probably a feature...

    Anyway, I'm not arguing their documentation is perfect. But compared to Debian or the outdated mess of Wiki articles that is Ubuntu documentation, it's pretty good. :)

  • It depends, as they have already mentioned. However I do suggest that OP get familiar with Redhat (or anther Linux distribution) before proceeding to FreeBSD.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    dedipromo said: However I do suggest that OP get familiar with Redhat (or anther Linux distribution) before proceeding to FreeBSD.

    That kinda depends on what the OP is trying to do.

    If I was embarking on a career as a sysadmin, then ya - there's tons more Linux/RedHat jobs than FreeBSD. But the OP didn't really give us much to go on.

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    If you are more a technical person, particularly if you already have some unix experience, go with FreeBSD. If you are more a "I simply want to get work done and don't care much about technology" type then use redhead.

    While I widely agree with what has been said so far by others I'd like to mention that FreeBSD comes with linux compatibility (layer). It might be interesting for you also because it's based on centos.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    bsdguy said: then use redhead

    Hell yeah!

    image

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @raindog308

    That's almost luring me away from FreeBSD towards redhead *g

    Thanked by 1raindog308
  • JustAMacUserJustAMacUser Member
    edited June 2017

    My preference in order:

    1. FreeBSD
    2. Debian
    3. CentOS

    I use Debian almost exclusively on my public-facing VPSs and FreeBSD in my home. I used to prefer Debian until I started working with FreeBSD. I like FreeBSD's stability and ZFS is awesome, I also appreciate their package system and simplicity of the services (versus systemd).

    I started by using CentOS but I found that things were not well configured out of the box as much as the other systems. That being said, CentOS has a long shelf life and as others have mentioned, if you stick with the stock packages you'll probably never have to worry about updates breaking anything.

    Edit: I also recognize the irony of my username versus OS choice, but that's mostly because I really dislike the direction Apple has taken with macOS lately.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    JustAMacUser said: Edit: I also recognize the irony of my username versus OS choice, but that's mostly because I really dislike the direction Apple has taken with macOS lately.

    Why?

    And regardless, there's no macOS server really so even if you're a hardcore fanboi, you still need something to run on servers.

  • raindog308 said: And regardless, there's no macOS server really so even if you're a hardcore fanboi, you still need something to run on servers.

    Actually, macOS Server is a thing. Don't know anybody who uses it though.

  • @jgillich said:
    That I can agree on. I'm looking at you, oVirt!

    oVirt is exactly what I was thinking about. Their documentation says it isn't maintained and to read the Red Hat RHEV docs. :eyeroll:

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    jgillich said: Actually, macOS Server is a thing. Don't know anybody who uses it though.

    Oh yeah...and yeah.

  • @JustAMacUser said:
    I started by using CentOS but I found that things were not well configured out of the box as much as the other systems.

    >

    I've had the opposite experience. I've found RHEL/CentOS is configured better out of the box then other distros.

    Which parts do you not like?

  • JustAMacUserJustAMacUser Member
    edited June 2017

    @raindog308 said:

    Why?

    I just feel that they've been spending time adding bells and whistles and not really fixing little bugs, which have become too annoying.

    I dislike the bloat that is iTunes even though it's effectively a glorified web browser. I dislike that Photos is slow even though it is effectively a glorified Finder window.

    I can't remember the service names, but a couple major releases ago they re-wrote one of their network daemons and it was absolute garbage. Eventually they pulled it and put the old daemon back. In Sierra they've butchered the PDF library Preview uses. The integration with their iCloud services (which I'm sure for some is great) is annoying because of no other reason than I like to run my own cloud services but always getting prompted to sign in after an update is tiring. I don't care for Siri on my iOS devices so I certainly don't care for it on my computer.

    In general, it's back to my first point though: A lot of little bugs that are introduced or never fixed.

    And regardless, there's no macOS server really so even if you're a hardcore fanboi, you still need something to run on servers.

    Yeah. MacOS server isn't really something to get excited about.

    @flatland_spider said:

    I've had the opposite experience. I've found RHEL/CentOS is configured better out of the box then other distros.

    Which parts do you not like?

    I got frustrated that things like OpenVPN or Nginx weren't available without adding additional repositories. I found that when I installed something like Apache it wasn't configured how I would typically use it, whereas with Debian it pretty much was. None of it is a big deal; for the way I use things Debian was simply less work for me after a clean install.

    I'd be fine using CentOS if I needed to (client request or something). I'd also consider it if I wanted a set-it-and-forget-it system since they have great LTS.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    Apple briefly had an interesting server line in early 00s...Xserve. It wasn't bad, and it ran OSX. But it really wasn't their mission.

    I use macOS all day long...as a desktop.

    As a Unix desktop, macOS is probably as nice as anything else, and nicer in many ways. I absolutely love having a Unix command line at my fingertips and I use that every day - find/locate, vi, text editing, quick perl or shell scripts to do bulk renaming/moving, etc. But once you go to add a blob of FOSS software...ouch. Yeah, there's homebrew and it usually does the right thing, but already you're into a third-party package manager.

    For FOSS stuff, in my experience once you're out of the Ubuntu/Debian/CentOS main highways, be prepared to work through bugs and google hard for help...

  • JustAMacUserJustAMacUser Member
    edited June 2017

    I didn't even mention the hardware costs. Those recent 15" MB Pros with Touch Bar are ridiculously expensive for what you get. My old laptop was dying so I ended up buying a refurb MacBook but later on I'm going to try a FreeBSD desktop system.

    I think Apple does make good products. But I shouldn't have to fight with certain things and I think it's safe to say they have been neglecting their non-mobile lineup for awhile now. Maybe things will change, and I'd like to see that, because overall I like the hardware and how it pairs with the software. Nevertheless, the hardware costs and annoying software bugs are trying my patience in the desktop/laptop arena and I'm at the point where I'm willing to try something else as my needs are pretty modest these days.

    Edit: I should add that short of programming, I use my iPad for just about everything. With an external keyboard I can pretty much get the same work done.

  • @raindog308 said:

    JustAMacUser said: Edit: I also recognize the irony of my username versus OS choice, but that's mostly because I really dislike the direction Apple has taken with macOS lately.

    Why?

    And regardless, there's no macOS server really so even if you're a hardcore fanboi, you still need something to run on servers.

    I just switched from FreeNAS to macOS server. Sure it wasn't cheap, but the GUI is really appreciated when you need to access it remotely. SSH remains available, and macOS server has overall a better firewall system than Windows Server. I'm not a hardcore fanboi, but I just find it easier to use with software RAID built in, and alerts when a drive is failing (auto SMART checks, unlike Windows).

  • JustAMacUser said: I got frustrated that things like OpenVPN or Nginx weren't available without adding additional repositories

    While this is true, adding EPEL is usually enough. Fedora contains similar numbers of packages as Debian, but they drop lots of them in RHEL, probably because they don't want to support all the trillion web servers and window managers out there.

    I found that when I installed something like Apache it wasn't configured how I would typically use it, whereas with Debian it pretty much was.

    Configs are usually untouched upstream defaults, which I definitely prefer. Fewer modifications also reduce the likelihood of catastrophic errors. ;)

  • @JustAMacUser said:
    I got frustrated that things like OpenVPN or Nginx weren't available without adding additional repositories. I found that when I installed something like Apache it wasn't configured how I would typically use it, whereas with Debian it pretty much was. None of it is a big deal; for the way I use things Debian was simply less work for me after a clean install.

    >

    Fair enough. CentOS is less work for me after a new install. :)

    OpenVPN and Nginx not being in the base repos means they'll get updated faster, though.

    @JustAMacUser said:
    ...later on I'm going to try a FreeBSD desktop system.

    >

    Don't do it!

    The video driver situation isn't great on FreeBSD.

    Linux distros have much better video card support.

    • Fedora is the flagship Gnome distro, and Red Hat puts a lot of work into Gnome. (My daily driver.)
    • OpenSUSE has very nice desktops and they have a rolling release version.
    • Manjaro is an interesting Arch-based rolling release distro.
    • Solus has the interesting Budgie desktop.
    • ElementaryOS has a very nice UI, but the entire thing is an Ubuntu PPA.

    I've been meaning to try TrueOS (FreeBSD-current based rolling release desktop and server), but I don't have any hardware that it will install on. Video card driver issues again.

    Thanked by 1JustAMacUser
  • Yeah. Graphics is one thing I've noticed about FreeBSD. But I'm a geek so I'll try it and others to see what I like. :)

  • jgillichjgillich Member
    edited June 2017

    flatland_spider said: Don't do it!

    The video driver situation isn't great on FreeBSD.

    Not just that, general desktop/laptop hardware support is awful. It took them almost 4 years to support my old Thinkpad's Intel wireless card. Also touchpad support barely exists. I've even had a freaking USB keyboard not function on FreeBSD.

    OpenBSD has much, much better hardware support. Also Linux, of course.

    flatland_spider said: I've been meaning to try TrueOS

    Don't waste your time, Lumina is just terrible. FreeBSD has never really been a good base to build a desktop OS on, but instead of working on fixing that, they've decided the world needs yet another desktop environment? I really don't know what they were thinking..

    Same thing going on with Solus right now, they're working on the third Budgie rewrite in like a year, have a Mate edition with their own menu, and now also going to add KDE. While Ikey is clearly a cyborg, I fear not even he will be able to handle so much at the same time.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    jgillich said: OpenBSD has much, much better hardware support.

    Yeah but it's of the "SPARC gear from 1995" kind of better hardware support, not of the "nvidia has a blob driver for our OS" type.

  • bsdguybsdguy Member

    @flatland_spider said:

    @JustAMacUser said:
    ...later on I'm going to try a FreeBSD desktop system.

    >

    Don't do it!

    The video driver situation isn't great on FreeBSD.

    Linux distros have much better video card support.

    Not true. I am running a binary nvidia blob on FreeBSD. Both, nvidia and radeon are very well supported and I didn't have any trouble with graphics since years (which means something because I'm aggressively graphics ignorant). It just works, period.

    Regarding more exotic things FreeBSD is indeed behind linux. Someone mentioned wireless cards and that matches my experience. That said, I've run FreeBSD on notebooks (thinkpad) without any major problems (probably is different from model to model).

    So, if you have or love exotic hardware, choose linux; they support quite a lot more hardware. If you stay within (maybe boring) standards FreeBSD is no problem. In other words: For servers FreeBSD everyday of the week and sundays twice. For desktops just as you please. For notebooks linux is probably the better choice.

  • YKMYKM Member

    FreeBSD - More reliable and less patching, rock solid performance.

    If I cannot use that then Debian, then if I have to I use Centos.

    Centos/RH overhead is too high for me on networks, I have had FreeBSD being hammered and PF just handles it.

    But hey, its personal choice.

  • sinsin Member

    I was running FreeBSD 11 with ZFS on root on a 1GB VPS for awhile and it was stable as fuck with great performance.

Sign In or Register to comment.