On 4/20/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin quoting Rachel Garrett as of Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:27:42PM -0700: > > On 4/20/05, gossamer axe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I remember reading some old "cracker" ezines when I was bored enough, > > > and it was talked about being the easiest *NIX to crack into. Doesn't > > > suprise me. > > > > I think that's interesting, because it's a good counterexample for the > > people (like Digital Dave in the ComputorEdge) who say that the > > primary reason Linux seems more "secure," is that hackers [sic] don't > > go after "minority" operating systems like Linux. Don't tell me Xenix > > was the most popular flavor of *nix! > > At the time, it was quite popular. Wasn't it one of the first Unices > on x86?
Oh, go ahead and deflate a perfectly fine theoretical argument by introducing FACTS into the discussion! *g* I had only heard a couple mentions of Xenix before now, so I assumed it wasn't Most Popular *Nix, or even close. And surely it didn't have the same kind of market share that Windows does, did it? Essentially, what I was saying is that if Xenix was insecure, it's a handy point to bring up when arguing with people who argue that Microsoft products are insecure only because their popularity makes them popular targets. --Rachel -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
