> Not to start a flame war, but have 2 NT Servers Pentium 233 > that have been running for years, 24/7. There was a stretch > from 96 to mid 99 that they ran without being touched.
I second that sentiment. I've had Win servers that ran and ran and ran for ages it seemed. > I don't get this argument I do... Everyone guns for the top dog. The only reason Microsoft OS' are perceived as being so insecure (well, they do have their faults) are because of the large installed base. When a vulnerability is found, because of all the machines running it, the impact is felt more. Nobody would claim that *nix operating systems have no security vulnerabilities at all. When a Linux flaw is found, it circulates among the Linux admins, but the press doesn't bother creating the media stir because, who cares, Linux has a small installed base (I'm just saying what the press would be thinking). But, just like a good Linux admin can take steps to protect their system from unknown flaws, like by removing components they don't actually need, good Windows admins can do the same, and have been for years. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The best thread debugger on the planet. Designed with thread debugging features you've never dreamed of, try TotalView 6 free at www.etnus.com. _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
