On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 20:38, Eduardo A. dela Rosa wrote: > > "Maintenance, training, and upgrades", needless to say, are factors > both present whether you've got Linux box or MS Products. Got the > picture? Nope? It's the CO$T of Ownership having MS Products that > counts.
Eduardo, I'm glad you don't speak for all Linux users. The moment you used $ to represent the letter S, I stopped taking you seriously. Let's grow up and advocate Linux properly. > Another great difference and advantage that Linux box can have over > MS Products are flexibility, stability, and SECURITY (among > others) that MS cannot meet at par with Linux. Not to defend Microsoft products, but Windows *can* be flexible (sorta), *can* be stable (at times), and *can* be secure. Just like a Linux box, this also requires a qualified Systems Administrator who practices sound security and patching. > How many times in a year that you need to patch your MS Boxes with > Bill-provided patch upgrades so that even your most latest Win2K > would not be exploited by worms? Actually, I've been rather embarrassed at the volume of errata that Red Hat has released over the last couple of years. Is this a bad thing? Only if the administrator hasn't maintained the system properly. The one thing that folks... the ones who argue that [Red Hat] Linux has as many security holes as Windows... forget is that Linux is a distribution containing a LOT of 3rd party software. Windows just can't compare. If you were to compare the errata releases for the Linux kernel and GNU utilities to Windows patches, I guarantee you they'd pale in comparison. So... you're both right. ;-) > It's for wise people like you to evaluate these facts. It's wise for you to practice healthy advocacy. -- Jason Dixon, RHCE DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
