Re: W2K vs Wx.
  By: JEAN PARROT to CHARLES ANGELICH on Tue Feb 25 2003 08:08:00

 >  CA> When I have the need to operate a server either as an intranet
 >  CA> for 'connection sharing' or 24/7 cable connect WWW/FTP server I
 >  CA> would use W2K in a hearbeat over W9x.
 > 
 >         I can see how. W2K is so protected that it would be a good choice.
 >         I have a relative that is a notary and she always worries about
 >         keeping her data secure. She is still on W95 but with what I know
 >          now of W2K, I will try and convince her to make the move. But
 >          again, as Jeff G. said, security is relative still.

I've talk to a Windows 2000 system administrator, he says as default it's very
open, i mean alot of ports is open, but it can be secured.

Linux isn't mutch better, right after the installation, there is alot of ports
open but after at clean up in inetd, and the runlevel-directory, there might be
lesser. :-)

Regards,
Bo

--- SBBSecho 2.00-Linux