> The *only* way to pull that off is to totally ignore security updates > (and the subsequent reboot). No thanks. :)
Yes, and for an internal machine, properly firewalled and segmented from the public internet, this is a perfectly acceptable practice. Folks, lets not forget that the UNIX world *pioneered* lame security practices; typing 'debug' or 'wizard' into a sendmail session, for example? Gaining root through lpr? And so on? Nowadays, you read articles about how bloated Windows is; back in the day, you read articles about how bloated Solaris was/is. The UNIX world has just had an extra twenty years to get their stuff together. That, coupled with the fact that MS markets too much power to the uneducated masses (the patches for nimda and slammer, for example, existed MONTHS before the actual worms came out) means that MS gets blamed for the user's faults. Then, when they try to fix things, or do things like automatic patching, they get accused of Big Brotherishness or 'if it needs to be patched so often, it must suck!' Meanwhile, ask why, say, Debian is such an awesome Linux dist, it's because a) it has brain-dead simple patching/updating via apt-get, and b) it uses really old versions of all the software, which has fewer security holes. Fair disclosure: I use Debian for exactly those reasons. If I was just a bit more paranoid/concerned, I'd use FreeBSD. Or something like Trusted Solaris or another B2 (old) classification system, using hardware which supports the security features. If I was interested in real uptime, I'd be using a mainframe; those who scoff at UNIX year long uptimes because it's measured in decades on a proper mainframe. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Patrick Morris > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:21 PM > To: Aaron > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Really OT: Microsoft buys out RAV > > > Aaron wrote: > > >>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. > > > The *only* way to pull that off is to totally ignore security updates > (and the subsequent reboot). No thanks. :) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------- 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
