I'm sure Linux and BSD are fairly equal in a lot of ways, that's why I was kind of
surprised at how people seemed to reactively jump to the linux side and try to
downgrade BSD so much. I understand BSD runs Yahoo! and runs (ran) Hotmail, so it
definitely scales well. It is a fairly standard vi vs. emacs debate however, as you
stated, Pete. It kind of reminds me of when people compare Linux and Solaris. And then
I remember about Solaris' 64 processor support, hot-swappable everything, a general
overall superiority. DOH!
>so take away openbsd's "superior" security, and you don't have much left to
>make the OS outshine other operating systems. you have what physicists call,
>a vacuum state. it's nothingness. i think it's perfectly normal for
>openbsd, its developers and its user base to try to overstate the security
>case. nobody like to feel "unspecial". bsd doesn't even have it's own
>category in securityfocus.com. it's lumped in under the "linux" heading.
>
>so i think perhaps there may be some merit to your argument. but then again,
>i wouldn't go around saying that a 233 MHz PII will blow away a 200 MHz PII.
>even to make such a claim is an embarrasment.
>
>ALMOST as embarrasing as the recent buffer overflow in openssh, which was
>affected, yes you know it, the "most secure operating system in the world".
>
>or the recent vulnerability in ntpd.
>or the last vulnerability in sendmail.
>...
>you get the picture.
>
>
>end personal bias
>==============================================================================
>
>
>p
>
>--
>"Coffee... I've conquered the Borg on coffee!" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- Kathryn Janeway on the virtues of coffee www.dirac.org/p
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/
