"BSD is for people that love Unix. Linux is for people that hate Windows."

This well-known quotation should be considered a guide for people who are planning to migrate from Windows to Linux or BSD (I don't see much reason for people to go the other way around). While I find that BSD is better than any distribution of Linux, I wish to issue a precaution to people planning to go straight to BSD: BSD is not Linux. You won't find the handholding of Linux distributions in FreeBSD. However, you will find greater stability, security, and hopefully, speed.

With that all said, FreeBSD is a great operating system. I use it on three of my computers, one of which is always on and has an uptime (how long the system has been on) of around 30 days. It has to be taken down every so often when I need to do a reboot, but I assure you that I have never had to restart it because of a crash, as most Windows users experience every day. As I mentioned before, FreeBSD is not as user-friendly as say, Red Hat Linux. It does not have all the cute GUI configuration tools. Not that you need them anyway. However, if you have had little Unix experience, I recommend that you check some distribution of Linux first. Lets begin by describing the fundamentals of the operating system (note: I will be comparing FreeBSD to other versions of Unix and to Windows itself).

Stability

Sure, Windows 2000 Server claims 5 nines reliability (99.999%), but I bet that only applies to systems that are started and never have anything running on them. Even the most basic of configuration changes on Windows systems require reboots (try changing a network workgroup). FreeBSD, like Unix in general, can have almost anything changed without a reboot, excluding hardware additions and kernel changes. Usually, while my BSD box is up, I change IPs, install software, and kill applications in memory. All of this can be done without a single reboot, unlike its Microsoft competitor.

Compared to other versions of BSD, I find that stability is not much different. NetBSD seems to actually be more stable than FreeBSD, but it is also much slower. The same applies to OpenBSD, but since I do not keep OpenBSD servers running, I'm unsure about OpenBSD's reliability.

The change is more dramatic when you compare FreeBSD to Linux. Slackware, probably the most stable of Linux distributions after its kernel has been rebuilt and patches installed, is simply not as stable as FreeBSD. One most note that even though Slackware is less reliable then FreeBSD, it is still much more reliable than Windows. A case in point - if you plan on running a server, expect attacks to occur on your server. In my experience, when a FreeBSD system is attacked, it can more reliably handle the incoming flood of data. Slackware on the other hand seems to choke on heavy data loads. While this might be more of a security issue, it shows the ability of systems to keep their cool and stability under heavy loads. One must note that these were controlled tests - there is a critical point of attack that will cause almost any server to fail.

Solaris, another version of Unix, definitely beats FreeBSD. A Sun Microsystems product, Solaris is totally server oriented, and therefore wins out over BSD. However, BSD is still more stable than most consumer products and is stable enough in my opinion.

Security

Sometimes it seems that Unix based systems are less secure than their Windows peers when one notices the great amount of exploits discovered for Unix systems every day. The reasoning behind this is simple: because most of Unix software (and some the operating systems based on it) is open source, anyone can view the computer code and view the errors that the programmer made, and therefore exploit it. Windows is closed source and is not victim to such scrutiny, but that means that it ends up much less secure. I continue to debate with myself which operating system is more secure under unadulterated conditions, and find that they are equal if either operating system is not patched.

Once patched and the kernel rebuilt, FreeBSD triumphs over a patched Windows system. Not only does FreeBSD easily transform itself into a firewall-enabled operating system, it also provides file system security (read/write/execute access limiting). The former does not come without third-party software on Windows (ok, it doesn't come with FreeBSD either, but at least it's included on FreeBSD CDs and with a typical install, ready to be enabled). The latter is almost impossible with FAT32 on Windows, unless one wants to modify the system greatly or wade in an ocean of encryption and read-only settings. On NTFS, the preferred file system of Windows 2000 and NT, it requires setup and activation to work. On FreeBSD, such features are default and work without user intervention. I know that with enough work both file systems can almost be equal, but system administrators tend to like to do as little as work as possible. Also, with the work required to secure Windows systems, there is more room for error and unpatched holes.

Unix overall has the same security when systems are properly administered. However, FreeBSD does make security easier to implement by allowing a user to select different security levels during the install. While these options are not a silver bullet for securing a system, they do cover the basic details. The security level can be changed after install, which is a nice touch.

Speed

FreeBSD has many features over Windows in speed. The most notable is FreeBSD's virtual memory system. Advanced users of Windows have come to know that Window's memory management is horrible, and that default settings are almost the worst settings for improving system performance. FreeBSD has a good (and somewhat complicated) memory management system that works wonders on systems with low resources (say 16 MB of ram?). The complicated part is the math is based on, but users need not worry - its all done in the background with no intervention.

In my experience, FreeBSD has been the fastest version of BSD out. OpenBSD, while secure in every aspect, is much slower. NetBSD, which is extremely stable, is also much slower.

Linux-wise, FreeBSD is up there. I haven't performed enough tests between my FreeBSD and Slackware boxes to determine speed, but it seems that they are generally equal.

Unix-wise, FreeBSD is much faster for everyday use. Once you move to server work, Solaris and AIX prove to be much better solutions.

Conclusion

FreeBSD is an excellent operating system if you are already familiar with Unix. You can start with FreeBSD, but I'd recommend that you check out Red Hat or Slackware first. If you are still running a Windows server, dump it and install FreeBSD!


Recommended: Yes