Quoting C Francis Pineda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Probably we could do that but that maybe perceived by the public as > negative "why not red hat?"
People also ask "Why not accept all default packages and settings?" E.g., most distributions default to sendmail, BIND, wu_ftpd/proftpd. Many still default to BSD lpr. One all of them it's _possible_ to install Postfix, MaraDNS, vs_ftp, and PDQ -- even where the distribution doesn't include a precompiled package -- but you have to go out of your way. Going out of your way is, nonetheless, an extremely good idea. Therefore, the answer to the question, in all cases, is "Because this is how my local security policy dictates that I build my systems -- all systems -- in order to get it right." Or you can just say "This is what I normally use/do by preference." It helps, of course, if that's true. (None of the above is intended to suggest that Red Hat is unusable for constructing systems that are simultaneously very functional and difficult to crack. But Red Hat has disadvantages for both flexibility of setup and long-term maintainability, though the latter isn't important for a one-time demonstration scenario.) -- Cheers, I've been suffering death by PowerPoint, recently. Rick Moen -- Huw Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
