[Bendug] apt-get , Ubuntu

[larry price]

I've noticed the same thing with the Ubuntu repositories (main offender firefox)

as always the tradeoff amounts to security vs. convenience

I'm more comfortable using FreeBSD w/ portaudit for a public server
that's out on the internet, but for a workstation behind the NAT the
convenience of having a reasonable selection of software a short
download away is a good thing.

On 7/23/05, Tim Howe <thowe at bendtel.net> wrote:
> I threw Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedghog) onto a box the other day and I am likign
> this system for the non-expert.  It automatically detected and allowed me to
> download updates, it setup a nice little system with lots of useful apps.  My
> only complaint is that some of the stuff I decided to install with apt-get was
> very unpolished...  I installed Ruby which was, for some reason, several months
> out of date.  Not sure why I did it with the package manager since it is
> butt-simple to compile it.  I installed LyX, but it was either missing important
> bits, or it installed misconfigured and couldn't find them.
> 
> This all led me to think that a lot of packages must make it into the apt-get
> repositories without any peer review.  I'm used to using the OpenBSD ports tree,
> which is very carefully audited.  I'm curious if  others have run into this with
> Linux packaging systems.  Is the Gentoo ports tree carefully reviewed?  I have
> never had a problem with Crux (what I call 'Ports Tree Jr.').
> 
> --TimH
> 


-- 
http://Zoneverte.org -- information explained
Do you know what your IT infrastructure does?