 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
knoppix or else
 |
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOgre
I disagree. It's not a myth at all, but a reality. Those distributions were designed with "easy" in mind, regarding installing and upgrading packages. Show me a first-time Linux user who knows anything about compiling from source or patching a kernel. All they have to know is "rpm -i filename.rpm" and it works for them.
What you're saying is, "the harder it is to do, the easier for them it will be." That's like saying, "If you don't understand it, it will be a piece of cake." The average person trying out Linux is curious, like all of us who've been using Linux for years are. They want to experiment with something new and/or different to them, see if they like it, and maybe use it. Others just want to see what all the hype is about. Others yet are looking for a real alternative to something with a Microsoft brand name on the package, and they need to find out which distro will work the best for them.
I recommend Debian to people wanting to "check it out" simply because it's a very good distro. Knoppix, Gnoppix, Libranet, LindowsOS, and a slew of others are all based on Debian, so they're pretty much the same underneath - they all use the Debian package management system. Fedora, Mandrake, SuSe, RedHat, and others use the RedHat package management system (rpm = RedHat Package Manager.) It's a matter of personal preference to the individual which one they use.
As far as only taking 2 to 3 minutes to update & upgrade a .deb system, compared with 30 - 40 minutes with others, I've seen Debian boxes take up to 2 hours to fetch/apply updates. It all depends on how up-to-date the system was to begin with, the connection speed, how many updates are being applied, and the system hardware itself. Not to mention the level of experience the Admin doing the updates has...
I know a lot of enterprises using RedHat for DNS, DHCP, and firewalls, and the people who run them are experienced SysAdmins. It doesn't have to be "difficult" to be "good."
...just my 2 cents...
im sure weather channel will correct me if im wrong but what i think he's saying is that the more advanced the program surely the more user friendly in terms of stability and day to day use. it could maybe take more stick than a less advanced system. and would be easier to use in theory as it is more advanced. maybe the learning curve is a bit more steeper to start off with.
dont get me wrong im not trapping off or anything and i appreciate the input i just think that maybe you missed the point weather channel was making.
thanks guys
More advanced does not always mean more stable, just like easy doesn't always mean unstable.
More advanced does NOT mean more user-friendly. Try Slackware to see what I mean.
Also, keep in mind that packages do BREAK. Not always, but happens sometimes. If you don't know how to fix it when it DOES break, you're going to have problems. ALL packages break at one time or another, from Debian to Slackware to FreeBSD. Knowing what to do when that happens is the important thing.
The point I was trying to make was just because something is easy doesn't mean it isn't good. Do your homework, look at more than one distro, and see which one YOU like the best. If you like the way Slackware resembles UNIX, great! If you like Mandrake's interface better than Debian's, great! If you prefer a .deb system as opposed to a .rpm system, go for it!
They're ALL Linux. There's just a lot more flavors of Linux than there are of anything else, which means you have more CHOICE. Take them all for a test ride and see which one you feel the most comfortable with, then learn everything you can about it. When you get bored with that one, try another one. Have some fun with it, too - you'll learn more ;-)
More advanced does NOT mean more user-friendly. Try Slackware to see what I mean.
Also, keep in mind that packages do BREAK. Not always, but happens sometimes. If you don't know how to fix it when it DOES break, you're going to have problems. ALL packages break at one time or another, from Debian to Slackware to FreeBSD. Knowing what to do when that happens is the important thing.
The point I was trying to make was just because something is easy doesn't mean it isn't good. Do your homework, look at more than one distro, and see which one YOU like the best. If you like the way Slackware resembles UNIX, great! If you like Mandrake's interface better than Debian's, great! If you prefer a .deb system as opposed to a .rpm system, go for it!
They're ALL Linux. There's just a lot more flavors of Linux than there are of anything else, which means you have more CHOICE. Take them all for a test ride and see which one you feel the most comfortable with, then learn everything you can about it. When you get bored with that one, try another one. Have some fun with it, too - you'll learn more ;-)
If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked.
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOgre
More advanced does not always mean more stable, just like easy doesn't always mean unstable.
More advanced does NOT mean more user-friendly. Try Slackware to see what I mean.
Also, keep in mind that packages do BREAK. Not always, but happens sometimes. If you don't know how to fix it when it DOES break, you're going to have problems. ALL packages break at one time or another, from Debian to Slackware to FreeBSD. Knowing what to do when that happens is the important thing.
The point I was trying to make was just because something is easy doesn't mean it isn't good. Do your homework, look at more than one distro, and see which one YOU like the best. If you like the way Slackware resembles UNIX, great! If you like Mandrake's interface better than Debian's, great! If you prefer a .deb system as opposed to a .rpm system, go for it!
They're ALL Linux. There's just a lot more flavors of Linux than there are of anything else, which means you have more CHOICE. Take them all for a test ride and see which one you feel the most comfortable with, then learn everything you can about it. When you get bored with that one, try another one. Have some fun with it, too - you'll learn more ;-)
Let me first start by saying, there are really only five types of Linux:
1. Linux standard (anything that comes in a box or is not spcified below)
2. Pitbull LX (the addition of DBAC and network flags and the existance of the SA, SO, and ISSO users represent an architectual difference)
3. Trusted Linux (This HP research project uses more traditional MAC via the Bell-LaPadula model as well as the SA and SO accounts seperate this system)
4. SE-Linux (the flask architecture with its RBAC and destruction of the root user differing from the previos two systems set this research project apart)
5. Not Otherwise Specified (this includes Linuces altered to work in fundamentally differing ways. Oddly this section isn't as common as you may think and in my career I have only seen a handful of these systems.
Anyone disagree?
Taking into mind the steps of installing opensource app's in some types of linux.
Steps on installing if your a noobie.
EXAMPLE: 1#(Libranet ect...)
1.Type app name in a fetching term.
2.Run app
--------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE: 2#(SuSE ect.....optinal for most)
1.Find app on internet manually.
2. Download app manually.
3. Extract app manually.
4.Cd to app manually.
5.Config app manually.
6.make app manually.
7.make install app manually.
8.(process could end at step 5 with a extra step after)
9. Run app.
Rpm's you still have to find,download...ect
I'll let the people do the math on that one!
Pls, do not spin.
Bonus! no comment
Reffer to my example.
Ummmmmmmmmmm..........go back and read my statement. 
I thought we were going to keep it at the home user level, but I can take several levels higher aswell.
Two reply's
A firewall is not the only "real" way to protect a system, in fact a good number of high security systems run no firewall at all. I don't know where you work or work for but, most of our systems at work run without firewalls & AV. (Including most of my home and remote systems.) It's all in the config.
System administrators in a well defined organization really are not paid to think, they are paid to follow procedure and to do the tasks put on their lap. I know that many SyS admins out there are not going to like that comment, but you should review the Carnigie Mellon maturity models if you don't want to take my word for it. Add in security concepts like need to know, seperation of duties, and role rotation and it really becomes clear. Don't get mad guys just read. See I used to want to be like my budd's(SyS Admins),untill I found out how many orders they take, I'm not good at taking orders, I'd rather give them, because I do themath.
I agree.
*edit take a look here http://daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread601.html
1. Linux standard (anything that comes in a box or is not spcified below)
2. Pitbull LX (the addition of DBAC and network flags and the existance of the SA, SO, and ISSO users represent an architectual difference)
3. Trusted Linux (This HP research project uses more traditional MAC via the Bell-LaPadula model as well as the SA and SO accounts seperate this system)
4. SE-Linux (the flask architecture with its RBAC and destruction of the root user differing from the previos two systems set this research project apart)
5. Not Otherwise Specified (this includes Linuces altered to work in fundamentally differing ways. Oddly this section isn't as common as you may think and in my career I have only seen a handful of these systems.
Anyone disagree?
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOgre
I disagree. It's not a myth at all, but a reality. Those distributions were designed with "easy" in mind, regarding installing and upgrading packages. Show me a first-time Linux user who knows anything about compiling from source or patching a kernel. All they have to know is "rpm -i filename.rpm" and it works for them.
Steps on installing if your a noobie.
EXAMPLE: 1#(Libranet ect...)
1.Type app name in a fetching term.
2.Run app
--------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE: 2#(SuSE ect.....optinal for most)
1.Find app on internet manually.
2. Download app manually.
3. Extract app manually.
4.Cd to app manually.
5.Config app manually.
6.make app manually.
7.make install app manually.
8.(process could end at step 5 with a extra step after)
9. Run app.
Rpm's you still have to find,download...ect
I'll let the people do the math on that one!
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
What you're saying is, "the harder it is to do, the easier for them it will be." That's like saying, "If you don't understand it, it will be a piece of cake." The average person trying out Linux is curious, like all of us who've been using Linux for years are. They want to experiment with something new and/or different to them, see if they like it, and maybe use it. Others just want to see what all the hype is about. Others yet are looking for a real alternative to something with a Microsoft brand name on the package, and they need to find out which distro will work the best for them.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
I recommend Debian to people wanting to "check it out" simply because it's a very good distro. Knoppix, Gnoppix, Libranet, LindowsOS, and a slew of others are all based on Debian, so they're pretty much the same underneath - they all use the Debian package management system.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
Fedora, Mandrake, SuSe, RedHat, and others use the RedHat package management system (rpm = RedHat Package Manager.) It's a matter of personal preference to the individual which one they use.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
As far as only taking 2 to 3 minutes to update & upgrade a .deb system, compared with 30 - 40 minutes with others, I've seen Debian boxes take up to 2 hours to fetch/apply updates. It all depends on how up-to-date the system was to begin with, the connection speed, how many updates are being applied, and the system hardware itself.
I thought we were going to keep it at the home user level, but I can take several levels higher aswell.•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
Not to mention the level of experience the Admin doing the updates has...
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
I know a lot of enterprises using RedHat for DNS, DHCP, and firewalls, and the people who run them are experienced SysAdmins.
A firewall is not the only "real" way to protect a system, in fact a good number of high security systems run no firewall at all. I don't know where you work or work for but, most of our systems at work run without firewalls & AV. (Including most of my home and remote systems.) It's all in the config.
System administrators in a well defined organization really are not paid to think, they are paid to follow procedure and to do the tasks put on their lap. I know that many SyS admins out there are not going to like that comment, but you should review the Carnigie Mellon maturity models if you don't want to take my word for it. Add in security concepts like need to know, seperation of duties, and role rotation and it really becomes clear. Don't get mad guys just read. See I used to want to be like my budd's(SyS Admins),untill I found out how many orders they take, I'm not good at taking orders, I'd rather give them, because I do themath.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
It doesn't have to be "difficult" to be "good."
*edit take a look here http://daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread601.html
This forum isn't meant for arguments, so I won't post any comments about that, except that any network that doesn't have some kind of firewall or antivirus protection deserves to get owned/infected.
If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked.
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity czar Richard Clarke
My days of debating with people who know little or nothing on the subject at hand are over.So I wouldn't worry about arguing with me, because it's not going to come to pass!
That statement shows your caliber in the IT field. Some books for you to read.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...104591-0788745
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
Viruses can be defeated with proper configuration, I use no anti-virus software, neither does my work and neither of us have ever had a problem. It's just a matter if dealing with process propagation and trusted resources correctly.
If your reading this thread and you have no exp in risk mgmt or any IT field keep your firewalls & AV. This includes mom & pop networks, aswell as home users/servers.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOrge
except that any network that doesn't have some kind of firewall or antivirus protection deserves to get owned/infected.
That statement shows your caliber in the IT field. Some books for you to read.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...104591-0788745
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
Viruses can be defeated with proper configuration,
I use no anti-virus software, neither does my work and neither of us have ever had a problem. It's just a matter if dealing with process propagation and trusted resources correctly.If your reading this thread and you have no exp in risk mgmt or any IT field keep your firewalls & AV.
This includes mom & pop networks, aswell as home users/servers. •
•
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 12,047
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 129
Please keep light flaming down. Just a warning ... Thanks 
Dani the Computer Science Gal
Follow my Twitter feed! twitter.com/DaniWeb
And if you're interested in Internet marketing there is twitter.com/DaniWebAds
Follow my Twitter feed! twitter.com/DaniWeb
And if you're interested in Internet marketing there is twitter.com/DaniWebAds
woah there expensive books weather channell. you obviously know alot about security!! i never realised you could run a system without firewall or AV thats quite amazing. im sorry i ever doubted you about sygate now (*creep*)lol. it must have been my problem. although im still happy with ZA youre making me doubt it!!
cheers mate
cheers mate
just thought id update. ive decided to go for mandrake 9.2 as this seems to suit me although im gonna split my hard drive in half and install another linux OS in the near future.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 468
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 18
Posting Pro in Training
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by TheOgre
This forum isn't meant for arguments, so I won't post any comments about that, except that any network that doesn't have some kind of firewall or antivirus protection deserves to get owned/infected.
My Home Away from Home: Yet Another Linux Blog
|
Similar Threads
- Knoppix for Newbies! (Getting Started and Choosing a Distro)
- Knoppix is better than ever! (Getting Started and Choosing a Distro)
- tell me why? (Getting Started and Choosing a Distro)
Other Threads in the Getting Started and Choosing a Distro Forum
- Previous Thread: XP and Linux Gentoo
- Next Thread: SuSE 8.0 Internet Connection (ADSL)
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Latest Getting Started and Choosing a Distro Posts
Related Forum Features
age-related baremetal chrome cio cloudcomputing code commercial computers crystalballsunday desktop developers development distributions distro dsl elderly embedded forums google http://expertcore.org/ innovations jauntyjackalope joe_brockmeier kernel library linus linux microsoft multi-core netgear newbies novell openoffice.org opensuse open_source operating operatingsystems parallel performance processing redhat routers smp studios system systembuilders systemintegrators terminalservices thecloud thinclients tools ubuntu users virtualization vmware webbased wikis windows xenon
