I agree with Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Baudouin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [brlug-general] Re: limitations of x86 = Windows insecurity?
> The fundamental difference between OpenBSD and the rest of the world
> is that they spend the bulk of their time auditing code for security
> holes rather than implementing new features and making available the
> latest/greatest software packages. This is why SMP wasn't implemented
> until 2004. I do not know the history of Debian Linux and their
> security policies, but I do know that their "stable" distribution is
> many versions behind the latest and greatest on just about every
> software package.
>
> Outlook has never required root ("Administrator") to work. NTFS is
> based from the ground up on permissions. Windows NT 4.0 and above
> tracked processes by PID and allowed the ability to re-"nice", etc.
>
> I have already said this numerous times, but the reason that Microsoft
> is insecure as it is is because of the previous attitudes within the
> corporation of "provide the most features, the most user-friendliness,
> and do it as fast as possible, we'll fix bugs later."
