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. > >-Aaron --- 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. http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm