Gents, although I, too, personally prefer CentOS over other distributions (owing largely to its superior security features and longer horizon of support), it does have some drawbacks. The license terms for RHEL (unless they've been changed since last I studied them) entail enterprise-wide forfeiture of license for a licensee who installs even one copy of a non-licensed derivative of RHEL, such as CentOS. Also, today, Ubuntu is today the more common entry path into the Linux world than Fedora.
And, BTW, vis-a-vis CentOS 5: isn't a beta RHEL 6 out or right around the corner? I recently installed a Honeywall on hardware I'd selected for general Linux use. I had no trouble with the hardware requirements of the existing Honeywall release, aged though it is. Where I *did* have trouble was Linux Sebek, which I could not coax into working at all even with the reference software base release. The absence of Sebek undercut my entire purpose for deployment and forced me to abandon the project. Personally, I think ongoing maintenance of Linux Sebek is a more urgent issue than updating the hardware compatibility of the Honeywall. But, of course, that's a matter of opinion. The Honeywall might serve as a useful monitoring tool in some applications that do not require Sebek. Moreover, at least some non-Linux versions of Sebek seem to be working these days. So my use case may not be typical. I hope you guys are doing well. It's great to see some traffic on this list. It makes me feel young again. :-) Cheers, On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Arthur Clune <art...@honeynet.org.uk>wrote: > Sorry, that was a bad way of putting what I meant. CentOS is a > perfectly sensible choice for the base. What I meant was a more > standard/general build process e.g. the Fedora Spin stuff. Even if > it's not simpler than the current process (which I expect it would be) > it would be more commonly know. > > I just never get round to looking at it :( > > $ apt-get honeywall > > I can never decide about this one. It's clearly attractive, but the > counter argument is that having a bootable CD makes for a simpler > "appliance" that's easier to setup. > > Arthur > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Rob McMillen <rvmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Arthur, > > What would you consider a more general distro? > > > > > -- > Arthur Clune art...@clune.org > _______________________________________________ > Honeywall mailing list > Honeywall@public.honeynet.org > https://public.honeynet.org/mailman/listinfo/honeywall > -- Bill McCarty
_______________________________________________ Honeywall mailing list Honeywall@public.honeynet.org https://public.honeynet.org/mailman/listinfo/honeywall
