also sprach James F. Wilkus <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [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