On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 09:19:10AM -0800, T. Joseph CARTER wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:34:40PM -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > I wasn't at all surprised by the result. As I was answering the > > > questions, > > > it occurred to me that I was biasing the outcome by choosing the > > > characteristics of the distribution I'm already using. > > > > I tried it, since I don't currently really use Linux. > > > > gave me 6 "perfect matches": > > > > ubuntu > > mandriva > > suse > > debian > > fedora > > kubuntu > > You chose the same options I did then with an "I don't care" about package > managers. =) In order to choose the anything-but-rpm path, you have to > select that and then discount the RPM dists. That leaves the Ubuntus and > Debian.
yes, I generally chose "don't care as long as it works" > Apparently the Linux world is committed to the RPM, save for Debian and > its derivatives--of which only Knoppixlikes and Ubuntu actually matter. > > Gentoo and Slackware don't count for the push to the desktop, and people > with lots of machines to maintain are going to respond "yeah right" to the > extra overhead on top of their current duties. rsync and such can work for binaries too, so keeping multiple machines "up2date" is rather simple, actually. one build, multiple clones. > > > hmmm, actually, I would probably use gentoo or slack if I "had to" > > use Linux. > > > > I definitely _would not_ use ubuntu or mandriva. > > You're a BSD user. Masochism is a fact of life. Read email. Read > security websites 1-74. Read security newsgroups. Read security email > that just arrived. Laugh at Windows vulnerabilities. Read email again. > See rumor of exploit for some server you run. Investigate rumor. Read > security websites. #47 has reported a vulnerability. Two hours later #26 > has a patch, but #66 doesn't know for sure that it fixes the problem. #30 > issues a revised patch that does two hours after that. Meanwhile you've > been spinning your wheels all day waiting for the patch. Now you can > apply it, recompile, test it, deploy it, and return to the cycle. At the > end of the day you can still make fun of Windows admins who have to be > stuck with unpatched vulnerabilities for weeks at a time, but they at > least got some work done today. So you go home bitter and angry and > declare that software sucks, human beings suck, and you're going to go > play nethack, and you wonder whether or not you can turn off your mobile > for a few hours to be off the grid while you do. > > It involves placing a lot of trust and control in the hands of another, > but a distribution like Ubuntu allows someone ELSE to become disgruntled > trying to manage most of this stuff. I just set up scripts to scan for > vulnerabilities in my NAT router (since it's the front door to my LAN) and > for essentials: ssh, postfix, and apache. These are big enough that I > need only scan a few websites, and I can do it with a small python script. > I have a life outside of being a server monkey, and even if I didn't, > server monkeying is annoyingly tedious IMO. amusing, but rather ficticious. I am an OpenBSD user. my servers are chrooted and privilege separated "out of the box". I get OpenSSH security patches before most anyone else, since, well, it's part of the OpenBSD project. my malloc() allocates memory randomly. those kiddies trying the latest "root kit" will have a hard time of it. my LAN is behind an SGI O2 r10k running OpenBSD -current ... plus, I choose to be one of those "someone ELSE [who gets] to become disgruntled trying to manage most of this stuff". I get my news from ICB, and I've only played nethack maybe 2 minutes, once. all software sucks, some just sucks less. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
