Jim Hyslop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > Jim Hyslop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>attacks against Linux. Linux may be a much more robust and secure > >>system than Windows, but there are probably still security holes > >>lurking that nobody (at least, no honest person) has yet discovered > >>and patched. > > > > > > This is Microsoft FUD. > > Hey, watch where you sling your insults there, buddy! :-)
I think it sounded harsher than it was meant. Sorry for that. > Seriously, though, it's not FUD to point out that no system can > possibly be perfect. That's all I was saying. And I never refuted that. > If I had immediately followed with some outrageous claim that Windows > is better and has fewer security holes because <insert some stupid > reason>, *THEN* you could accuse me of spreading FUD. > > > Think about Apache, (by far) the most widely > > used web server, but its resistance to attacks has not decreased. > That's not what I was getting at. As the popularity of Linux > increases, so will the number of attackers looking for > vulnerabilities. As good as it is, Linux (or any software package, > for that matter) is not perfect. The more attackers there are, the > greater the likelihood that previously unknown exploits will be > discovered. This is completely independent of the software's > resistance to attack. But the example of Apache demonstrates that this is a non-issue. And it's not me saying this. Have a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/ and the entire report referenced there. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
