I'm using Linux for about one year and a half, but only R.H. Since then I heard about many Linux distributions so I'm asking this question to those who tried most of them: Which Linux have the best security, the best stability and a good speed and which one make the best compromise of the three above? (stability first...) P.S. stability= what windoz don't have... security= rezistance (when configured to) to cracker's attacks. speed=speed. More opinions are O.K. Thanks a lot Zandreius

In my opinion the different flavours of linux aren't about which one is more stable, secure or faster. It's more about which program set you get installed with it and if it has the look and feel you desire. The real stability of the OS comes mainly from the kernel. But most of them run the same kernel anyway so there isn't much difference. Most distributions come with different default security settings. But if you really want to be secure against crackers you will have to configure most of the security settings yourself. Speed depends on your computer and which programs you run. Ofcourse it also depends on how much was added to the kernel, but you can strip the kernel and make it run faster. Basically what I'm trying to say is that you can make a RedHat machine just as stable, secure and fast as a Suse Machine or any other distribution. It's all about how you optimize it. Because a standard install won't give you stability, security and speed. Just keep tweaking till you got an optimal system for your situation. Mik

The security efficiency does not depend on the security software or equipment itself!!! It depend on your security knowledge ONLY!! If you are not a security and WAN expert... DO NOT configure it yourself. This kind of negligence is the ONLY reason why there so much internet attacks!!