4 Feb
2016
4 Feb
'16
4:11 p.m.
Eheheh,
except that solaris had a good installed base of workstations too, and Hp-ux tended to
have the same (to make some examples). Technically clients
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Per conto di Liam Proven
Inviato: gioved? 4 febbraio 2016 15:17
A: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Oggetto: Re: Can Windows 98SE run on an Intel I7 with SATA hard drives?
On 4 February 2016 at 15:07, Mazzini Alessandro <mazzinia at tin.it> wrote:
I would disagree on this point. Unix and linux, in all its flavours,
had plenty of security fixes in the same timeframe mentioned, so I
would not consider them as safe as etc
That they are less obvious to attack, in comparison, is another thing.
Oh yes, true, but you need to think about the roles.
Unix was traditionally mostly used as a /server./ The exploits and malware are about
getting remote access to a server, or at least taking it offline or rendering it
inaccessible.
Windows is primarily a client OS, used for surfing, email, chat, downloading & running
programs, etc.
/Totally/ different usage patterns.
And the vast success of OS X as a client -- now the most successful closed-source UNIX? of
all time, with more installed seats than all the others ever put together -- compared with
the small amount of malware and very few successful exploits, shows the difference.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)