--=======2E7B1627======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3BA19F0; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello Robert - At 12:20 PM 9/21/2003 -0500, you wrote: >J> I don't really think it would be much better if a free *NIX OS and >J> API owned a really significant part of the dewsktop computing >J> world. The virus and worm developers would shift their target focus >J> and produce malicious coding to make those users life difficult. > >I'm an Open Source kind of person, so I may be prejudiced, but I think >Open Source code is a lot more secure than anything MS can produce, >because any developer who wants to, can read the source code, and >contribute their perspective to the debugging effort. That's a lot of >very sharp people contributing expertise to the project, over an >extended period of time. This has been said about opensource very frequently. The implications are that Microsoft hires people who are not "very sharp". I tend to doubt this. The fact that the source code is available for these 'very sharp' people to develop the software also means the source code is available to be examined for flaws by the malicious programmers who need that info to violate the software. >I have recently begun using FreeBSD 4.8 secure server, and it has been >around for a while, and is a cracker's nightmare, if it is being run >by a knowledgeable sysadmin... which I am *not*... yet.<g> >fortunately, I have an excellent coaching staff, pointing the way... >something that would cost thousands of dollars per year, with MSDN, >and is essentially free, in the FreeBSD community. BSD does have a reputation for being 'secure' but as John has said that might be only because BSD is used even less than Linux is used making it less attractive to those who wish to draw attention to their ability to do harm. >Funny thing is, I have no intention of turning off my Windows 98se >box... it works great. In the next few months, I will hopefully have >my entire rag-tag network of retro-boxes and operating systems fully >networked together behind a gateway/router/firewall box... This is one solution that seems obvious but isn't. According to recent reports even Microsoft 'hid' behind some rented Linux servers for awhile to stop MSBLAST from bringing down their servers not using Linux. >maybe an old 386 or something. I really don't think any recent version of Linux would be easy to get working on an i386 and by the time you get around to this it will be difficult to find an i386 the capacitors haven't dried out on. A 'lesser' machine of whatever that would be at the time (early Pentium?) is certainly a possibility but "386" is becoming only a memory in the real world. Charles.Angelich http:/www.undercoverdesigin.com/dosghost/ --=======2E7B1627======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3BA19F0 Content-Disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 --=======2E7B1627=======-- To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
