[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Christopher L. Morrow") writes: > > > It has very little to do with the quality of the ISP's abuse desk. > > > > long term, it does. my sister is in sbc-dsl territory and before i > > linuxed her and tunneled her, ... > > As was pointed out to me by a co-worker: "Linux is not anymore inherently > secure than anyother OS."
your co-worker needs to spend a few thanksgiving holidays the way i spent my last one, and then i'll listen to what he's got to say. > The difference really comes in the administration of the pee cee. So, > would upgrading joe-random-user to Linux really make things better for > them? (or us?) That is not clear at all at this point. it makes a number of things easier, like tunnelling. the fact that no viruses are being crafted for it is apparently (according to bill gates in a recent interview) not an indication of software quality but rather market size. whatever. > Certianly the point central to your arguement is that with the right > abuse-desk to customer ratio AND the right customer base, things could be > kept clean for smtp/web/ftp/blah 'hosting'. This is most certainly the > case... righto. > I look forward to seeing your list of providers and prices :) naturally everybody has their own units of measure, so it's proving difficult to regularize it. perhaps another beer will help. -- Paul Vixie