[windows2000] Re: Sus and apache?

  • From: "Charles R. Buchanan" <crbgfblab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:25:48 -0700

I hear people (mostly Linux users) say how un-secure Windows is out the box,
and that for the most part is true, however, Unic/Linux and so forth is more
secure because dummies like me that doesn't have a clue, can't get the thing
running in the first place, thus, if it isn't running, wouldn't you say that
is REALLY secure? LOL!!! :-)

Seriously though, while I can't stand those (not on this list) that will
knock Windows at every chance and shove Linux/FreeBSD and so forth down your
throat at every given chance, but on the other hand, I'm a little envious
because I'm not that much into having to program everything I do. :-O
Although I was pretty proud of writing all those .bat files when i was
running a bbs awhile back! :-) Pretty impressive for a guy who up until that
time was exclusively a Mac User! :-) <putting on armor>  :-)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Aaron Dokey
>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:13 PM
>To: 'windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: [windows2000] Re: Sus and apache?
>I think the "build it yourself" nature of unix/apache lends itself to being
>easier to secure than the "Out of Box" approach of Win2k/IIS.  It all
>depends on what side of the computing farm you were raised on.

It's lights OUT for you viruses!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/9/2002

To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.


Other related posts: