On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:46:53 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Gregory J. Feig wrote: >> No, Steve....we don't want this discussion to end here... > I didn't mean it like that. > I meant that when Glenn said, > Q. What do I lose... > A. Nothing. > that I couldn't add anything at that point. To me, > that pretty much says "point, set, match." It doesn't > mean there won't be future matches. ;-) Ok, looks like I owe you all an apology. I did not make myself clear in my original post. I did not mean to dispute the fact that security is an issue which needs to be addressed. I do in fact understand all-too-well that security does need to be addressed. (that's one of the biggest reasons why all I'm running is this..... http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/netstats.gif ) (screen shot taken last evening at one of my "most vulnerable" moments) What I *do* dispute is the statement that by: "....True, if you follow their suggestion to disable all services,..." You would be: "....throwing away a good deal of what makes Linux such a great OS....." IMHO, Linux is a great OS even without any of those services which might be vulnerable to attack through the security holes in said services. But, that's just my opinion. ;-) ____ Again... I am sorry for any confusion that I may have caused. -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://freedos-32.sourceforge.net/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
