* Thus wrote John Nichel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Peter James wrote: > >You guys running Linux sure are cocky about these sorts of things. I have > >no doubt that Linux' time will come, and then it will be the MacOS X users, > >or FreeBSD users, or [insert random-os-that-still-remains-under-the-radar > >here] users that think they are "untouchable". > > > >If Linux enjoyed the same type of (often less-than-computer-literate) user > >base that Windows does, there'd be plenty for virus writers and > >vulnerability exploiters to do. Linux is not necessarily more secure... > >just not a honeypot of large numbers of gullible users. > > Not as cut and dry as that. By design, Linux IS more secure. Great > deal of that security lies in the fact that it IS a true multi-user > system (like just about every other non-MS OS out there), with a real > permission / user / group mindset.
There is a lot lacking in the permission/user/group in *nix. Just because it works hardly makes it right. Try managing 20 servers with 100 users within 30 separate groups across a network. NT has far more flexible and manageable permissions mindset. > > >But that's just my 2 cents (for which I will almost certainly earn the > >title > >of troll). > > Not a troll, just misinformed. hmm, i guess he didn't snag you with his troll bate :) But I think you missed his point. virus/trojans/worms do exist for *nix and linux, the reason why you don't see them widespread is the literacy of the user base is much higher than you find on most windows machines. And, not to mention, the linux virus's come with GNU uninstallers :) If and when linux becomes as 'mainstream' as windows, you will find more virus's written for linux and more linux computers getting infected with them. Thats why *BSD is better, it doesn't demand the attention linux does :) hm.. is this a bad time to mention vi? cheers, Curt -- "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure." -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php