OT: What's the deal with Ubuntu?

[James Wilkinson]

Claude Jones wrote (about Ubuntu):
> You guys got me curious, so I installed it today
> One BIG caveat - it installs with no firewall, and there is no readily 

John Summerfied wrote:
> What services were exposed to the world?

None. That's why there's no default firewall.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/faq/firewall

The reasoning is that if you want to open a server to the world, you'd
probably want to open a hole through the firewall, too.

You might want to configure a firewall to only allow connections from
specific IP addresses, but IIRC the Fedora standard firewall tool won't
do that for you either...

Setting up firestarter is very easy: apt-get it and run it.

Not sure if anyone here's commented on the AMD-64 experience. Both
Fedora and Ubuntu are very good on AMD-64. But they have weaknesses in
their x86 support.

On Fedora, if you parallel-install AMD-64 and x86 RPMs, then just remove
the x86 one, in my experience RPM will remove the shared files too,
which it probably shouldn't. (Which can be a problem if you decide to
nuke x86 support and remove the glibc x86-arch RPMs: it breaks language
support...)

Ubuntu, while they get multi-arch running the way they want it to, are
limited to an ia32-libs package that adds basic x86 support, a 32-bit
OpenOffice (since 64 bit doesn't yet work anywhere), a few other things,
and support for a 32-bit only chroot install. It's more work, but
possibly less likely to break.

I get the impression that x86-64 Hoary, the latest Ubuntu, is slightly
buggier (especially in its hardware support) than x86-64 Fedora.

James.

-- 
E-mail address: james | "Today Has Been Two Of Those Days."
@westexe.demon.co.uk  |     -- Mike Andrews