Re: Knocking Microsoft

[martin f krafft <madduck () madduck net>]

also sprach James F. Wilkus <james () unixninja us> [2004.02.28.0117 +0100]:
> This is not true.  UNIX was not  made to be secure.  Any UNIX security
> history book will tell you that.

I think that having a clear separation between user and admin in
UNIX, as well as the concept of homedirectories already take a big
step towards security. I agree that UNIX per se isn't secure. But
it's way better designed than Windoze.

> apt-get update is easy, so is clicking on windows update...

Except apt-get does not require a reboot, and patches are available
within hours.

> I  think people  are  doing a  disservice by  claiming  that linux
> is something it is not, or more accurately, generalizing all
> UNIX's to be secure.

of course, a system is only as secure as its admin. but windoze
admins are going to have to learn some more stuff before they can
administer linux. unfortunately, redhat and suse are pushing the
other way...

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
 
invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
Most Intelligent Customers Realise Our Software Only Fools Them.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature