I agree with you Nigel 100%. The pimple face script kiddies need to do.<G>
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 1/31/2001 at 19:25 Hedges, Nigel wrote:
>I'd have to agree with Steven. It almost comes down to a personal choice.
>
>Mandrake Linux 7.2, Caldera and FreeBSD, Solaris 8 for Intel I have
>installed, and they're pretty good
>
>I found RedHat 5.x to 6.x to be pretty unfriendly for an initiate. But with
>Redhat 7.0 I found their install procedure to be vastly improved. They
>support a fair range of hardware (god love the Linux community) and their
>dial-up (rp3) / networking is a little more straight forward. With the Gnome
>GUI environment becoming fairly popular, there's a lot of tools out there.
>www.linuxberg.com is a good site for tools/utilities for linux, much of it
>works under Gnome or KDE and more.
>
>Out of the choices (Linux flavours + Solaris for Intel) I would think that
>RedHat was the best of the bunch for Commercial acceptance...someone correct
>me here. From my experience I know a variety of companies who have become
>"RedHat House".
>
>Coming from a previously strong NT background, I found Redhat easier to
>break-in to Linux, because all your applications are packaged into RPMs ,
>making the whole process of updating OS tools and accessories a lot easier.
>They've tailored their install procedure so that you can choose Server and
>Workstation type installs. There's a neat utility called "up2date" which
>auto-downloads and installs any updated OS packages for you. RedHat is a
>popular linux flavour, its arguably the flag-carrier for linux because it's
>the most widely known. It's got a lot of industry support from many large
>hardware and software vendors, and they have their own certification
>programmes. (no, I don't work for RedHat (-: )
>
>But like any popular OS, as soon as it becomes popular it becomes a target
>of hackers and script kiddies (the 15yr old pimply little brats who feed off
>hacker genius), and thus the scale of "usability" vs. "security" gets a fair
>run for its money. The Ramen worm that exposes vulnerabilities in RedHat
>is testimony that even a good OS has flaws, and people are out there waiting
>to find it.
>
>So in summary, I can't answer which is better, but I can say that Redhat has
>my thumbs up.... For now.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Nigel Hedges
>GIS Network Administrator (Asia Pacific South Team)
>Level 5, 441 St.Kilda Rd. Melbourne, VIC 3004.
>Computer Associates
>Phone: +613 9821 3195
>Mobile: +613 413 483 436
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Steven Pierce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2001 6:43 PM
>To: David Shoon-Yew Ng; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Types of Linux.
>
>
>
>David,
>
>I guess it is all who you ask. I know people that only use RH, but other
>use Caldera. I have used RH and
>FreeBSD. One of the things that I like about FreeBSD is that it is more
>like a Unix. It is also more secure
>with things like FTP, Telnet and the like. Now Caldera is one that I have
>heard has a really clean install
>and interface to it. So it all depends on what you are trying to do. Which
>ever version you choise make
>sure that it is the one you stay with. It is not good to jump back and
>forth between ver. It will just get your more
>confused. Well at least with me.<G>
>
>Good luck on your decision, I can bet you will get a few other comments from
>the list..
>
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
>On 1/31/2001 at 18:48 David Shoon-Yew Ng wrote:
>
>>Dear all,
>> I have a question regarding Linux/UNIX in general. I am starting to
>learn
>>UNIX/Linux but want to focus on one particular area. Which particular
>>version is better - RedHat/Caldera/TurboLinux/Corel etc ... it seems there
>>are so many versions that it might just be better running SUN Solaris 8
>>(Proper UNIX)on Intel platform instead? Which particular version/type is
>>used commercially nowadays (on Intel platform) and which is more popular in
>>general for Servers/Server based application etc ... Please advise ...
>> Thanks in advance ...
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>David Ng
>>
>>-
>>[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>>"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
>
>
>-
>[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
