Re: Corel/Debian Linux Installer
I agree with both of you, but how do you please the enduser and the
administrator/experienced user ? The only way I can see is to ask a question
at installation time: Will this be a server or and end-user machine? (or
something similar). That way default settings could be selected that would be
best for the particular task the machine is performing.
On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 05:49:18PM -0700, David Bristel wrote:
> I believe you misunderstood my meaning here. What I suggested was that Debian
> as it currently exists should remain the way it is, but with a special "enduser"
> version that doesn't start with these things on. It is a focus issue in my
> opinion. Do we want to target the enduser the way Redhat has done, and
> sacrifice quality for ease of use to endusers? One of the things about Debian
> that appeals to me is that it is a "system administrator's Linux". While
> the installation could be adjusted to be more friendly to new users, Debian
> is probably the easiest to maintain UNIX type system out there for a system
> administrator.
>
> Dave Bristel
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:46:58 -0400
> > From: Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org>
> > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: Corel/Debian Linux Installer
> > Resent-Date: 20 Aug 1999 22:47:01 -0000
> > Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> > Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 11:18:16AM -0700, David Bristel wrote:
> > > Another solution is to let those who are looking to remain ignorant to go use
> > > Redhat. The real issue is that a standard UNIX type system will have telnet,
> > > rlogin, rsh, as well as FTP and other remote access tools turned on by default.
> > > For an enduser, this is a negative, since if they don't know what they are
> > > doing, their system can be easily hacked and used to attack other systems. The
> > > ease of use issue basically comes down to having a complete minimal system
> > > without telnet, FTP, or anything turned on, with only the minimum needed to go
> > > into xf86. I do NOT recomend that Debian go down this path, except as a
> > > seperate "distribution" that aims for the enduser system. Even Redhat is more
> >
> > I disagree 100%. In fact, I think it's time to start shipping systems
> > with _no_ remote access enabled by default. I think that it is
> > irresponsible to ship systems with services turned on by default because
> > we _know_ that these systems are installed by people who don't update
> > them and let them become convenient havens for crackers andother
> > miscreants. The reality is that someone who needs something like telnet
> > will find it and turn it on. Someone who's ignorant of it _doesn't need
> > it on_. And I think it's fair to say that the most clueful sites these
> > days are going to _turn off_ most of what we enable by default.
> >
> > Unix has always shipped with this stuff turned on. And unix used to ship
> > with passwordless accounts, + + in the .rhosts, etc. Times have changed.
> > It's time for distributors & vendors to show some responsibility for the
> > tools they're putting in the hands of people who don't know how to use
> > them, and don't even know they exist. In most cases I'm strongly opposed
> > to too much hand-holding. But in this case, it's not an issue of people
> > screwing up their own systems...
> >
> > Mike Stone
> >
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarel Botha | Computer & | +27 341 81341
(sjb@dundee.lia.net) | Accounting | BOX 2065, Dundee
| Services | 3000, South Africa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: