Re: [vox-tech] [john_zie_99@yahoo.com: help needed]

[Peter Jay Salzman <pMAPS@dirac.org>]

i would just like to say that making the statement that one OS is "more
secure than another", at this level, is a fairly vacuous statement.

security is a process, not a state of being.  consider a dumb openbsd admin
and a smart linux admin and guess who has the more secure server?  what
happens to the bsd admin who leaves security alone for a year because he
knows he has "a very secure OS"?

there are also other issues.   linux SMP is lightyears ahead of bsd.
the only linux compatibility benchmarks i've seen come from bsd developers,
who have shown themselves to be ... well, wierdos.

pete


On Wed 11 Apr 01,  9:29 PM, Adam Getchell said: 
> If you want security, the best tool for the job is OpenBSD.
> 
> It doesn't support multiple processors, and OpenBSD 2.7 was a bit limited in
> RAID card selection, but 2.8 supports some commonly found vendor RAID cards
> (Dell and Compaq), although my system has an ICP-Vortex.
> 
> If you want performance on Intel architecture, rumor has it FreeBSD is the
> fastest (being optimized for Intel), so perhaps you may not want to move to
> Linux.
> 
> Linux, as far as I can tell, is getting pretty good at having programs
> written for it. Although OpenBSD (and perhaps other BSDs) do offer Linux
> compatibility.
> 
> There are "secure" versions of Linux out there (Bastille hardening scripts
> for Red Hat and now the NSA's version) but I think intensive proactive
> source code audits is a pretty good mechanism.
> 
> --Adam
> 

-- 
"Coffee... I've conquered the Borg on coffee!"               p@dirac.org
       -- Kathryn Janeway on the virtues of coffee           www.dirac.org/p