f7fcab81_eeBSD_vs_Linux_vs_Windows_2000__Linux
[0] Filesystem [FreeBSD] FreeBSD uses the UFS (Unix File System), which is a little more complex than Linux's ext2. It offers a better way to insure filesystem data integrity, mainly with the "sofupdates" option. This option decreases synchronous I/O and increases asynchronous I/O because writes to a UFS filesystem aren't synced on a sector basis but according to the filesystem structure. This ensures that the filesystem is always coherent between two updates. The FreeBSD filesystem also supports file flags, which can stop a would-be intruder dead in his or her tracks. There are several flags that you can add to a file such as the immutable flag. The immutable (schg) flag won't allow any alteration to the file or directory unless you remove it. Other very handy flags are append only (sappnd), cannot delete (sunlnk), and archive (arch). When you combine these with the kernel security level option, you have a very impenetrable system. [Windows 2000] The Microsoft FAT filesystem and the newer NTFS are both plagued by over 15 years of backwards compatability with the earliest of PC-based filesystems. These filesystems were not designed for today's demanding server applications, they weren't even designed with a multi-user OS or networking in mind! [Linux] 
The Linux ext2 filesystem gets its performance from having an asynchronous mount. You can mount FreeBSD UFS filesystems as asynchronous but this is very dangerous and no seasoned Unix admin would do this. It's amazing that Linux is designed this way by default. Often a hard carsh permanently damages a mount. FreeBSD or Solaris can sustain a very hard crash with only minor data loss, and the filesystem will be remountable with few problems. There are several new journaling filesystems in development for Linux that will fix some of these issues, but these will not be ready for the 2.4 release of Linux.
FreeBSD vs Linux vs Windows 2000
Linux