On Tuesday 21 Oct 2003 2:18 am, HaywireMac wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:04:11 -0400 > > yankl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered: > > Before flaming me read my signature. > > > > Sorry to spoil that bashing of the writer, but he makes a valid > > point. > > No he doesn't. > > > It is not an OS, it is user who use it. 99.9999% of windblows > > viruses are based on the social engineering in addition to > > software flow. > > No flame, but that's not the point of the article. > > The author is "rebutting" another article which points out that > Windows is quite clearly several times more vulnerable to trivial > exploits. No one is claiming anything is impregnable. > You know, I really did not see it that way you do. It seems to me that he does not deny that linux, properly configured and used, is a great deal more secure. But how often have we had long threads on the newbie list while we patiently try to convince someone that he really should not be running as root all the time, even if he is the only user on the system?
It seemed to me that the point he was making was that linux will be vulnerable, if not as much as windows, if it is used in the same sloppy way. And I agree with him. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
