Naturally one shouldn't completely rely on the distro maintainers for all
security and updates. I do a barebones net install with woody3.0. apt-get
upgrade/update makes maintaining the base system easy. For any critical
services or software I always compile from source, applying any patches a
Previously Federico Grau wrote:
> Careful ... as I understand it, Woody does _NOT_ get security updates. If
> there is a
> security fix it gets posted to Sid, and after 2 weeks of non-critical bugs it
> migrates
> into testing/Woody.
That migration doesn't happen anymore, updates for woody are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:01:39PM -0500, Brad B wrote:
..
> The wise man chooses what he is best at maintaining". A default potato2.2
> install makes for a stable and secure server for just about anyting right
> out of the box. But with the ease of
I can't compare Slackware to Debian, but I can credit Debian with being the
first distro to give me the confidence to delete my windows partition. I've
run Mandrake 7.2 as a desktop, but still felt the need to dual boot win98.
I've tangled with Slackware and FreeBSD briefly, but installing Deb
I have been using Debian since version 0.93 and I have also had the
occasion to use RedHat. I cannot speak for specifically for the security
of one against the other, but the only RedHat server I ran for any time
did get rooted and had a rootkit installed on it. Now this isn't to say
that RedHat is
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 05:53:35PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> I look for good comparison about the security of Debian and Redhat or
> SuSE systems, especial about number of found local exploits or DOS
> attacks. I assume that Debian Stable should be less invulnerable since
> th
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 08:49, Patrick Hsieh wrote:
> Hello Brad B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> Agree. Can someone give any persuasive reason for me to say goodbye to
> Slackware and embrace Debian? They differ a lot in their philosophy and
> development model. Is there any guys switching from Slackware
> > Debian was the first Linux I installed, from floppies, in 1986.
>
> Do you mean 1996?
Ah, yep. Brain fart. Thanks for noticing.
> I personnaly use Linux since 1994, version 0.99pl14, was SLS
> distribution.
Neat. In 1995, a network engineer and systems admin associate of mine said, "I
hav
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Brad B wrote:
> I don't think it matters what distro the newcomer starts with...once one
> knows what they are doing to the point of making an educated decision,
> the wise man chooses debian.
The wise man chooses what he is best at maintaining, which usually means:
a) the d
Hello *,
Howland, Curtis ecrivait :
> My number one reason was the collaborative nature of the Debian effort.
> Debian was the first Linux I installed, from floppies, in 1986.
Do you mean 1996? As far as I know the Linux kernel as started in 1991.
I personnaly use Linux since 1994, versio
6/12/02 9:49:59 AM, Patrick Hsieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Agree. Can someone give any persuasive reason for me to say goodbye to
>Slackware and embrace Debian? They differ a lot in their philosophy and
>development model. Is there any guys switching from Slackware to Debian?
>
Yes. I
Hello Brad B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Agree. Can someone give any persuasive reason for me to say goodbye to
Slackware and embrace Debian? They differ a lot in their philosophy and
development model. Is there any guys switching from Slackware to Debian?
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:26:10 -0500
Brad B <[E
I don't think it matters what distro the newcomer starts with...once one knows
what they are doing to the point of making an educated decision, the wise man
chooses debian.
Potato is stable to the point of almost being boring, and Woody/Sid are always
fun to play with.
Viva la Debian!
-Brad Be
> On Tue 11 Jun 2002 19:54, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > There is a lot of collaboration between the respective security
> > teams for the major Linux distributions. As a result of this,
> > they all tend to release necessary security updates at the same
> > time. Known security updates are rarel
On Tue 11 Jun 2002 19:54, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > reminded me of a flap that arose over a list of
> > vulnerabilities posted by platform, etc on SecurityFocus:
> >
> >http://securityfocus.com/vulns/stats.shtml
>
> I'm not sure this data is worth much. Debian, Redhat, SuSE, et al
> typ
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 07:20:50PM -0400, Jeff Bonner wrote:
> I am certainly not in a position to say which is more secure, but this
> reminded me of a flap that arose over a list of vulnerabilities posted
> by platform, etc on SecurityFocus:
>
>http://securityfocus.com/vulns/stats.shtml
I'm
On Tue 11 Jun 2002 11:54, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> I look for good comparison about the security of Debian and Redhat or
> SuSE systems, especial about number of found local exploits or DOS
> attacks. I assume that Debian Stable should be less invulnerable since
> the software is more tested, but I w
17 matches
Mail list logo
