Few people... you wanna hear a funny story? There's this group of hackers, and they wanted to hack into Microsoft Complement Database in Redmond. So they got through level one, level two(there are, as the legend goes, 7 levels) and so on, untill level six. And what do they encounter there? A RedHat distro of Linux! So go figure [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<span style="color: lightblue">And my point holds. Why has MS IIS had more vulnerbilities in it's lifetime than the more popular Apache? If your logic was right, then wouldn't it be more worthwhile for hackers to target Apache? And yet, they don't seem to. Or atleast, they don't seem to be succesful. Whichever way you cut it, this can't be the only reason if it is a reason at all.

I wasn't talking about Apache, I was talking about Linux in general.

<span style="color: lightblue">Segemented downloads != smaller downloads.

<span style="color: lightblue">I debate your logic, not your example. If Linux were only secure at the moment because it is less popular, we would have seen this phenominon before. Yet what we see, is just the opposite.

I don't know too much about Linux, what I am saying is that it is targeted less by hackers (meaning succesfull and unsuccesful attempts both) than Windows because less people use it.

We understood that the first time. It just isn't true.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...s_linux/#myth1

We understood that the first time... we're just crusaders on a cause.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/56200327
http://www.informationweek.com/story...cleID=18700097

ON TO THE NEXT WINDMILL!

lol.

[ 01-09-2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

My bad then, but let it be said in my defence that I am not very experienced with Linux and heard that argument used many times.

Read the articles dplax. ;)

I tend to think that internet articles are like a$$holes, everyone can find one that says what they want it to, especially when you're... A CRUSADER!! bump badda bump bump bumm...

[ 01-09-2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]