freeBSD or linux

[muddle]

hey guys,

what do you think would be better for what i want to do; freebsd or some linux distro. i want to run a web server (hosting probably 2 webpages), an ftp server, an email server, and maybe a few other things. anyways i don't have any experience with either but i would really like to learn, so i have no problem with a little learning curve . also the load on the server will be fairly light its just going to be a home server. i don't really know what the benefits of each are so i figured you guys would be the best to ask.


also, i know this isn't the hardware part of the forums but since i want the hardware to work with the operating system that i use, then i will ask it here. do you guys think a regular desktop type computer could handle this (single processor, 512 to 1 gig of memory) some where in that area or should i look to build a dual processor unit. i guess the simplest question would be what are my benefits of going to a dual processor unit in this situation.


any help will be greatly appreciated

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

The stuff you mention is not hardware intensive for the most part; a single cpu should be more than adequate.

As for the OS, linux and FreeBSD are both perfectly capable of doing all the things you mention, so it basically comes down to personal taste.

 

[n0cmonkey]

They're all free. Try FreeBSD. Try a couple of linux distros. Then choose.

 

[Jonitus]

If I can chime in here...

If you take the time to learn FreeBSD, you will put yourself in a great position for learning *nix. If you can find your way around FreeBSD and become adequately proficient in it's use, then you would have very little difficulty at a later date of managing Linux, if you so chose.

When running Linux, and you experience a problem, the first thing asked by respondants on a message board is something to the effect of "what distro are you running?", which will make a difference in the way you would go about fixing a problem. All linux distros are laid out a little different, programs are placed in different areas (/usr vs. /usr/opt), and the default install of Linux varies from one distro to another...not so with FreeBSD; your default install is the same as the next guy running the same version of FreeBSD...makes getting help a little bit easier. A little saying in the Linux community goes something to the effect of "A RedHat person can fix a RedHat box, a Debianite can fix a Debian box, and a Slackware user can fix any Linux box" (or something to that effect)

Package management on FreeBSD is a huge selling point. I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have some good package management tools (apt, yum, portage), but I have NEVER had a problem with FreeBSD's package management, so long as my ports tree is synced up.

While FreeBSD doesn't get the exposure that Linux does, it is a great system IMHO. You can do everything you want to do on either system, so the choice is up to you.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Generally people don't wander around saying "I have a linux problem", they wander around saying "I have a debian problem" or "I have a redhat problem", and it's no less ambiguous than saying "I have a FreeBSD problem." Just like most people don't walk around saying "I have a BSD problem." And I would imagine that there are more each of redhat, debian, gentoo, etc users than there are FreeBSD users.

Not arguing against FreeBSD, just arguing against a bad point.

 

[Mav3N]

if u want to use a windows type interface and xwindow manager then id install a linux distro

but all things u want to do are easily console and headless runable if ur gonna run the machine headless and dont care about a window manager then id run freebsd