[plug] Installfest - distributions

[Bret Busby]

Leon Brooks wrote:
> 
> Solutions:
> 
> IMPORTANT: IF YOU ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING EDITED INFORMATION TOWARDS A WALL POSTER,
> PLEASE DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH PLUS THE ---XXX-POSTER-INFO--- TAGS BELOW AND
> EVERYTHING BETWEEN THEM FROM YOUR REPLY *** NOW ***!
> 
> (1) if they ask for a specific distro, install that. An installer can usually
> have 2 or 3 machines on the hop at once.
> 
> (2) let's have a wall poster emphasising the advantages of each distro; we can
> start arguing that down here and now; and see if that helps them to make a
> decision.
> 
> (3) have a simple card stack. Give each installer three cards, take one card
> from each, shuffle randomly, place in pile, repeat twice more. If an installee
> makes a choice, installer finds his top card in the pile and tags the machine
> with it. Else user takes a card from the pile. Installers need not restrict
> themselves to one distro.
> 
> Edit the information and re-post it.  Leave the ---XXX-POSTER-INFO--- tags here
> for ease of later parsing.
> 
> ---START-POSTER-INFO--- ie, <flame mode=on valve="100%">
> 
> RedHat: most common distribution, widest range of compatible packages, arguably
> least stringent security.
> 
> Mandrake: derived from RedHat, most RH packages compatible, selectable security
> levels including reasonably paranoid, lots of nice toys out of the box, requires
> most disk space.
> 
> DebIan: more care take in assembly than either of above, effective dependency
> management, most optional toys of all.
> 
> Slackware: simplest distribution?
> 
> SuSE: best video drivers?
> 
> whoever-else: add your contribution here. Leave the ---XXX-POSTER-INFO--- tags
> here for ease of later parsing.
> 
> ---END-POSTER-INFO---
> 

With the wording of the above, I am not sure what to leave, and, what to
snip, to reduce unnecessary data transfer.

Regarding Red Hat, and the issue of security; does the "least stringent
security" apply to local, or external security? Where ipchains is used
(we have a quite complicated firewall script, that Christian had a look
at, and said that it was too long and complicated to try to easily
understand), isn't something like the implementation of the ipchains
utility in a distribution, generic across the distributions? By that, I
mean the actual code for the application (ipchains); isn't it the same,
regardless of the distribution? Thus, if an ipchains firewall is used,
shouldn't that overcome the security issues as far as security external
to a LAN is concerned, if an external entity can't see past the firewall
(on the ideal basis that a firewall is infallible, which, I believe they
aren't; my understanding is that they just increase the probability of
security)?

Could someone please clarify that for me?

Also, regarding Mandrake, and the "derived from Red Hat"; a while ago,
when I contacted Mandrake, regarding version 7, after it had just been
released, and its relationship with a Red Hat version, I got a very
arrogant response from mandrake, to the effect that Mandrake had no
relationsip to any Red Hat distribution, and that Mandrake 7 was totally
unrelated to any Red Hat distribution. My query had been simple; from
memory, it was something likethis; from my understanding, Mandrake 6.0
had been based on RH 5.2 (I think it was - the version was published on
the Mandrake box, from memory), and I was simply asking which RH
version, Mandrake 7 was based on. So, perhaps, it may not be approriate
to refer to any relationship between mandrake and Red Hat, in case the
mandrakes become aware of it, and take offence.

Regarding Debian, and one of the more knowledgeable on the list can
perhaps clarify this, but, in addition to the above comments about
Debian, isn't it supposed to be easier (apart from the information on
the debian.org website), to upgrade from one version of debian, to the
next? While we have last weekend done an easy upgrade, from RH 6.0 to RH
6.2, I understand that RH cannot be upgraded from a first digit version
number to a later first digit version number (eg, upgrading my RH 5.2 to
RH 6.2); that it has to be done as a clean instal, but, that with
Debian, it can be done, easily and simply. Am I correct in this belief?
If so, that may be worth including in the comments about Debian. If I am
mistaken, then, I can learn from the mistake. 

Regarding Slackware (is it still around?), it is my understanding, that
it is the least user-friendly distribution to install and use; that it
is more for people who are already fairly knowledgeable in Linux and/or
UNIX, and much greater knowledge of hardware attributes of the system on
which it is being installed, is required, for configuring the
installation; thus making it more of a computer-nerdish (I don't mean
this in a derogatory way; just relative to people with little, if any
computer knowledge), kind of operating system. Also, it is my
understnding, that Slackware was installed, purely with a command-line
interface, whereas the more modern ones (eg, RH 6.2, Corel, etc), could
be installed an used, without having to see a command-line; installed
and run prely with GUI. That is my understanding of Slackware, when it
was using the 2.0.xx kernels, and it may have changed since then. If I
am wrong, then, advice, to correct the misunderstanding, would be good.
If I am right, perhaps, similar information could be included in the
"posters".

I note that the references to the distributions, do not include Caldera
(who are a sponsor, and, who appear to have bought out SCO UNIX), and
Corel distributions. I know little of the Caldera distribution, but I
understand that Corel is based on Debian. Also, one distribution (I
can't remember which, it may have been a Corel version), was supposed to
provide options of desktops, so that a appearance could be chosen, like
OS2, MacOS, Win 9x/NT4, Win 3.x/NT3.x, and, one or two others.

Perhaps, these could also be included?

-- 

Bret Busby

......................................