Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Viruses, DOS versus UNIX (Re: Low Productivity of Knowledge Workers) Message-ID: <6401@ficc.uu.net> Date: 3 Oct 89 18:58:05 GMT References: <9676@venera.isi.edu> <189@crucible.UUCP> <291@voa3.UUCP> <1989Oct3.152433.238@twwells.com> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 23 In article <1989Oct3.152433.238@twwells.com>, bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > Not to be nitpicky, but SysV isn't all *that* secure. Well, it's better than BSD, and miles better than DOS. And apparently SCO is doing a C2 UNIX. > No argument there. But it is kind of irrelevant since it is a > comparison of apples and oranges. DOS is single user... Well, in two contexts it's relevant. Viruses and DOS networks. A network is a multi-user environment. > Not defending DOS at all: if I didn't have to use it on occasion at > work, I'd never touch it at all. I'd rather use CPM. :-) I used to say things like that, but it's been a long time since it's really been true. DOS 2.x is better than CP/M-80. I gave up trying to keep track of CP/M-86. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)