On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Their distribution is geared more towards enterprise support, so the focus
> > of their various install options is on giving you most of what you need
> > for a particular purpose, without a lot of fuss. This speeds up the
> > install process, which is a welcome feature for most admins.
>
> I'm not so sure I agree with this entirely. Even if Red Hat is targeting
Yeah yeah... I'm not saying I agree with it entirely either; just that it
is the philosophy that RedHat has taken. They're not alone either...
> enabled, you should not install it". I don't buy that; I may want something
> installed so I can enable it later; In the mean time, I have to spend time to
> secure the system.
Even debian follows this philosophy. And I don't really feel it's a
liability; for a lot of users, this is better. For a lot of users, it
isn't better. You just have to pick who you want to appeal to the most,
and that's what they did.
> > A fast install and ease of administration is more valuable to a great
> > many administrators...
>
> I don't think a secure by default stance is necessarily harder to
> administer. Turning features on or off should not be hard. If it is hard,
> then securing the box will be hard, and I would rather security be easy.
Sure. Never said that it was impossible to build a better mouse
trap. Only trying to point out that there are some advantages to the way
RedHat does things over the way *BSD does, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WANT.
> > And yes, RedHat does release buggy software, but they're also usually
> > pretty good about fixing it.
>
> Okay, who are you, and what have you done with Derek? ;-)
Notice I DID say USUALLY.... and also this is in the context of having
dealt with Sun, and most notably with HP-UX in the past, where stuff
stayed broken or brain-damaged for YEARS.
> > Would I like to see a "base install" option? Yeah, I would.
>
> AOL!
I'm pretty sure you're not talking about America On Line here, but I don't
get the acronym...
> Especially when installing onto a bitty box that is short on hard
> drive space. Hmmmm, how about this as an idea: Give packages "Priorities",
> so that the installer can make reasonably intelligent guesses as to what can
> be dropped and what must be kept.
Yeah I've always thought that made sense, and this is something slackware
always did, though it had limitations. And many of the priorities were
stupid... i.e. groff was marked as "recommended" I believe. Never mind
that you need it to format man pages and other documentation... :)
> For example, "ls" is more important then "gcc", but "gcc" is more
> important then "xboing".
Nothing is more important that xboing!!! Blasphemer!
--
Derek Martin
Senior System Administrator
Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
