I don't like the implication either. And I agree with you that focus
is different. It seems unfair to compare Debian and Redhat this way.
One is a "bottom-up" DIY distro where you can start with almost a
kernel and basic userspace and build-up. The other is a more mature
product targeted at commercial, public facing infrastructure.
The former strongly implies that, if you're using it for the latter
case, then you really better know what you're doing. But this
capability/competence versus task-fit gets glossed over in the
paragraph where the author basically says; because Redhat chose to be
a bag of dicks, jumping ship to Debian is the "logical move". It isn't
if you don't know what you are doing. And it's sad that RH exited this
space leaving a civil cybersecurity hole. The lack of a truly Free
and "OOB secure" OS seems the case in point.
There are other reasons to doubt the security of Debian, but "you're
using it wrong" isn't the best one to discuss.
The former strongly implies that, if you're using it for the latter case, then you really better know what you're doing. But this capability/competence versus task-fit gets glossed over in the paragraph where the author basically says; because Redhat chose to be a bag of dicks, jumping ship to Debian is the "logical move". It isn't if you don't know what you are doing. And it's sad that RH exited this space leaving a civil cybersecurity hole. The lack of a truly Free and "OOB secure" OS seems the case in point.
There are other reasons to doubt the security of Debian, but "you're using it wrong" isn't the best one to discuss.