Re: Compiling wu-ftp

thanx a lot : )
for all this infos about redhat
what about talking about wu-ftp now ? ;)

I heard that proftpd would be a replacement for wu-ftpd

Also, my biggest problem with wu-ftp is I can't establish fine 
permissions on a per user basis but I am limited over classes. And 
classes can't be applied to different user but are specified between 
guest/real/anonymous (and other criteras like subnet).

Any experience ?

Jefferson Ogata schrieb:

>Stephane Bentebba wrote:
>  
>
>>for robust redhat server
>>consider using a "RHEL like" distro
>>check whitebox 3.0 for example
>>RHEL is RH7 based
>>whil FC are RH9 based, less stable / less compatible
>>    
>>
>
>This is wrong.
>
>RHEL 2.1 is based on RHL 7.2.
>
>RHEL 3 is based on RHL 9.
>
>Both are quite stable. At this point, more precompiled stuff is built to
>the RHEL 3/RHL 9 platform since it contains more recent releases of KDE,
>GTK, etc.
>
>RHL was merged with FC. FC is a project provided without support by Red
>Hat. Red Hat rolls much of the current FC release into the next RHEL
>release.
>
>RHEL 4 is based largely on FC 3. This is still an early release, and is
>the first RHEL with a 2.6 kernel.
>
>No future Red Hat updates are available for any RHL release, nor for FC
>1 or 2. The fedoralegacy.org project, however, releases updates for RHL
>7.3, RHL 9, and FC 1. These updates sometimes lag significantly, but do
>come out eventually. fedoralegacy.org is in the process of spinning up
>updates for FC 2.
>
>Whitebox 3 is simply RHEL 3 built without Red Hat copyrighted material.
>It is the same distribution as RHEL 3, so it's silly to suggest that
>it's more stable then RHEL 3. Updates for Whitebox are free, but lag the
>official releases from Red Hat.
>
>I believe a Whitebox 4 release candidate has been announced, based,
>naturally on RHEL 4.
>
>  
>