In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED] e>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Schmitz) wrote:
> > > > One other factor nobody has mentioned here is SECURITY. For > > buffer-overflow type security holes, remote and local, almost all of the > > exploits are written for i386, so non-Intel platforms are inherently > > less vulnerable. Last week's LWN security section opened with a piece > > Security through obscurity? Nope, doesn't work. Thanks for playing though. The poster implicitly distinguished between targeted and untargeted attacks: calling his defense STO is, I think, an oversimplification. Sitting outside the target group has its place in ameliorating least-common-denominator attacks like Red Worm. By avoiding the LCD OS and applications, you place yourself outside the susceptible population. Choice of OS/protocal/application does not protect you against attacks targeted specifically at you: your enemies will understand PPC buffer over-flows, and will exploit them. Still, it's nice to know that you are less likely than an Intel box to be taken down by random acts of vandalism. To bring this thread back on topic, I'm very happy with the price I paid for an ibook dual-SUB. Checklists aside, it's an excellent value. -- Michael Blakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.blakeley.com/> Performance Analysis for Internet Technologies
