> > > MS has *always* lagged behind Unix, Linux, BSD, and Apple > in this area. Always. MS propaganda aside. ...
> > NT/2000 was a desperate attempt by MS to stem the bleeding > because everyone else's OS's were less vulnerable and it > was at-best embarassing, at worse was harming them at > server level sales. > With all due respect, the above is simply mis-informed. I'm afraid you simply don't know what you don't know and apparently aren't willing to listen to somebody who actually DOES know -- who's been there and done that. I *know* it's tempting to blame Microsoft, because they've done some truly hideous things to gain and hold market share. But the security debate isn't simple enough to be about propaganda -- It's about history, and the evolution of the PC. And, again... I can TELL you how it is, cuz I was there and I've *read* the code of the operating systems we're discussing. I'm out of this conversation, de Peter K1PGV