On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Manuel Aróstegui <manuel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > El dom, 30-03-2008 a las 20:13 +1030, Tim escribió: > > > On Sat, 2008-03-29 at 19:04 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > I blame Microsoft and all the geeks who seem to feel for being geeks > > > and want to dumb everything down. > > > > Those of us who remember personal computing before Microsoft was but > > tiny company would probably agree that it was a bad idea to make > > computers something the ignorant could play with, they used to be the > > domain of experts and people actually interested in computing. Computer > > systems need to be much better designed before it's going to be okay for > > toy computing, both to protect the ignorant, and everyone else that they > > interfere with. > > Yep, that's why I think that having a good windows administrator and a noob running a Linux server > you'll have more possibilities to hack the linux machine than the > Windows one. > > Again, out of the box and running both systems by default, it is obvious > that Windows is going to suffer mucho more to keep itself clean. > > Arthur, this is the third time I say that I'm GLAD that they didn't hack > the Linux box, but it doesn't mean that Linux is invincible and Windows > can be easily hacked by a dog. > There are probably out there servers owned by really good Windows > sysadmins which are truly difficult to get compromised, and servers > owned by dumb Linux sysadmins that get hacked every single week. I still agree with you. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
