Here we touch upon the larger issue of why we chose FreeBSD over Linux at this time (2006). In summary the issue has been the lack of a reliable, "free" (i.e. you don't pay for the OS) version. In addition, there are so many choices, each with their quirks, that anything we teach is quite likely not going to be what you will use in your own shop.

Recently (1st and 2nd quarter 2006) there have been some hopeful developments in the Linux world. SuSE (now Novell) has made a version of their up-to-date Linux distribution available for free download. In addition, Ubuntu has released Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Long Term Support), which is aimed as a server operating system including simple LAMP installation, IBM DB2 certfied, and Ubuntu uses the Debian Package Manager for software updating and distribution.

With that said, here is our list of caveats for the major "free" versions of Linux currently available:

What are your reasonable "free" choices in the Linux world at this time?

• Fedora Core: Uses absolutely cutting edge technologies that are often not ready for production environments. For instance, selinux was integrated in to both FC2 and FC3 before it was/is truly production-quality ready. Once you choose your version of Fedora Core, then you must migrate to a new version within approximately one year as your version will no longer be supported by the Fedora Core team. Migrating a production server every 12 months to a new Operating System is not a good idea. Here's the Fedora Core Release Schedule.
• Suse/Novell: The name sums it up. This could be an excellent distribution to consider, but it's general availability is something that is brand new. This has been a major issue with Linux companies; whether to keep a distribution freely available or not. Only time will tell if Novell will continue to make SuSE Linux current available freely. Otherwise, this is a reasonable choice for a server OS. The major reported issue has been the substandard packaging system.
• Debian: From a technical standpoint is extremely stable, free, and has an excellent package management system. Debian is probably the Linux distribution that most closely matches the philosophy of FreeBSD in terms of stability and package management. In addition Debian has available a huge number of packages (almost 15,500 as of June 2006), and as superior package management system called apt. A major issue, or a major plus, depending on your point of view with Debian is how conservative the project is when releasing software. Generally software that ships with Debian is not as current as software that ships with older Linux distributions. This can be worked around by installing newer versions from the Debian "experimental" branches, but if that's what you want, then why use Debian in the first place? Often Debian users will need to update the installed kernel to support newer hardware. The method for upgrading the kernel in Debian is different from other Linux distributions.
• Gentoo: Tempting, but has more than one package management system and neither is complete at this time. This feature is critical. In addition, Gentoo, like Debian, is a big change from Red Hat or Fedora Core.

  Update: As of June 14, 2005 Daniel Robbins, the founder of Gentoo Linux and its former chief architect has accepted a position to work at Microsoft.

• Ubuntu: This is looking like a very good possibility. The project is backed by a dot-com millionaire who has stated that Ubuntu will remain free. The project has advanced nicely, received many, many awards, and is quickly becoming one of the most popular Linux flavors available. Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (June 2006) is a server-version of Ubuntu with "Long Term Support". All excllent items. The major issues are how new the distribution is, and the fact that it uses the same software repository as Debian, meaning that many items may be older than in other Linux distriubtions. For some this is good and for others this is bad. You must decide for yourself.
• Mandrake, SuSE, Turbolinx, etc.: Either don't offer any ISO images from which you can install the OS, or the version that is "free" is very minimal in nature and no guarrantees that they will continue to make it available.

Why Did we Choose FreeBSD Rather than Windows?

• Windows design has been driven by market forces, which has led to many dubious design decisions.
• Windows does not scale. Windows Server still breaks down under heavy process load (it's gotten better).
• An extremely poor history of security flaws. Windows boxes are unsafe to put on the open Internet, even after they have been patched.
• An almost complete lack of remote management and scripting features.

• Microsoft has spent 10 years, so far, trying to fix the original design of Windows to make it work better, and they have been somewhat successful, but the core OS still has fundamental and broken design flaws, these include:
  • Dynamic Link Libraries
  • User and System registry. Attempts to separate these fail. The registry is your OS and it's a binary file. Corruption leads to OS meltdown. A very weak link.
  • Lack of adherence to open standards. For example: Active Directory is based upon LDAP, but adds extensions that cause it to fail with open standard LDAP servers. This lack of adherence to open standards means that you must use Microsoft-only methods to solve your problems. You have no escape route.
  • Poor adherence to Digital Certificate signing methods
  • Dependent code. Many services must run other services to work. (examples: Telephony is needed to do NAT, and you still cannot turn off RPC and have a useful server running - June 2006)
  • Corruptable memory space. (greatly improved in newer versions)
  • Default configurations are consistently insecure and broken (same can be said for many Linux distributions).
  • Extremely poor response record to major security problems, even after making security their "#1" issue.
  • Unclear division between bundled software and OS features. Consider IE.
  • Windows costs money to buy, on a per seat basis.
• Microsoft has consistently made "anti-consumer" moves over the years. Consider:
• Willing to pay 500 million US dollars to by Adware vendor Claria
• Crippled MP3 encoding to 96-bits originally in XP. Only after consumer outcry was this changed.
• Artificially breaks LDAP, Kerberos, and a host of standards by adding Microsoft only "enhancements" to their versions of these protocols.
• Still does not include basic security items such as SSH, proper TLS support for secure POP, etc.
• Still uses RPC, a design declared dangerous and insecure over 15 years ago! And, a major reason for many of the security breaches in Windows.
• Forced companies to ship with an inferior web browser (IE), or lose the ability to buy Windows at competitive prices.
• Won't let you update their OS unless you use their web browser.
• Subversively install software on your system, including a prerelease (read beta) version of Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications software to PCs as a "high priority" item in the built-in update feature in Windows.( June 2006).

Open Source and "free" operating system costs money as well, but, at least you are paying for your time and energy. Very few independent studies have been done an what it costs to run Windows vs. Linux or Unix in a business. The few independent studies that have been done consistently show Windows to be more expensive to run. Almost every study that shows otherwise was either paid for by Microsoft, or done by a company with Microsoft connections. This is how their marketing machine works.

We could go on, but really this is an issue of experience. If you look around you'll see that the majority of Web servers and larger email servers are not running under Microsoft Windows, and there are many reasons for this.