Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:27:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Jason Dicioccio <geniusj@suarez.bestweb.net> To: Dan Langille <junkmale@xtra.co.nz> Cc: Craig Beasland <craig@hotmix.com.au>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: NT vs FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980825142334.1278A-100000@suarez.bestweb.net> In-Reply-To: <199808240909.VAA13178@witch.xtra.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Dan Langille wrote: > On 24 Aug 98, at 15:33, Craig Beasland wrote: > > > Also, a well built NT box is more secure than a poorly built BSD one - > > wouldn't you agree. > > Is the above indeed what you meant to say? I would have expected > something like 'less secure' to be mentioned on a FreeBSD mailing list. > Agreed, a well built NT box is not more secure than a poorly built BSD one. FreeBSD is more stable than any NT box using a straight-from-cd configuration and the GENERIC kernel. To make it less secure you would have to mess around with a lot of the FreeBSD and it's programs' source code and intentionally make it less secure. Also NT' cannot manage any badnwidth, which is why, Hotmail is owned by microsoft, yet runs apache. The immense amount of users that lands on hotmail daily is nto enough for MS Backoffice to handle. Now that I got that out! --- Jason DiCioccio <geniusj@suarez.bestweb.net> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980825142334.1278A-100000>