I don't see a lot of merit to the discussion if it's focussed on security.
If you want to do lab testing of performance you have much better
potential for getting some valid results.
Security on the other hand is fairly subjective: you're asking if admin A
can configure platform B so that hacker C using tool D can't get in. The
result is measurable (C got in or didn't get in), but the assumptions that
went into setting up the test and the quality of A, C, and D can vary so
widely that it's impossible to say anything valuable about B.
my 2 cents,
--
Jack Coates, Rainfinity SE
t: 650-962-5301 m: 650-280-4376
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Stewart Hurrell wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> This has always been a contentious issue whether NT or Solaris provides a more
>secure platform for FW1 to run on. The answers are almost always subjective,
>depending whether one is a M$ basher or Microsoft supporter :)
>
> Has anyone ever confirmed in a Lab situation whether NT, and now I suppose Linux,
>holds up as well as Solaris?
>
> I would think that if you are familiar with an OS you are less likely to make
>mistakes on your particular platform, so that would have to take that into account
>when finally making a choice.
>
> Regards
>
> Stewart Hurrell
>
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
