On 2005-11-04, Måns Rullgård <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim <[email protected]> writes:
[snip]
>> As long as it's a real distro like Slackware or Debian
>>
>> Having put Ubuntu onto a machine for a colleague I was agreeably
>> suprised by it's ease and shinyness whilst still being nicely Debian-y
>> to configure from the command line (I don't get on with GUI configs.
>> Bah!).
>
> To me shiny isn't as important as customizable. Well, if it's
> sufficiently customizable it can be made as shiny as anything.
Customisable certainly applies to Debian. Arguably LFS is as
customisable as you can get but apart from treating it as a learning
exercise it does border on masochism
>> /me wonders how long it'll be before a *BSD is suggested
>
> OpenBSD is touted as being among the most secure things you can run.
> That doesn't really help, though, since you still need to run a
> browser, and none of the browsers around come anywhere close to the
> OpenBSD security standards (except possibly telnet).
>
> While we're at it, Solaris could also be a reasonable choice.
Touting anything as "the most secure" always strikes me as a
little disingenuous- how secure a system actaully is obviously depending
enormously on the competence with which it has been installed and
configured etc. Although an OOTB OpenBSD install is very secure it also
lacks many of the bells and whisltes that you'd want to install to make
a friendly home desktop system for Joe Average.
Solaris 9 on an x86 system has been a suprisingly agreeable
experience when evaluating it. It's a real PITA to have to build from
source many of the odd little apps I use which I could just apt-get
install on a Debian system.
--
Tim.
[email protected]
