Freebsd as file server 2

[Headmaster]

Hi,
I'm fighting with a Linux distribution... I can't get drivers to compile right etc. I am rather new to this, so that is probably most of the problem.

I have a FreeBSD 4.6 distribution. I would value anyones comments, experience, knowledge about using it as a file, web, and mail server. (mostly file with SAMBA).

Is this recommended, or should I stick with my SuSE Linux, which has served well until this last upgrade...

Thanks,
Scott

 

[AIXSPadmin]

I use AIX for work, but that only runs on RS/6000 architecture (costly) and now Itanium, so that is my preferred Unix. However, I run a FreeBSD system at home but someone I work with uses a Linux (Red Hat) web server at home. It is really preference, but for a lot of people that question will make them draw swords and duell it out.

A lot of web servers on the internet run FreeBSD and BSD networking is used in most commercial Unix's on the market today. FreeBSD is stable and can run for months or years without any reboots. BSD and Linux take different approaches to who can release kernel patches, etc.

 

[rycamor]

At the moment I have 3 computers in my office:

1. Windows 2000 workstation -- I use this for general office stuff, graphics, and I often use a Windows text editor (UltraEdit) for programming.

2. Slackware Linux workstation -- I use this for a graphical desktop, and as a development server. It runs Samba, so I can edit files from my Windows machine. (Also, my little girl loves TuxPaint ;-))

3. FreeBSD server -- I use this as a webserver and firewall for my DSL connection. It actually handles more tasks than any other machine. I use it as a mailserver, development/demo server (I have a static IP address), and it runs Samba, so I can edit files from my Windows station

Although FreeBSD is my favorite server system, I find Slackware to be one of the most dependable Linux distributions. It actually is very similar to FreeBSD in system layour, configuration scripts, etc... The only negative point about Slackware is that it doesn't have such a comprehensive software distribution system as the FreeBSD 'ports' system. Once you are used to 'ports', it is hard to go back to anything else. But, I find that Slackware tends to handle graphical/multimedia stuff a little more easily than FreeBSD. I especially like the setup routines that let you use the framebuffer driver for a high-resolution console mode.

In general, though both FreeBSD and Slackware handle Samba and networking just fine. I never have a problem with either. -------------------------------------------

Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Of course if you want a "true" Unix experience and don't want everything setup for you, try NetBSD. There you get a bare bones systems and get to do "everything."

 

[GGORTT]

I'm currently administering two Firewalls, 1 FTP Server and a Squid Server all running FreeBSD 4.6 and I'll have to say they are all rock solid. I even like the straight forward approach to configuration and kernal compilation. I haven't tried SAMBA on FreeBSD but I'm assuming that it will be just as solid. Besides, I've about had it with RedHat. BlueCurve is slow and ugly so I've gone back to Valhalla. I haven't tried SuSE since 7.1

 

[rycamor]

>>Of course if you want a "true" Unix experience and don't want everything setup for you, try NetBSD. There you get a bare bones systems and get to do "everything."

Also, NetBSD runs on just about every processor ever made, so you never know when that old Sun box someone threw away might come in useful. (Just about any older computer with networking capability would work, such as an Apple Quadra, etc... you name it.) -------------------------------------------

PHP/Perl/SQL/Javascript --

http://brainscraps.com/resume/