Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.co   
   !nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!83.128   
   0.11.MISMATCH!news-out1.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!bandi   
   nntp.kabelfoon.nl!demorgan.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.   
   k!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail   
   From: Richard Asbridge    
   Subject: Re: Strange Question. [new'ish to Linux]   
   Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu   
   References:    
   User-Agent: pan 0.120 (Plate of Shrimp)   
   MIME-Version: 1.0   
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8   
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit   
   Date: 23 Jan 2007 22:17:58 GMT   
   Lines: 47   
   Message-ID: <45b68996$0$31228$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>   
   Organization: Zen Internet   
   NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.69.201.62   
   X-Trace: 1169590678 shaftesbury.zen.co.uk 31228 82.69.201.62:17837   
   X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk   
   Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.ubuntu:8836   
      
   On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:23:24 +0000, Kardon Coupé wrote:   
      
   > After various searching's, I've come to the conclusion that a server (which    
   > I'm working on at the minute) is more secure without a GUI..   
   The less you run on a machine the harder it is to break into it because   
   security holes are usually in the applications on a machine rather than   
   all being in the operating system itself. It's not as absolute as you   
   think, GUI does not equate to insecurity, but their is more to check, more   
   updating to do and it's just easier to manage a server that has less   
   services or applications on it (from a security standpoint) because if   
   something is simple it's easier to spot the security holes when they   
   occur. For this reason very vulnerable or very public services are   
   generally housed on their own machines in a DMZ...   
      
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demilitarized_zone_%28computing%29   
      
   ....on another note however, if you have a production server then you don't   
   want it to be wasting it's valuable resources powering a graphical desktop   
   that never gets looked at because no-one sits at a server to work!   
   Ususally a GUI is a waste of server resources that could be put to better   
   use. :)   
      
   > So, here is my question, I'm used to a GUI in windows, and all of the   
   > apps I run, use a GUI, one app I use is Emule, which has an equivalent   
   > on Amule on Linux, so, do I need the GUI to run it?   
   Two things here... if you want to run a desktop system on Linux, do so,   
   it'll work for you and it'll be generally more secure that it's windows   
   couter part, not to mentino a great way to learn about computers,   
   networking and the joy of all things *NIX. The application you're after has   
   a number of graphical equivalents and a few command line based ones. If   
   you're running a desktop, go graphical, if you have a production   
   level server... ask yourself this question, do you really want to run a   
   peer-to-peer download network on it? This in itself is possibly a security   
   risk, certainly not something I'd run on a server myself [but that's just   
   me I have principles :P]   
      
   > Apologies if this is a stupid question, and feel free to give a stupid   
   > answer, but I'm just curious to find out, before I finally get my Linux   
   > box fully up and running..   
   I don't think your question is stupid. I do think you should decide what   
   you want to use your Linux box for, if it's to run as a serious server then   
   you don't need to clutter it up with a full blown desktop, if however you   
   want a desktop linux to help you learn and maybe run a few server   
   applications on it to help this learning process then load up a full blown   
   desktop GUI and let the learning begin :)   
      
   I hope this helps to clarify your thoughts.   
   --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5   
    * Origin: Omicron Theta BBS (1:261/20)