On Monday 22 September 2003 22:05, Jon Carnes wrote: > Linux is much more secure than Windows (not as secure as OpenBSD). > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1275872,00.asp > > I agree completely with this article. Linux is inherently more secure > than Windows. Being OpenSource *helps* with security. > > To folks who argue that Windows just "seems" less secure, because there > are so many installs out there, I say look at Apache verses IIS. Apache > is far more prevalent than IIS, but which sites are hacked the most, and > have the most damage done to them? > > (Answer: IIS - in case you were wondering :-)
I like the *helps* phrase. It's a completely true and unassailable and positive statement. /. discusses bad OSS security apps here: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/22/2127236.shtml?tid=106&tid=126&tid=172&tid=185 This discussion supports the position that OSS helps with security. If the apps in question were not OSS, then the critic would not have been able to make the judgements on the apps that he published on the crypto mail list. -- Mike Mueller 324881 (08/20/2003) Make clockwise circles with your right foot. Now use your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air. -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
