On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, William Warren wrote:
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Yeah, I agree, but that was also a pretty steep learning curve and a lesson
> >that e.g. Redhat had to learn the hard way. I believe in 2001 Redhat 6.2 had
> >more severe security alerts that w2k.
> >
> What many tend to forget because MS and others have blinded them to the
> fact is that RH may have had more security alerts but outside of the
> kernel RH is not linux..the linux operating system is the
> kernel..everything else is third party...MS by their own adminission has
> windows tied into everything in the instlalation(IE, WMP..etc etc) and a
> flaw in one of these programs is a flaw in the entire system. BIG
> difference in architecture big difference in overall security...you
> cannot compare windows to a linux distro becuase the distro itself IS
> not linux..:)
>
> <snip>
And yet, there's not much one ca do with a kernel alone. Of course redhat
tends to be one of the "kitchen sink" distros of linux. And if you are in
for a test of your skills, try replacing say apache with your own build on
a redhat system, and learn the issues of dependcany hell that is the
redhat RPM structure.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
