Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Intelligence Agencies and Server Choices

__/ [Erik Funkenbusch] on Monday 17 October 2005 02:46 \__

> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:35:51 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> I think it's pretty damned unlikely that the site is anything more than
>>> a
>>> "brochure" site.  In other words, only containing public relations
>>> information, nothing critical or sensitive.
>>> As such, the choice of Linux (or Windows for that matter) has nothing to
>>> do with when "security really matters".
>> Read my post which is bound to the parent, then go to:
>> http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress05/bald092105.htm
>> Down the page under the heading "Dissemination":
> I'm really struggling at what your point is.

A state of self-denial.

Speaking of which, I fail to grasp what you, billwg and the rest of them
folks do in this newsgroup. The address is "comp.os.linux.advocasy", so
what compelled you to subscribe /in the first/? Curiosity? Jealousy?

There is nothing more pathetic than people defending a monoply that is not
even aware of the little people's contribution and voluntary defence. When
that code from Redmond is no longer of any use, it will grow mold and
appeal to no-one. It seems to me like "wintrolls" (I am not fond of the
term by the way) among this group are unfamiliar with Linux, but are wise
enough to know its superiorly. Think of this as a compliment to you.

You are in a mental state where you must destroy the Open entity which
penetrates society, because once it does, you will lag behind. You also are
fully aware that the tools in our hands, as well as Google's hands, for
instance, have proven that you cannot compete with us too well. Your
miserable attempt is to fool yourself and be led to thinking that Windows
dominates among the 'sophisticated' world. You struggle, however, to gather
the necessary evidence, so instead, you choose to cling onto isolated
stories of failure like that police department in Scotland or some mild
Firefox vulnerabilities. In the mean time, in the midst of many malware
scans, filesystem integrity checks and disk defragmentations, you even find
the time to infiltrate into COLA and give yourself some re-assurance that
you badly crave. I can't blame you, but sooner or later you will 'defect'.
Do yourself a favour and wait no more. I, for once, will be happy to help
you in that process. I have done it many times before never to find
dissatisfaction at the end, only endless thank-you's.

> I provide as counter evidence, that the site that's being run is largely
> irrelevant.  For example, the NSA uses Windows 2003 for it's internet
> facing web servers.
> http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.nsa.gov
> Certainly one would imagine the NSA knows a thing or two about security,
> and wouldn't choose Windows if it wasn't secure.

Being non-American, am I the only one who had to use dict.org to know what
NSA stands for? Choosing one exception and descending so low as the pick
the NSA to back your argument is unformtunte and sad. In a well meant
manner I'd say: "you could do better than that".


Roy S. Schestowitz      | Useless fact: Brazil spans 47.8% of S. America
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    |     PGP-Key: 74572E8E
  3:10am  up 52 days 15:24,  5 users,  load average: 0.45, 0.64, 0.63
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index