I'm looking at setting up a DC++ server, IRC bot and maybe some other crap running on an old P3 box. Some people have told me Debian woody is thebest bet security wise soooo before I start downloading/ordering the crap load of CD's (I'd like to get the whole set, not just what I need) I was wondering how it compares to Slackware setup wise and whether apt-get is as annoying as gentoo's emerge? My whole linux experience is pretty much 1-2 days of RedHat, 1-2 days of Mandrake, 1 year +/- Slackware...

PS: Can I run those services (DC++, IRC Bot etc) on a box also setup with Smoothwall? I never done the whole linux box/router thing before, using a Dynalink RTA300 at the moment.

Hard to say anything to the apt-get issue. What are the aspects you see annoying in the gentoo's emerge?

apt-get is more like swaret for slackware users. Actually, a little faster, although it's not foolproof by any means (or at least wasn't a month ago when I last stumbled on an Unstable upgrade). My experience is two years with Debian, and two months or so with Slack, and I don't see much of a difference, except that slack feels "purer", and that's usually a good thing if you've ever wrestled with a distro that changes or adds configuration files to make things "easier".

The upside may be that you have to pay a little less attention to settings with debian, as packaged defaults seem to be better, whereas slackware generally gives you whatever the sowtware writer gave you (generic settings to please everyone, and useless for everyone, typically). If you have to set up a number of computers, debian might be advantageous because of this.

Installer-wise, debian's a slight bit easier. If you've set up slack, debian's a peice of cake. If you're installing a number of computers, or your in a hurry, debian's probably easier. If you have a little time, and are confident with Slack, I'd use slack. If for no better reason, slack's software may be newer and less well tested, but I often wonder how secure year-old+ software really can be, in light of the number of new types of attacks and exploits that pop up in that time.

In reality, few people use woody, most debian users use testing or stable for all but the most critical systems. Most debian based distros aren't based on woody either. Not that that means woody isn't as secure as it's reputation, but it also suggests that woody probably doesn't have quite so many eyes on it as the other debian branches, and to me, that's a bad thing.

Yeah, I was kind of thinking that people would just go with the newer stuff. I was getting advice from people who work at an ISP so maybe thats why they use woody. Well, if thats the case, forget Debian. I'll stick with slackware.

Hi,

FULL ACK.

After working 4 Years with debian I only want to add a few things:

With debian/stable you get a system that is running stable, package dependencies are ok, programs won't segfault and so on, but it's totally outdated. The security-thing is one reason why they setup security.debian.org ...

The biggest problem of debian is to use up-to-date software. Apt-get/Dpkg is the best package managing "suite" I've ever seen (except from emerge) but all this isn't useful if you hear "Don't use sid if you don't know what you're doing, we won't support this"... Yeah I'm saying this by my own and it's true, if you're using sid, you're using a (sometimes) totally unusable distro. Lots of packages (package dependencies) are broken and so on...

The other way to use up-to-date software is running stable and look for backports on apt-get.org. But most backports are "hacks" that are working with outdated glibc or other libraries. Where is the usuability there ? Who really knows if those "hacks" don't bring other security related problems ? Those hacks aren't true debian packages and also not really packages build up from the source the maintainer of the program put into cvs/shared for download ... If you're running stable with backports the security.debian.org-server isn't useful anymore ... there are no patches for those backports...

So after all you can use sid, and life in fear that the next apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade will be the last one on this production server or run an old distro without all the features you need. (And please don't tell me "If you use sid on a production server you're a moron" ... if i need the features i have to go and look where i can get 'em. If you're in trouble 'cause the package dependencies are broken and you have to fix that, that's not a software related problem ...)

Sometimes i think the whole debian thing is just a playground for the developers and stable is just there that they can say "Here look, this is our stable distribution, we're not just playing, we're working...". The "laggardness" it what kills debian in the end. Packages are moving too slow from unstable to testing to stable...

That's one of the reasons why i switched over to gentoo. The linux feeling and all what depends on that is still alive there. Patches are there within hours. The whole linux feeling is even more "taste-able"...

So, no hard feelings. Debian is still a great distro that will experience the hype that Suse or Redhat had ages ago. I'll go on using Debian as my 2nd "distro-of-choice"

cyas

"In reality, few people use woody, most debian users use testing or stable for all but the most critical systems. "

Um, I meant unstable, but I'm sure you all picked up on that.