Nice idea, but not fair. You CAN secure a Windows box if you know how, it is just that most don't. You can unsecure a Linux box easily if you don't know (or even if you know) what you are doing. What you are talking about is basically OS racism. Fact is that one is not allowed to run a server and may (and in some cases should) pay the consequences for doing so. Tom Veldhouse veldy at veldy.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Mendelsohn" <phil at rephil.org> To: <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [TCLUG] DNS Question! > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:14:55AM -0600, Troy.A Johnson wrote: > > Interesting. > > > > Not what I would expect, though. > > > > Support for the web as a read only service, > > and total buy-in to cable ISP policies(/shackles). > > > > I want customers like you! ;-) > > All trolls aside, here's a (very) idealistic Linux scenario: > > Assume momentarily that the reason for limiting services is not just > bandwidth, but security and ISPs wanting to limit their liability for > millions of M$ users having vulnerable boxes open to the world, how > about the following policy: > > "No servers, HTTP, FTP, yada, yada, will be allowed *except* those > that run on a demonstrably secure platform." > > -- > www.rephil.org > > "Trying to do something with your life is like > sitting down to eat a moose." --Douglas Wood > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >