full-disclosure - Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and transition planning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: timothy.demulder at wanadoo.be (Timothy Demulder)
Subject: Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update and	transition
 planning

Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote:

> Why put this on CD3 instead of CD1? There are far more 2.4 users than
> 2.2 users out there.  Installing Debian using the standard practice
> (starting with CD1 and moving up) is kind of like installing windows 95
> and upgrading as you go.  But either way, why not go with 2.4.20?

There is a 2.4.18 kernel available on CD1 during the install,
just enter bf24 and you'll have 2.4.18 and ext3; and that's with Debian 
3.0 CD1.
2.4.20 simply wasn't available at the time.
I suggest you look into how a debian testing makes it to stable.
http://www.debian.org

> By poorly designed I mean text-based, crappy looking, not very
> user-friendly for the average person we're trying to win over from
> Windows.  

There's always Knoppix if you can't install Debian

> Any good Linux distro geared for desktop users has to be able to hold
> its own against the simplicity of a Windows setup, if we're ever going
> to gain market share.  There are some very basic requirements that must
> be met:
> 
> 1. A simple, graphical setup

Debian *is* graphical, just not X-graphical :p

> 2. Out-of-the-box support for a wide range of hardware

That's about the only thing I feel you've got a point here.

> 3. Post-installation tools for configuring printers, users, etcetera

dpkg-reconfigure?? it works for me, so it should for you too.

> 4. A graphical, easy-to-use patch system

apt-get update; apt-get upgrade , how hard is that?
you want easy? -> install synaptic.

> 5. Simple, yet standardized enough to be used by savvy Linux users

Debian is simple, no more files in weird locations like RedHat, Mandy, 
SuSE and the likes, so it's more standardized than any of the rpm-based 
distro's.

 > Debian meets maybe 1 or 2 of these.

Like I said: if you can't install Debian, but want to use it:
check Knoppix.