Re: Re: hello

2009/1/8 Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:46 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote: > > Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote: > > > > > >> Daniel Brown wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings <robert@interjinn.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to > > >>>> believe > > >>>> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to > > >>>> indicate > the > > >>>> validity of your statement. > > >>>> > > >>> Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst > > >>> keeping in mind the statements made elsewhere in this thread. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card > > >> connected to the internet it's insecure. > > >> > > > > > > We're not debating whether it is or is not insecure... we're debating > > > comparitive insecurity in relation to that of Windows. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rob. > > > > > that's my point, all OS's are equally insecure, the only thing debatable > > is which os has more people trying to exploit those insecurities (and > > the answer is obviously windows) > > Equally? Have you looked in a dictionary to see what the word "equal" > means? > > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > http://www.interjinn.com > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > > yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the next; no one OS is more insecure than any other