begin quoting Rachel Garrett as of Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:57:18PM -0700: > > 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*
My apologies. I shall have to remember to stick to unsubstantiated opinions. > I had only heard a couple > mentions of Xenix before now, so I assumed it wasn't Most Popular > *Nix, or even close. I don't think it was "Most Popular" by a long shot, unless you limit the market. SunOS, AIX, HPUX, IRIX, plus the various AT&T offerings, and, of course, BSD, were all out there. > And surely it didn't have the same kind of market > share that Windows does, did it? The market wasn't as big back then. And no, I don't recall it dominating the market at all. But then, I was working under the silly assumption that technical merit is what counted in a technical market. > 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. Well, the digital ecosystem has gotten a lot more hostile since then. -Stewart "Compromised systems weren't all that rare, however" Stremler
pgp15R4LSNyMv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
