Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:57:47 -0500 From: "Randall Hamilton" <nitedog@silly.pikachu.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com>, "John Baldwin" <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.org>, "Giorgos Keramidas" <charon@labs.gr> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <001101c17918$8020e520$0301a8c0@nitedog> References: <XFMail.011129115940.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <02d901c17911$f25116d0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> John writes: > > > Umm, that's called "stable", not "secure". > > A system that is unstable is insecure as well. It is vulnerable to DoS attacks, > for example. I disagree completly. i know of many secure unstable machines. sloaris x86 for example :) Putting jest aside..a unstable machine is not insecure..have a unstable machine without any kind of network...and its still unstable..putting the same machine on a network does not automaticly make it insecure. > > Then again, they have so many problems with it > > that I'm tempted to at least put a FreeBSD > > gateway/nat box in their house to eliminate all the > > network problems at least. :) > > A router is cheaper. and weaker. most cheap-low end network routers for dsl/cable have very weak thruput and packet handling...not to mention most that have a built in 'hub' only offer 10mbit..some 100mbit..but both being non switched. a p200-p300 box and a good 100mbit switch would be far far superior to one of those rinky dink setups, and would cost little more. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001101c17918$8020e520$0301a8c0>