On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 20:07, Chris Hedemark wrote: > > I did look at Mandrake, but the 2 > > machines I've tested it on so far where less reliable then the Debian > > and > > redhat ones. > > Not to diss 'drake but my experience with it has been like what you > describe. It's a darned good looking distro in its stock configuration > but I wouldn't run it on a server. Or even an important production > desktop.
Chris and Joshua, My experience has been exactly the opposite. I've run Mandrake as my main mail/web server for over 4 years now. I've never had a problem with it, and I've never been hacked <crosses finger> :-). Mandrake has excellent support for servers. Urpmi allows easy updating. Also, Mandrake was one of the very first distributions to integrate security features (first with Bastille, now with msec). They even include a "secure" kernel compiled with lots of things to deter hackers (it used to be the OpenWall patches, but I think it's something new for 2.4... my favorite from the 7.x series was the patch that set permissions on /proc... it exhibited itself so that if you did a ps aux or a top, all you could see were your own processes, there was no access to someone else's processes). So, I would strongly suggest you take another look at Mandrake. In addition, as Jon Carnes already mentioned, Mandrake has support for Freeswan out of the box. Cheers, Tanner Lovelace -- Tanner Lovelace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
