-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 07:39:09PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: > >> If someone is looking for recent software, and stability, then Lenny >> might be an option when it comes out, but until it does, Etch might be >> the best fit. Sid is not "frozen" as Etch is, but is very cold at the >> moment, so even Sid does not offer the newest software like it should. >> For example, OOo is 2.04 in Sid, while 2.1 has been "stable" for months >> and 2.2 just released. >> >> The problem with Ubuntu is that while it is based on Debian, several key >> items are different (restricted modules, sudo/root, etc.) to make it not >> appealing to many Debian purists. Sidux on the other hand offers 100% >> compatibility with Debian, and some really smart people helping smooth >> any bumps one might experience with it. Sidux is Sid, with a custom >> kernel and a few really good scripts. >> >> For Debian people who might be afraid of running Sid, Sidux might be >> just the answer that they were looking for. However, I would have to >> admit that it might be dangerous, and Etch is the safe bet. It might >> not have the latest packages, but it will work as promised. > > The question for me is, what about security auditing? Just before Etch > froze, it started to get covered by the Debian Security Team. However, > when Etch becomes stable, it is not clear that Lenny will immediatly get > security support. Since the debian-testing page (or notes, somewhere on > the web site) says that a testing box should not be directly connected > to the internet (except for now that Etch has security support), its not > something I would want to do.
That is a good question. I guess since Lenny doesn't even exist yet, it is hard to say. I wouldn't necessarily agree that Testing or Unstable should not be connected to the Internet, I would agree that they shouldn't be used on a production server though. A workstation is a different story. > > This is what led me to my suggestion about separating the base OS from > the latest-greatest apps with a chroot. In this case, the chroot is not > for security but to allow two different installations to coexist. Chroot is a good idea. Separate entries in Grub for both systems is also a good idea. That's why I put my systems on different partitions and don't install chroots inside directories. One can always tell one system to mount the other partition inside a directory somewhere, but can't usually get grub to boot a system buried in a directory. I might be wrong on this, grub can do some amazing things. > > So what is the OP looking for? > > Doug. > > - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDsqriXBCVWpc5J4RAs+FAJ43OvQVXbhKLPoYkJGM57cJH6nrigCfUYQa aY4tQ6DuOdXQTWVPixiZWxk= =xT8h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
