I'm starting this thread for two reasons:

1. I'm bored.

2. Front page hasn't had a good discussion in a while.

So, the point of this thread, is, for example, Slackware, more secure than redhat? I was reading the other day on either the links at gnu.org or fsf.org that showed red hat Linux having more security holes than Debian.

I understand the kernel is the same for these, but the packages are different. So I want to start a discussion. Are certain distros more secure than others? Is Slackware really a more secure distro of Linux?

Now I know there are a few things you can do to secure each and every distro, but by default is Slack more secured than Redhat? Is debian more secure than Slack?

What are your opinions on all of this?

I think SuSE is very secure. It comes with a firewall that is set, and everything updated before it even boots for the first time. Slackware doesn't seem to have very many holes either.

Now just speaking about the kernel, is the Linux kernel more secure than the Free BSD kernel? A look at http://www.freebsd.org seems to show that Free BSD has had more updates than Slackware. The installs for these two OSs are nearly the same. But is Slack actually more secure than Free BSD?

Open BSD claims alot of security by default, but is it really? They to have to update. I think Open BSD is very secured, and the team for Open BSD should be applauded for the code auditing idea. But is Open BSD really as secure as it claims? Anyone who has real experiance, I invite you to discuss this.

Net BSD seems to never be talked about here. I'v used it very briefly and had no real problems, but what about the security aspect? Is it better than that of Linux? This is not a flame bait thread, but is one actually more secure than the other?

Can Linux or BSD actually BE more secure than one or another? SuSE Linux comes with nearly 5,000 packages....That is A LOT! So saying it has had more updates than one or another, you should first think about that. It comes with more software than any other OS I have ever seen. I mean really now, what other OS have YOU used that needs two DVDs?

Remember that more applications and mroe code, means more chance for a hole to be found. Windows comes with damn near nothing for software and it STILL has all of these horrible security patches. And all of them require a damned reboot.

I'd like to keep the Linux distrobutions separated in terms of packages for a part of this. Also, I would like to bring up the trusted Linux distros. The ones with modified kernels. They obviously have been tweaked for security, so I'd like to separate them from the others like Slack, Debian, and SuSe.

If you can, please quite any sources with links when you bring something up. Real world experiance is also a plus if anyone can tell about times when they tested security for an OS and found it to be better.

Also, stability/Reliability:

I have yet to see Linux crash and need a reboot from it. But the same is with Free BSD. Free BSD has obviouse strength in reliability, but is it more reliable than Linux?

Reply, keep this thread going, help to keep the front page more than tech support questions.

If you want to bring Windows or DOS or any other OS into this discussion, than go ahead.

But When talkign about Windows security, try to keep it down. I want people to laugh because I'v said something funny, not because someone brings up Windows ME into the reliability categorey

Links to other sites on the net are more than welcome.

As for flaming....I have absolutly no right to tell you not too. I do it more than alot of other people.