Ed wrote:
The point is compared with Redhat (for example), the opensource software from
Solaris, doesn't seem to be kept as uptodate.
What does up to date mean to you ?
If it means security fixes then I would disagree with your assertion, we
produce patches
now just as quick as other ven
Ed wrote:
>The point is compared with Redhat (for example), the opensource software from
>Solaris, doesn't seem to be kept as uptodate.
>
>In an environment where you are trying to keep things secure, this is
>important, and if Solaris can't provide timely patches, then that's a distinct
>disad
The point is compared with Redhat (for example), the opensource software from
Solaris, doesn't seem to be kept as uptodate.
In an environment where you are trying to keep things secure, this is
important, and if Solaris can't provide timely patches, then that's a distinct
disadvantage, as I hav
one quick addendum: mod_php is available via the companion CD, fwiw.
-steve
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:25:29AM -0700, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> > The main concern I have is whether Solaris will provide
> > the patches as soon as any vulnerabilities come out, especially for
> > Apache?
>
> While
Thanks. That's pretty much what my manager said as well. I think we'll
definitely stick with our own Apache and Postfix, but I'm worried about the
openssl version as 0.9.7d is subject to vulnerabilities, and presumably the SSH
is compiled against this.
This message posted from opensolaris.or
> The main concern I have is whether Solaris will provide
> the patches as soon as any vulnerabilities come out, especially for
> Apache?
While vulnerabilities get fixed fairly quickly, the biggest problem with using
the bundled Apache is that new features (such as large file support) tend to
t
hi,
>Solaris 10 now which provides this software as part of the OS, so I'm
>not sure whether it's best just to use that instead of my own builds?The
the answer is "yes" unless you really need a new functionality not
present in versions shipped with S10
>main concern I have is wh
