> >BTW I'd go so far as to say that the Windows (NT/W2K/XP/.NET) NTFS permission
> > structure is overall far superior to Linux <ducks flames>, BUT the
>
> How exactly ?
Far more granular for one, but the most obvious from an admin perspective is that it
easily allows me to setup this sort of thing:
d:\data\payroll
Group/Managers has ReadOnly access
Group/Payclerks has Change access
(and TheGreatUnwashed have absolutly no access)
... basically I can add an ACL entry for each group that needs some sort of access,
and define this access level.
> > - a "default install" of Linux from most distros is not
> particularly secure
>
> Compared to what ?
Compared to what everyone on this list would consider adequate. Surely the existence
of Bastille and the near universal advice to 'harden' your system asap after
installation are proof enough. I'll grant that MS do an even worse job, but that's not
the point.
> I hope not. In fact i have friends whose machines i have not
> even given them the root password to. They just use it.
If you think about it this probably proves several of my points...
- steve
=========================================================
http://www.commarc.co.nz
(This e-mail has been scanned by MailMarshal)
