Have you read the news ... MS 2000 has a massive security hole through which
a hacker can gain total control of a 2000 machine. MS reluctantly admitted
this
was true ... this following a billion dollars of advertising declaring MS
the Holy
Grail of OS's that guaranteed security and stability ... gag me with a whole
serving
set!
On this he trusts his corporation?
I don't have the data at hand but I seem to recall some tests that showed
Linux to
be faster that MS in most cases and more secure in virtually all ... Linux
is inherently
easier to secure because it is a far better written OS. A Linux
administrator can
easily see what is happening, the junk that MS writes is like voodoo to
control!
Will see if I can find those sites ... though I am sure someone on this list
has those
facts right at hand ... if they can stop teasing each other long enough to
type them!
:-) Doc
> Hey Everyone,
>
> I had the opportunity to speak with one of the corporate IT guys (you
> know, the one that just flew in from out of town, because he's so high
> up in the corporation that he doesn't really have time be at the one
> site all the time?) about a simple request: can I have a newsreader as
> part of my MS Outlook so I can participate in the Linux discussion from
> another, completely separate part of the corporation? Naturally, the
> answer was no, but in the course of my conversation with him, he asked
> me why do I want to be involved with something that is not my primary
> function. I gave him the basic speel about Linux and Free software, and
> how it's open source.
>
> Somewhere in there he mentioned that being Open Source is actually a
> security risk. He also said something about "rigor" when it comes to
> dealing with security issues, and stability. Naturally, this is a guy
> who could be my boss some day (or not, seeing as how he trusts all
> mighty M$) so I didn't want to be too vigorous in my defense of Linux.
>
> I'd like to have an honest appraisal of Linux from you guys and gals. I
> saw that from his point of view Linux is untested, and new (even though
> it's based on Unix, which paradoxically he was okay with). So, how
> stable is Linux? How does that compare with NT? And the same thing for
> security. Is there any rigorous testing process that goes on? And what
> about cost? He mentioned that if Linux were to be deployed, there would
> have to be a new person who would have to be responsible for the Linux
> part of IT (but that's just the Big Company I work for). I know we've
> been over this turf before, but a refresher is in order. I'd be
> interested to see if anyone can take the side of M$ and defend
> NT/2000/ME/98...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:12:00 EDT