On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:38, Skip Evans <skip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> But do you not think the permissions issues with who can run what on *nix
> versus XP makes it more secure?
For that and similar reasons, I compromise with the statement
that, by design, *NIX "has the potential" to be more secure, but my
earlier statement that it is just as susceptible as Windows remains
unaltered by this. If it were an unused system, both would be equally
secure, whereas a used system is equally insecure if not properly
configured and maintained. The difference between them is that *NIX
has more inherent security mechanisms available to the [self-]educated
operator. It still doesn't mean that it *is* more secure simply by
design.
> Daniel Brown wrote:
>>
>> I certainly wish there were more like you!
>
> If only that woman who lives down the block would give me the opportunity to
> make her say that... *sigh*.
Coincidentally, I started developing a "secret admirer" website
for some friends of mine for this same purpose. Opt-in-only romantic
communication with the added blanket of anonymity (I don't plan on
using it as a business, only with the target of helping friends get
their feelings out with each other). They're wonderful folks, but are
painfully shy. It's certainly not a new concept, but neither is the
idea of a "secret admirer." Sometimes all we need to do is view
someone in a different light to really understand what it is they've
been trying to tell us all along. And perhaps that "different light"
could be achieved through the fog and obscurity the Internet offers.
That aside, best of luck. If loss is the most painful thing a
heart can endure, the yearning for opportunity is a very close second.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
daniel.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxx || danbrown@xxxxxxx
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
