Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 13th Jan 2007 00:12 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
PC-BSD In his 'A week with...' series, Justin has used PC-BSD 1.3 this week and is sharing his experience. In other news, the PC-BSD team unveiled a sneak peek of the new look of the software installation wizard.
Thread beginning with comment 201357
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: One thing is for sure...
by Joe User on Sat 13th Jan 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: One thing is for sure..."
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

There's something wrong with you. I manage Linux and Windows servers. Linux servers are fast to manage because of automation but it takes time in the beginning to learn and to get used. But Windows 2003 servers are a piece of cake to manage. I don't know why you have so many problems. As long as you have proper firewall settings, antivirus, and everything automated to update security patches and antivirus, you really shouldn't have any problem with Windows servers. To tell you the truth, I'm really surprised when I read you. It's easy to critisize Microsoft (sorry, I mean MS) for their lack of security, but I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system. Who would?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: One thing is for sure...
by celt on Sat 13th Jan 2007 14:18 in reply to "RE[3]: One thing is for sure..."
celt Member since:
2005-07-06

"but I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system."

Yes they did!

Whom is responsible for writing the code?

Reply Parent Score: 4

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

C'mon, then all software vendors decided to write buggy applications just because their developers left bugs here and there. Nonesense. Why would Microsoft spend millions of dollars spreading the idea that Windows is more secure than Linux if they decided to make it unsecure then?

Reply Parent Score: 1

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

It's because (s)he's managing Windows 3.1/DOS servers. Don't blame him. Doing all those old LanManager commands all the time. I'd be royally pissed too.

Reply Parent Score: 3

biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

....I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system. Who would?

I think, in a way, that they did. Windows networking is essentially promiscuous (this is not meant to be derogatory, but I cannot think of a better descriptive word) in that it, by design, will talk to anybody, easily.

The upside is that networking is relatively easy to set up, in accordance with MS general concept. The downside is that it tends to weaken security.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Gooberslot Member since:
2006-08-02

It's easy to critisize Microsoft (sorry, I mean MS) for their lack of security, but I don't think they chose to have an unsecure system. Who would?

Yes they did. They chose to integrate IE into the sytem, they chose to invent ActiveX, and they chose to have several different ports open to the outside world by default.

Reply Parent Score: 1