Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
the nature boy
New member
Which is the most stable and secure version out there? Do any of you know any resources out there that could help me out with this research?
Linux Experts - need your help
- Thread starter the nature boy
- Start date
supersizeme
New member
Red Hat. if you want resources to back this up, go redhat.com and they will tell you all about how much better it is than the other distributions. But don't go to any slackware sites because they may tell you differently.
naturally anabolic
New member
BSD
HappyScrappy
New member
www.linux.com
but slashdot.org is full of all kinds of shit on this.
as for secure - it is going to be similar to the idea of any operating stuff - the more stuff you install and leave open by default, the more open it is.
if you want a secure system, have as little as possible on it.
depends what you want for it.
redhat is easy to setup. many biz go with this since they have good customer support.
mandrake is easy to setup, roughly based on redhat, and is optimized for pentiums - this is better for the desktop IMO.
debian is considered quite good, and it is sort of half and half, some small biz, mostly more on the geek side.
caldera tried to compete with redhat, but basically didn't do so well.
slackware is what hardcore geeks were into back in the day - some still are.
etc etc.
I think code uses... fuck, I'm spacing on the name - the one that is big in europe. has the lizard/gecko thing as the logo...
anyway, they are all the same linux, it is just a matter of how easily they package it for installing and support.
what do you want this for?
but slashdot.org is full of all kinds of shit on this.
as for secure - it is going to be similar to the idea of any operating stuff - the more stuff you install and leave open by default, the more open it is.
if you want a secure system, have as little as possible on it.
depends what you want for it.
redhat is easy to setup. many biz go with this since they have good customer support.
mandrake is easy to setup, roughly based on redhat, and is optimized for pentiums - this is better for the desktop IMO.
debian is considered quite good, and it is sort of half and half, some small biz, mostly more on the geek side.
caldera tried to compete with redhat, but basically didn't do so well.
slackware is what hardcore geeks were into back in the day - some still are.
etc etc.
I think code uses... fuck, I'm spacing on the name - the one that is big in europe. has the lizard/gecko thing as the logo...
anyway, they are all the same linux, it is just a matter of how easily they package it for installing and support.
what do you want this for?
HappyScrappy
New member
naturally anabolic said:
NA is right in that FreeBSD is more stable and more secure - but it isn't linux.
but it also is free and a unix system - but slightly harder to install.
naturally anabolic
New member
linux can blow me...BSD.
the nature boy
New member
it's not for me. it's for a potential client in the financial sector. they are looking to cut costs and one of them is to ditch Solaris and run Linux. So basically this is like mission critical production environment. I'm more familiar with unix and unix tools and such, so I figured I'd hit you guys up with this stuff before I wasted hours of my time researching it when I can be looking at porn.
HappyScrappy
New member
FreeBSD would probably be better once it is up and things are stable.
but in terms of installing it quickly and easily, and of the linux distros would be easier, and they'd get support.
many many many many many companies are switching to RedHat, and many servers from various vendors (IBM esp) are coming with kickass big iron and Linux installed (RedHat).
The main way to make Linux more stable and more secure is to only install what you really need on it, and nothing else. Getting the newest and latest greatest thing isn't always the best bet on that - it is better to see what is listed as the most stable/secure, installing that, and then not installing anything newer until the new stuff has been established as safe.
the servers that I run my stuff on are FreeBSD and they are rock solid, but I've installed and maintained that before on my own and it is slightly more of a pain in the ass to work with.
Off the top of my head, I don't know any financial places that work with linux - but that doesn't mean they are out there.
If you post a well worded and serious question to Slashdot saying that you are a consultant and client that is a financial company wants to switch - they will tell you all the good and bad.
it is like a geek elite over there - they will give it all to you.
but only if you get it posted - and you likely will since they love to see big companies switch to linux
but in terms of installing it quickly and easily, and of the linux distros would be easier, and they'd get support.
many many many many many companies are switching to RedHat, and many servers from various vendors (IBM esp) are coming with kickass big iron and Linux installed (RedHat).
The main way to make Linux more stable and more secure is to only install what you really need on it, and nothing else. Getting the newest and latest greatest thing isn't always the best bet on that - it is better to see what is listed as the most stable/secure, installing that, and then not installing anything newer until the new stuff has been established as safe.
the servers that I run my stuff on are FreeBSD and they are rock solid, but I've installed and maintained that before on my own and it is slightly more of a pain in the ass to work with.
Off the top of my head, I don't know any financial places that work with linux - but that doesn't mean they are out there.
If you post a well worded and serious question to Slashdot saying that you are a consultant and client that is a financial company wants to switch - they will tell you all the good and bad.
it is like a geek elite over there - they will give it all to you.
but only if you get it posted - and you likely will since they love to see big companies switch to linux
the nature boy
New member
thanks broli
The Nature Boy said:
If you want secure, go OpenBSD. No question about it.
However, from what your describing, I'd probably go with Redhat. I personally think redhat is a pile of shit and horribly insecure but, it's the most popular distribution, they have good support, most OEM's will at least "somewhat" support in on thier hardware, and lastly there are plenty of good security docs out there. You could also check out the NSA's version SELinux.
You really need to talk to the client and find out what thier admins are comfortable supporting. If all thier admins are used to supporting Solaris, have thier infrastructure built for Solaris, have all thier hardware Solaris, and will need to retrain thier admins for Linux, how much money are they really gonna save? Linux isn't the end all be all some would have you believe. It definately has it's uses and can be very effective (google's infrastructure), just not everywhere.
I really question thier motive for moving to Linux. What's a barebones 1U server running linux cost? Around $1,000. What about a barebones Solaris Netra X1? Around $1,000.
C
Code
Guest
Stable? Out of the box, Suse.
Secure? Red Hat with SE Linux patch (see http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html ).
Secure? Red Hat with SE Linux patch (see http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html ).
T
The Shadow
Guest
Linux is the kid on Peanuts....right??
