On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Pollei wrote:
> P.S. I don't really trust winnt or win2k for security either
> but at least they have some security features.
Just wanted to add $0.02 here ...
Even putting aside any issues with NT/2000 itself, because 98% of
the world's Windows software, let alone the development tools, are
quite ignorant of NT/2000 permissions and security model and
assume MS-DOS 7.x is underneath (like Window 9x), it doesn't really
matter how "good" or "bad" NT/2000 is.
I find it quite laughable that even Microsoft's own applications
group produces software that is anything but NT/2000 aware (I
finally get frustrated with various Office components enough to
just give my users local admin access to their NT/2000 boxes). The
only company that ever seems to make 100% NT/2000-aware software was
Digital and we all know what happened to them. They were the only
group that made quality Windows software, let alone they were
really the ones that made NT/2000 a half-way decent OS.
Compare that mentality to the UNIX world where 98% of the world's
UNIX software *IS* multi-user and network aware. Hence why Windows
solutions continue to be a bastard solution for networks.
Sorry for the interruption, but it's just a point that needs to be
made for the UNIX-ignorant (not really anyone on this list
though) from a former NT-advocate (1992-1999, who got fed up with
Microsoft's lack of vision and caring for security, let alone a
_real_ multi-user OS).
-- TheBS
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith CONTACT INFO *********************************************************** Chat: thebs413 @ AOL/MSN/Yahoo (see http://Everybuddy.com) Email: mailto:thebs@theseus.com,b.j.smith@ieee.org Legal: http://www.SmithConcepts.com/legal.html- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST