Richard Chycoski wrote: > Michael Tiernan wrote: > >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM: >> [...] >> >> I know that sometimes this is needed, no argument but I think that the >> Solaris crowd had a better .... no, wrong word.... a more innate and >> fundamental understanding of the need for minimizing the places for >> security mistakes. >> >> If you create a system to be a stand-alone webserver on the fringe of >> your company network, you don't want to install lots of things such as >> compiler tools and/or GUI pieces and libraries. Solaris always seemed >> to do this better. >> >> Yea, they had a lot to learn too...... >> >> > It might have been so well thought out and deliberate, though. Perhaps > s/might/might not/ > it happened because you couldn't just magically 'yum install > my_favourite_package' and have all of the dependencies (equally > magically) appear on the system. Since the builder of > 'my_favourite_package' had to go through the pain of installing all of > the dependent packages yourself, said installer was probably as lazy as > me, and didn't reference extra packages that would need extra work to > install when deploying the package. > > It may not have actually worked that way, but it might have done... > > To paraphrase several people: "Don't ascribe to diligence and order that > which can be equally ascribed to sloth and labour avoidance." > > - Richard > Sigh.
- Richard _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
