Quoting Dan Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:06:47PM -0800, Des Dougan wrote: > > > > > > Given Red Hat's stated direction, and the lack of clarity of how Fedora > > > Core will develop, might v 7.0 be the time to address basing the server > > > on a different distribution to provide a more stable base than FC may > be > > > able to provide? > > > > Which distribution did you have in mind? Theoretically, a switch to > > Debian (for example) isn't too drastic because the core configuration > > and architecture of E-smith is in the Perl template/events structure. > > In practice it would be a huge amount of work and the upgrade > > path would be a real challenge. > > I think a move to a stable distro like Debian would have a number of > advantages (not least of which might be a new pool of willing volunteers!). > It also has the best update/install system (in APT) that I have come > across. > > I can see that the upgrade path would be a big issue though. > > > Dan. Well, Here is what I've seen so far. Redhat and RPM although relible and well estabilshed are NOT good package management systems. Too much micromanagment is required on the part of the system administrator.
Debain Supports both RPM and APT, there are a number of tools that will cross install. The main issue would be the minor diffrences in file system layout (Debain is also more efficent than RedHat in this respect). Debain also recently modified anaconda to support apt! One good system that comes to mind is Gentoo, as they have "THE BEST" package management system I've ever used (On a linux distro). It's more akin to the BSD "Ports" tree, however seeing as this is a firewall, haveing a complier handy is not the greatest idea. So here is the ages old debate, Which distro and do I need a complier? Since the future of redhat is murky, perhaps the Dev Crew would contact Redhat? Simply because re-codeing the wheel is a gargantuian task. Personally, I think E-smith should be developed for OpenBSD, it's there, supports all the packages that e-smith uses and is inherently more secure than linux of any kind. As of 3.4 the ld linker loads libraries in a randomized order effectivly nullifying or making buffer overflows increadably difficult. It also has a stable tree, has a reputation and a huge following in the security industry. Perhaps there were liscencing issues? Either way, I hope you all feel that this is food for though and not a complete waste of time. The open source playing feild is pretty daunting at times, and E- smith may be locked into one core by virtue of the scrpts used. Just my two cents, Hazen. Where my perl skills sharper and my free time more plentiful I'd do it myself. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
