[4418] in WWW Security List Archive
Re[2]: UNIX less secure than Win95? (
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Harris)
Fri Feb 14 10:23:14 1997
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:09:31 +0000
From: Richard.Harris@ft.com (Richard Harris)
To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader
may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as
text. To process the remainder, you will need to use a Mime
compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details.
--IMA.Boundary.012229558
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Is this www security - NO!
Take this off this list and continue your game of "my OS is better than your OS"
elsewhere. Frankly, i'm sick of having my mailbox clogged up with this tripe.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: UNIX less secure than Win95? (was Re: Septic about (Fund
Author: Jim Harmon <jim@telecnnct.com> at Internet
Date: 13/02/97 21:16
Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Hmmm....You might want to check your sources. I believe ApplixWare from
> > Red Hat is available for aroun $500, with a student version for $79. This
> > is comparable to Microsoft's Office Suite, whose student version costs
> > approximately twice as much.
>
> I suspect its too little too late. If red hat ported their stuff to the
> other UNIX systems perhaps it would be viable. As it is I would have to be
> really committed to UNIX to go down that route. I might just have been
> that commtted to VMS but the problem was not enough others were.
Saying that RedHat should support all flavors of UNIX is very much like
saying any 3rd party MS-based developer should port their apps to every
release of DOS 1.0-6.22+ (including PC/IBM DOS, Dr.DOS, etc), and
Windows (including Win 1.0-3.11, Win for Workgroups, Win95, and NT for
x86/RISC/Mini/Mainframe Workstation/Server/EnterpriseServer.)
Doesn't that sound rather ludicrous?
<SNIP>
--IMA.Boundary.012229558
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"
Received: from ns2.rutgers.edu (128.6.21.2) by smtpgate.ft.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 00010B1B; Fri, 14 Feb 97 11:55:22
+0000
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ns2.rutgers.edu
(8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) id VAA25010 for www-security-outgoing;
Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:23:17 -0500
Received: from uu5.psi.com (uu5.psi.com [38.145.226.3]) by ns2.rutgers.edu
(8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA25001 for
<www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:22:58 -0500
Received: by uu5.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
id AA26198 for www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu; Thu, 13 Feb 97 21:22:52
-0500
Received: from barney.telecnnct.com (barney.ARPA) by telecnnct.com
(4.1/3.2.083191-Telephone Connection)
id AA25637; Thu, 13 Feb 97 21:15:24 EST
Received: from barney (localhost) by barney.telecnnct.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA20746; Thu, 13 Feb 97 21:16:54 EST
Message-Id: <3303CB15.2D857063@telecnnct.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:16:53 -0500
From: Jim Harmon <jim@telecnnct.com>
Organization: The Telephone Connection
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.4_DB sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Cc: Charles Brian Hill <hill@unr.net>, mattm@sumac.digex.net, jay@homecom.com,
www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: UNIX less secure than Win95? (was Re: Septic about (Funds ...)
References: <199702121942.OAA04940@muesli.ai.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU
--IMA.Boundary.012229558--
