Re: Which OS?

[Joe Hart <j.hart@orange.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 07:39:09PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote:
>  
>> If someone is looking for recent software, and stability, then Lenny
>> might be an option when it comes out, but until it does, Etch might be
>> the best fit.  Sid is not "frozen" as Etch is, but is very cold at the
>> moment, so even Sid does not offer the newest software like it should.
>> For example, OOo is 2.04 in Sid, while 2.1 has been "stable" for months
>> and 2.2 just released.
>>
>> The problem with Ubuntu is that while it is based on Debian, several key
>> items are different (restricted modules, sudo/root, etc.) to make it not
>> appealing to many Debian purists.  Sidux on the other hand offers 100%
>> compatibility with Debian, and some really smart people helping smooth
>> any bumps one might experience with it.  Sidux is Sid, with a custom
>> kernel and a few really good scripts.
>>
>> For Debian people who might be afraid of running Sid, Sidux might be
>> just the answer that they were looking for.  However, I would have to
>> admit that it might be dangerous, and Etch is the safe bet.  It might
>> not have the latest packages, but it will work as promised.
> 
> The question for me is, what about security auditing?  Just before Etch
> froze, it started to get covered by the Debian Security Team.  However,
> when Etch becomes stable, it is not clear that Lenny will immediatly get
> security support.  Since the debian-testing page (or notes, somewhere on
> the web site) says that a testing box should not be directly connected
> to the internet (except for now that Etch has security support), its not
> something I would want to do.

That is a good question.  I guess since Lenny doesn't even exist yet, it
is hard to say. I wouldn't necessarily agree that Testing or Unstable
should not be connected to the Internet, I would agree that they
shouldn't be used on a production server though.  A workstation is a
different story.

> 
> This is what led me to my suggestion about separating the base OS from
> the latest-greatest apps with a chroot.  In this case, the chroot is not
> for security but to allow two different installations to coexist.  

Chroot is a good idea.  Separate entries in Grub for both systems is
also a good idea.  That's why I put my systems on different partitions
and don't install chroots inside directories.  One can always tell one
system to mount the other partition inside a directory somewhere, but
can't usually get grub to boot a system buried in a directory.  I might
be wrong on this, grub can do some amazing things.

> 
> So what is the OP looking for?
> 
> Doug.
> 
> 

- --
Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGDsqriXBCVWpc5J4RAs+FAJ43OvQVXbhKLPoYkJGM57cJH6nrigCfUYQa
aY4tQ6DuOdXQTWVPixiZWxk=
=xT8h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----