[KLUG Members] Security setup ...

[Michael Lueck]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:57:40 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:

>This everything-built-from-source approach is something I just don't get.

OK, try this. The goal is to get all of the files on the HDD in the right spot,
then the software works. A distro is nothing more than an installer tool,
packages compatable with the installer tool, and those packages contain their
standard of where to put things and how they are configured.

So, if you add an automation tool or Electronic Software Distribution over top
of the distro you really end up with two ESD technologies on the same box,
which can fight with each other, double the logs, double the technologies to
understand, etc...

Given an ESD tool which is good enough to deploy the OS, all of the
applications, and configurations / policies, etc... then why have two?

OK, so if this new ESD tool does all of the work, then where does the code come
from that it is deploying? Why rely on a Distro to provide binaries in that
case... why depend on them as they could go under, require a dependency you do
not want, etc... Thus, compile your own from source.

The project has become a distro!

I know, you don't want to work that hard. That's OK, you should not have to
work that hard just for your one firm. Hey, Linux is all open source, so there
is no law against a new distro. A proper distro of Linux would be able to
compete with M$ on the topic of "Out of Box Expirence" as they call it. (All of
those folks that think Server 2003 is SO easy to admin... how are those folks
that much different than Linux geeks paying for Novell's server Linux? Either
way you pay for some propritary code you become dependant on.) There is just a
lack of vision and commitment in the Linux community, thus in some ways it
remains a grass roots radical thing, not a corporate level M$ remover.

Michael