full-disclosure - Re: Funny article

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311121430040.25329-100000@insipid.cc.ukans.edu>
From: dphull at ku.edu (dphull@...edu)
Subject: Re: Funny article

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, martin f krafft wrote:

> i guess the main argument against this joke is that an operating
> system with 10 different web servers, 10 different mail servers, 10
> different ftp servers, 20 different window managers, 10 different
> browsers, 20 different mail clients, and so on, and so on, will have
> how many more bugs than a monolithic approach with 1 web server,
> 1 mail server, 1 ftp server, etc...

I don't consider the web/mail/ftp servers, windows managers, browsers, mail 
clients etc. to be part of the operating system, per se.

Certainly a vulnerability in Apache should not be a strike against Linux, 
should it?

I like how the article quoted Steve Ballmer comparing Windows 2000 Server and 
W2K3 Server with Red Hat 6. Why doesn't Ballmer compare the state of the art 
Windows OS' available at the time RH6 came out? Did Windows NT 4 not stack up 
as well against RH6 as W2K/3?

--
Dave Hull
Senior IT Analyst, Information Services
The University of Kansas
voice: (785) 864-0403 || fax: (785) 864-0485