[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 15/06/10 11:02, Grant Sewell wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:40:01 +0100 > John Williams wrote: > >> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 22:12 +0100, Gordon Henderson wrote: >> >>> And programs are too big these days too... I think it's unrealistic >>> to actually inspect everything now >> >> I think that happened a short while after magazines stopped printing >> C64 games and programs you could type in ;) > > Magazine code listings, however, introduced bugs and errors of their > own... principally "fat fingers" errors. > > Grant. > I think this should raise the point on how exactly we should promote the secure aspect of Linux based systems, While Linux is more secure, surely we need to put this in to some sort of context, and perhaps say Linux is more secure, but you still need to keep it up to date, and follow any advice the comes out regarding problems with either the kernel or any package that is installed on your system. The advice on running attachments while not always applicable directly as I would have to give any scripts execute permission first. any ideas on wording, saying Linux is more secure, seems in the light of this thread to need a bit more attached to it. Paul -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html