Curiousity question

Is it just SUSE thats "candy-eyed" looking or all Linux distros are like that when using the KDE or GUI desktops?
jslayton01Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

brettmjohnsonCommented:
I suppose that depends upon your definition of "eye candy" (and your definition of "flame-bait").
Linux distros that target a Linux desktop environment (rather than server environment) are
certainly more likely to have a sophisticated (and supposedly easy-to-use) graphical environment.
MysidiaCommented:
Just about all the mainstream full-fledged distributions (not the minimalist
distributions) provide you the ability to have some eye candy while using a
graphical user interface.

Both KDE and Gnome are themable, and most distributions will include their
own themes.

In the case of SuSE, I believe they have made their own modifications for
visual enhancements to KDE specifically.

And SuSE's YaST tool provides for pretty graphical configuration.

Mandrake provides drakconf.  etc
Sandy_itCommented:
Most of the Linux distributions coming these days are well enriched in terms of Eye candy. Linux distributions generally used in a single user scenario are much better in terms of Look & Feel. If you plan to use a Linux distro based on Looks - You can have a look as some of the screenshots n all to have a better judgement.

Fedora Linux Core 4
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Fedora-Linux-Core-Screenshot-12185.html

Knoppix Live GNU Linux
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Knoppix-Live-GNULinux-Screenshot-12788.html

Mandriva Linux (Formerly Mandrake)
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Mandriva-Linux-Screenshot-21694.html

FreeBSD for i386 ISO 5.4 RC4
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/FreeBSD-for-i-ISO--RC-Screenshot-2805.html

You can also download these Distros from net.
Your Guide to Achieving IT Business Success

The IT Service Excellence Tool Kit has best practices to keep your clients happy and business booming. Inside, you’ll find everything you need to increase client satisfaction and retention, become more competitive, and increase your overall success.

jslayton01Author Commented:
I just think the text-mode is the "Real deal" Or the Console Mode. Thats the real-deal when dealing with UNIX or Linux. esp. with networks.

Thanks
jslayton01Author Commented:
And BTW, Security is my main concern when choosing a Linux distro. Looks may be secondary...
brettmjohnsonCommented:
> Security is my main concern when choosing a Linux distro. Looks may be secondary...

Then I would choose OpenBSD, rather than a Linux distro.
nedvisCommented:
SuSE Linux is certainly most polished one , most graphically consistent distibution , well rounded suite of Linux OS plus applications plus SuSE specific configuration tools ( YaST and SAX ).
It is true that SuSE "look and feel" is what makes it noticeably different and  sets it apart from other KDE oriented distros. I've been using different linux distribution and was always wondering what SuSE packagers/programers did to KDE to look so "eye-candy", distinguished and SuSE-esque. No other distros , no matter what tweaks you do to KDE,  will give you hair-thin window frames , such a great pleasure to look at.
SuSE is also very secure distro besides its polish and make-up.
If security is your main concern then I would go with free CentOS 3.5 ( RedHat Linux Enterprise 4 based distro) with its KDE 3.1.3 which is very highly configurable ( bu means of eye-candy) and included SE Linux.
Sure enough, if the security is your  only concern then OpenBSD might be the way to go , but as I understand your plans, you are about to stay with Linux , not UNIX.

good luck
nedvis
Heem14Commented:
thats the nice part about linux. if you don't want the eye candy, turn it off  - or don't even install it.

telinit 3  will give you a nice text mode only system.

jslayton01Author Commented:
The main problem with OpenBSD....is that cannot install it. I was even nervous and hesitant enough to install Linux at first.
nedvisCommented:
"nervous and hesitant enough to install Linux.."
 I'll tell you , that's how  we all felt "once upon the time" !!! You're not an isolated island.
 And I'll tell you more : that is a good feeling ; I mean it's the sign that you're responible but suspitions still exceed expectations. A state of uncertainty is going to vanish  the moment you start learning Linux and that time has come. It has never been easier to install and run such an amazing operating system than nowadays
when most every distribution is ar eal joy to play with.
I'm encouraging you to get first Linux CD at your displosal  and snap it in your CD tray.You can't get wrong.
I've just installed SuSE  8.2 Personal on my oldie Dell DimensionXPS 333 ( Pentium II 333 MHz) and I'm writing this post in Konqueror browser. I can't care less about security issues ; an automatic updates are happily running in background (approximately 135 megabytes patches)   and tomorrow I'm going to start some video editing with Main Actor ( which was the reason I've installed such an "outdated" version ).
 
  good luck
 nedvis
jslayton01Author Commented:
Is there a way I can make SUSE Linux as secure as OpenBSD? Please explain how. It does not have to be so detailed...Just explain brielfy.
Heem14Commented:
how to keep ANY machine as secure as possible:


1. Keep behind a hardware firewall
2. Open only the ports for the services you absoultely need
3. use ACLs if possible on the firewall
4. keep abreast of new vulnerabilities, especially to the services you have exposed to the internet
5. patch and update everything that you need to patch (see #4) as soon as possible.
6. if a vulnerability is exposed and no patch is out, weigh your options of continuing use (at risk) or shutting down that service (or the whole box)
7. If at all possible use the encrypted version of a protocol instead of a plain text (ssh instead of telnet, sftp instead of ftp, https instead of http.. etc)

SuSe is a nice product, enjoy it.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
jslayton01Author Commented:
<3. use ACLs if possible on the firewall<
What do you mean by this?

Also, incase I do not have a hardware firewall (because I have another system thats on dial-up in Europe), then can I use the SUSE built-in firewall instead? Is that a great firewall to use?
Heem14Commented:
ACL's are Access Control Lists - basicaly that means you can specify what IP addresses or IP address ranges can/cannot connect.

You can use the software firewall, it's good, but hardware is better. Especially on dial up - since you are not connected "always on"
jslayton01Author Commented:
Ok, thanks you guys. I know what you mean. Because just by STEALTHING ports on a firewall, IP address should be stealthed also.
jslayton01Author Commented:
Its sort of like MAC address filtering except your dealing with IP ranges.
brettmjohnsonCommented:
> Is there a way I can make SUSE Linux as secure as OpenBSD?

There are the above mechanics to secure a general machine.
But you wont make SUSE Linux as secure as OpenBSD without
performing an extensive code audit.

MysidiaCommented:
Performing an extensive code audit is no assurance of security, there is much more to
it: many other factors that effect the security of your machine, and certain kinds of
bugs can easily slip through a code audit.

OpenBSD is qualitatively more secure at the kernel level, but as soon as you start using that OpenBSD box for end-user applications it diminishes to close to the security of SuSE would in the same configuration fairly quickly. It can be noted that OpenBSD is still more
secure in some ways, but it can also be noted that SuSE is just as secure or even more
secure in many configurations for many uses,  it is a matter of opinion where SuSE or
OpenBSD is more secure overall.

Or whether the predicted gain in security is worth the sacrifices in OpenBSD.

It all depends on which features you enable.  The least secure features of OpenBSD might not be the least secure features of SuSE, for example. It is your configuration
that is important, your needs for the machine, what applications you will be using, what
services will be listening, what computers you will talk with, who will want to attack
you, plus what kind of methods they would have available.

These matter, because you can be assured noone will want to attack you or
the person who will is stopped by a firewall or other measure, there is only
a small need for any secondary measure.

Logging in by username and password would not improve security over having
no passwords, for example, if your machine were not equipped with modem
or a network interface... if your your model of an attacker is just 'someone from
across the internet'.

What this means is that security features do not always make a product more
secure.  Sometimes features are irrelevent and do not help much, whereas
security features in other products do much more to help.

OpenBSD has many security features, but a multitude of them only make sense
in certain environments and in the rest are just overkill: i.e. there would be little
sense in using RSA SecurID authentication to login to your PC at home.

Of course OpenBSD's marketing pitch is that it is the secure OS, so you can expect
most OpenBSD users will reverberate OpenBSD's claim to be the most secure
regardless of how well founded in reality versus how much wishful thinking it is.

Essentially, the BSDs, NetBSD and OpenBSD, for example have a fairly similar level of security.  Sure, OpenBSD may have had code audited, but that does not mean that
the rest of the world is blind and does not notice or look for problems in their
own code.

Just like Microsoft offers Automatic Updates service for windows: does that mean a random windows computer is more likely to have the essential security patches such as SP2 than a random Linux computer's web browser so that Windows is more secure since it is more likely to be up to date?   Doubtful.


There is no such thing as a flawless auditor, and no one person could manage
to view and apprehend knowledge of the whole core of *BSD: where the
many seams... pieces that are not comprehended by the same person [or not at
the same time] interact denote areas that are missed. And auditing has little hope
against cases that would be a surprise to everyone.

What this means is that it is difficult to characterize what a particular
 audit accomplishes... there is no guarantee that a particular audit grants
X level of security then a similar audit of another product grants X level
of security.

The Linux kernel with its large popularity surely has more eyes looking at it
and more effort in developing it. What gives the BSDs their slightly greater
strength in security and robustness at the core is better code not better-audited
code.

Overall, the security is too close to tell.  Next month a few huge vulnerabilities in
the OpenBSD core could be discovered -- SuSE would then seem clearly more
secure: the opposite could happen too.

You can conjecture that the BSDs are usually more secure because they do
have that reputation, but it cannot be proved, certainly not that it is so
in the broadest sense.


jslayton01Author Commented:
So, are you saying that SUSE is close to being as secure than OpenBSD??

jslayton01Author Commented:
Well, SUSE out of the box is not all that secure. I forgot to mention that.... But, the first thing I did is disabled some of the services that were said to be used by attackers. So I disabled it. Also, I dont use Samba or webservers...

So...i dont know...
nedvisCommented:
========= ======== Again SuSE wins in the GNU/Linux department, offering a decent range of security features. There are no extraordinary security measures in SuSE -- not like Trusted Solaris -- but a good sysadmin should be able to keep a SuSE server safe from intrusion.

OpenBSD is rumored to be the most secure OS on the market. I'm not sure what standards were used to determine that title so I can't comment on its accuracy.
--> http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/31/42/

========= What few people realize is that the audit is continual. Almost every line of code is thoroughly audited, bugs are &#64257;xed, and many security vulnerabilities are eliminated.
--> http://www.awprofessional.com/articles/article.asp?p=363732&seqNum=2&rl=1

========= How then has OpenBSD been made so secure when spawned from what seems an inherently vulnerable platform? Part of the reason is there in product development. OpenBSD's developers trawled through their platform's protocols with utmost care dumping the vulnerable ones. They paid special attention to default configuration and then openly and with fierce dedication set about crushing each and every one of their system's bugs, getting outside help whenever and wherever they could.    --->  http://www.semweb.com/jan02/itsecurityjan.htm

========= In part, because it's not a commercial system, OpenBSD can take a secure by default stance. Their security page states "All non-essential services are disabled." OpenBSD has less services turned on by default than nearly any other system available.
--> http://geodsoft.com/opinion/server_comp/security/openbsd.htm

========= we believe in full disclosure of security problems. In the operating system arena, we were probably the first to embrace the concept. Many vendors, even of free software, still try to hide issues from their users. --->  http://www.openbsd.org/security.html

========= W^X is designed to make it more difficult to execute buffer overflow attacks by making it impossible for an application to write to memory that can be executed. That is, an application can write data to a portion of memory or it can execute from that portion of memory &#8212; but that portion cannot be writeable and executable at the same time.
--> http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=8217/ur0305j/

========= Apache isn&#8217;t the only program that acts differently. In SuSE&#8217;s default installation, you&#8216;ll simply fi nd a crontab fi le in /etc, inside which each action is specifically assigned to a user&#8217;s account. In OpenBSD, the user cron tabs are stored in /var/cron/tabs, and done so in a standard format that doesn&#8217;t include the username.
-> http://www.pcplus.co.uk/tutorials/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=34628&subsectionid=784

===========.
lot to read-lot to learn
good luck
nedvis
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Linux

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.