> I'm no fan of Microsoft, I'd be first in line to squick Bill Gates, but
> every time I see A, B, C, etc., saying how OS X/Y/Z is so much better, I
> have to wonder.
>
> No OS is secure, no OS ever will be secure, whatever OS you are running,
it
> has holes, or it has holes that are patched but has more holes waiting to
> be discovered.
> Any of the UNIX flavors have lots of nice little
> vulnerabilities, too. (The recent WU-ftp problem comes to mind - tell me
> that one's not a widespread flaw?)
Technically wu-ftp isn't a UNIX problem. It's a wu-ftp problem since you
can run wu-ftp on the Win32 platform.
Secondly just because an operating system has a hole doesn't mean all
operating systems are equally insecure (which would mean...at least to
me...that an OS can be better). For example can you possibly compare MS's
security record to that of OpenBSD? 7 years with ONE hole in the default
install!
_______________________________________________
Thinkpad mailing list
Thinkpad@stderr.org
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
Received on Wed Aug 20 13:11:56 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 26 2006 - 16:01:10 EDT