On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 10:55:30AM +0300, Oded Arbel wrote: > On Monday 12 April 2004 00:43, Baruch Even wrote: > > * Diego Iastrubni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040412 00:34]: > > > On Sunday 11 April 2004 22:48, Oded Arbel wrote: > > > > Hi List. > > > > > > > > - upgradable. something with a history of frequent updates - emphasis > > > > on "history" and "frequent". > > > > > > can you spell "debain"? > > On Monday 12 April 2004 00:28, Dan Fruehauf wrote: > > About admining the box - i dont believe in webmin and other GUI based tools. > > I believe the box should be configured manually using the command line (but > > that's me). > > Yes, that's just you. Debian is not a contender. its hard to install > for
It has a new installer that is quite easy and the old one isn't that hard wither but may be a bit too much for newbies (mainly due to lacking hardware probing) but for most uses pressing next works. > newbies, and its hard to administer and it does not have any kind of > web Its actually one of the easiest distros to administer. > based or even graphical/curses integrated administration console. one > of the Webmin works great (web based), there are all sorts of administration consoles for both gnome and kde. > points of setting up this thing (which I forgot to mention) is getting a > linux newbie to see how its done and let her play with it a little. I'm not > in the habit of hitting her over the head with solid objects. > You could also always use knoppix which can install to the hard disk and is much easier to set up (not for a firewall use though). >From what you are saying, it doesn't sound like you are trying to build a hardware firewall. Building a blackbox firewall and installing a system for a newbie to play with are completely different things. Doing the first for a newbie can be a very difficult task even using a dedicated firewall distro, unless its a disk one. > > It's not 2.6 based, unless he replaces the kernel and then he must > > provide updated 2.6 kernels whenever there is a security hole in the > > kernel. > > > I'd still suggest Debian but dropping the 2.6 requirement, 2.4.latest > > isn't good enough? > > I want to have the 2.6 available incase I want to use some of its features. I > don't see much point in instaling a 2.4 distro as a rule of thumb as the 2.6 > kernel is stable and viable solution and offers some important featuers over > the 2.4 series. > Debian has 2.6 support, and I won't recommend 2.6 for newbies, still some missing features and its still too much a moving target. Its still only for people who can handle a testing kernel (despite it being called stable). For newbies, production servers and firewall servers I would stick with 2.4 at the moment. > -- > Oded > ::.. > Finagle's Law only fails when you try to demonstrate it. > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
