Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!vic.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.tamu.edu!root
From: root@margrp.dolt.net (Rube Goldberg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: 10 May 1996 09:11:29 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4mv181$ksg@news.tamu.edu>
References: <4ki055$60l@radon.stanford.edu> <Dr2upJ.82r@oce.nl>
Reply-To: semon@comp.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp09-17.rns.tamu.edu
X-Newsreader: slrn (0.8.8 UNIX)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:23503 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:943 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3722 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3570 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:19108 comp.os.linux.advocacy:48829
On Wed, 8 May 1996 08:10:31 GMT, Emile Heyns <qqehe@oce.nl> wrote:
>In article <4mlqih$qju@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> bdwheele@indiana.edu (Brian Wheeler) writes:
>>In article <4m8b33$1g5u@news.missouri.edu>, rhys@vortex.cc.missouri.edu says...
>> WinNT is a hack of Windows crossed with VMS.
>> I have yet to see the "advantages" of NT. Sure, its pretty (sorta)
>>but the hype about it being multiuser is a farce. Multiuser in the sense
>>that everyone stands in a line and uses one at a time. It doesn't have
>If anyone ever counters this, tell them to download *anything*
>from ftp.microsoft.com.
And VMS is a even too awful to put into words. I saw
someone claiming a DCL like "scripting" scripting
language for NT.
>And, Linux can be made C2 secure with some effort (as any *nix) can.
>NT can be made C2 secure -- but according to a recent usenet discussion
>only if you unplug the keyboard and NIC.
>Hah! If you unplug those, even a DOS box is secure.
>
Why does this C2 bullshit even come up. First, the
rating in any event only applies to the subsystems
tested, under the test conditions, second, this is
almost at the bottom of the ladder anyway, and
third, the entire concept may not be appropriate
for the the context in which the machines are used.
A decent administrator with a halfway decent OS,
will provide better security than an idiot with
the best software in existence. Software can't
prevent stupidity.
>BTW: I was under the impression NT had some fairly decent remote admin
>capabilities. Or are these (third party) add-ons?
>
perl in one...
--
semon@comp.tamu.edu
"The only way to rid oneself of"
"temptation is to yield to it"