Is FreeBSD 6 more secure and stable than Solaris 10 or vice versa??

I would appreciate the help..

Thanks

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 17 Mar 2006 18:52:57 -0800 "as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is FreeBSD 6 more secure and stable than Solaris 10 or vice versa??

Are apples better than oranges?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

He's right.  There's a lot more to consider when choosing Solaris as
your OS.  For Solaris, you need to decide on your hardware platform
either SPARC or x86/x64.  That will make a big difference in some
aspects such as performance and knowledge required for operation.
However, as far as security goes, it should be the same on SPARC and
x86.

I assume you're talking about network security?  Physical security has
a whole other set of concerns when looking at these two platforms.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

He's right.  There's a lot more to consider when choosing Solaris as
your OS.  For Solaris, you need to decide on your hardware platform
either SPARC or x86/x64.  That will make a big difference in some
aspects such as performance and knowledge required for operation.
However, as far as security goes, it should be the same on SPARC and
x86.

I assume you're talking about network security?  Physical security has
a whole other set of concerns when looking at BSD and Solaris
platforms.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 17 Mar 2006 18:52:57 -0800, as400 <vin42and99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is FreeBSD 6 more secure and stable than Solaris 10 or vice versa??

It depends.

Ask a better question and you'll get better answers.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Frank Cusack wrote:
> as400 wrote:

AS400 on a UNIX group.  Chuckle.
 
>
> Are apples better than oranges?

Pumpernickel is definitely better than pasta.

Since we're playing security and stabilty bingo - Hard to beat the
typical
uptime of AIX when compared to either that PC stuff or that Sun stuff.
Maybe it's because AIX is hard to use, maybe because they have better
stuff.  Not being enough of an AIXpert, my inclination is ...  ;^)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Begin  <1142883463.444116.9790@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
On 2006-03-20, Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Frank Cusack wrote: 
> Pumpernickel is definitely better than pasta.

Oh, I don't know that. A good pasta is a delicacy in its own right. As
much as good food needs a good chef, OSen need people that understand
how to secure them. And to provide those people the tools to do it, of
course. I know FreeBSD does, and I'm told Solaris does, also.


> Since we're playing security and stabilty bingo - Hard to beat the
> typical uptime of AIX when compared to either that PC stuff or that
> Sun stuff.

VMS seems to run decent uptimes too.


> Maybe it's because AIX is hard to use, maybe because they
> have better stuff.

The hardware is pretty decent, in the ``heavy as rocks, about as solid''
sense. The software is best left untouched, as far as I've seen.


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"as400" <vin42and99@yahoo.com> writes:

> Is FreeBSD 6 more secure and stable than Solaris 10 or vice versa??

It depends.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]