Aussie wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've got a client that wants to set up for the web, and they've got a
> "friend" that claims they should go NT over anything else, claiming
> it's the most secure way with the exception of 4 $$$ os'es. The
> "friend" also claims to have set up the security for Aust Post,
> something I'm just a little doubtful of :-)
> What I really want to do is to provide examples of how NT is less
> secure (and actual holes) but how Linux doesn't have those same
> insecurities. Can anyone help me out with this?
My favourite is this one:
http://news.tucows.com/ext2/99/10/articles/ext210081999.shtml
It takes the 5 most important protocols of the net and shows that
everyone who is serious is using some form of Unix to handle those
protocols.
Erik
--
+-------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+-------------------------------------------------+
With 22,100,000 legitimate businesses in the US alone,
allowing each to send only one UCE per *year* gets every
mailbox 60,547 emails per day. There will either be email
without UCE or there will be no email.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
