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)