From: Adam Flinton 

Rich wrote:

>    You didn't edit this one.

Gee it seems you can read your own missives.

>  I was confusing your spining here with
> another thread.
>

Really.


>    You did misrepresent me and you are still full of it.
>

No I did not & the pungent smell is drifting downwind of yourself & not I.

Adam


> Rich
>
>
>
>     "Adam Flinton"      > wrote in message
>     news:40c75370{at}w3.nls.net...
>     Rich wrote:
>
>      >    So you are now arguing against your own claims in your previous
>      > message in this thread.
>
>     No I'm not. Where you posed a question I answered with a statement & I
>     pointed the obvious flaws in your statements.
>
>      > You also misrepresent my simple position
>      > by editing out portions of my message from your reply and put
>     words in
>      > my mouth that misrepresent what you removed.  How sad for you.
>
>     I edited nothing out of your message. I did not remove anything. Not a
>     single word nor punctuation mark. Given your usual english
>     comprehension
>     problems I will quote your entire message so you can compare:
>
>     "   Do you consider all products with a word in product name in common
>     to be a single product?  I'm surprised.  This means that all products
>     with Linux in the name are one.  Your vulnerablity numbers would be
>     through the roof.  Is that really how you want to spin things now?
>     Rich"
>
>     How sad you can not even understand or read your own messages let alone
>     those of others. To then use that inabilty as the basis for your reply
>     is a humorous example of bathos.
>
>     Adam
>
>      >
>      > Rich
>      >
>      >
>      >     "Adam Flinton"      
>      >     > wrote in message
>      >     news:40c71d4f{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >     Rich wrote:
>      >
>      >      >    Do you consider all products with a word in
product name in
>      >     common to
>      >      > be a single product?
>      >
>      >     Gee MS obviously do coz it's an MS product, MS webpages, MS
>     marketing
>      >     etc. Are you really dissing MS to that extent?
>      >
>      >      > I'm surprised.  This means that all products with
>      >      > Linux in the name are one.
>      >
>      >     You have in the past tried to claim products which don't have
>     Linux in
>      >     the name nor which are linux only applications (e.g. GAIM) as
>     part of
>      >     linux so please at least get your position straight
& consistent.
>      >
>      >      >  Your vulnerablity numbers would be through
>      >      > the roof.  Is that really how you want to spin things now?
>      >      >
>      >
>      >     You are at the mercy of MS marketing. If they decide (like
>     they did
>      >     with
>      >     IE & WMP) that something should be part of Windows
& covered
>     by the
>      >     Windows moniker then the fault lies with them. As for vulns going
>      >     through the roof, best get onto MS marketing as they've obviously
>      >     decided that following the debacle of calling everything
>     ".Net" now
>      >     everything has to live under "Windows" not me.
>      >
>      >     Adam
>      >
>      >
>      >      > Rich
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     "Adam Flinton"      
>      >     
>      >      >     >
wrote in message
>      >      >     news:40c5bb5c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >     Rich wrote:
>      >      >
>      >      >      >    Adam's claim, at least what you claim
is Adam's,
>     is bogus.
>      >      >     You want
>      >      >      > to count redhat vulnerbilities you count
everything
>     in the
>      >      >     product.  If
>      >      >      > you want to compare this count of redhat
>     vulnerabilities to
>      >      >     something
>      >      >      > else that is fine too.  If you want to use this
>     comparison to
>      >      >     support
>      >      >      > some conclusion, well, you better be comparing
>     counts of
>      >     something
>      >      >      > appropriate for the conclusion being made.  In the
>     case of
>      >     Russ, not
>      >      >      > only were his numbers inaccurate, they were
>     misleading and
>      >     didn't
>      >      >      > support his conclusion.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     Rich, you're full of it. If you want to count
>     "windows" vulns
>      >     then by
>      >      >     your own reckoning you are at the mercy of not the tech
>      >     people in MS
>      >      >     but
>      >      >     the marketing people e.g. hummmm let's have a
look at say:
>      >      >
>      >      >
>     http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx
>      >      >
>      >      >     or even:
>      >      >
>      >      >    
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/default.mspx
>      >      >
>      >      >     & gee guess what....there's lots of stuff
which come under
>      >     "Windows"
>      >      >     e.g. the "Windows Small Business
Server" & the
>     "Microsoft Windows
>      >      >     Server
>      >      >     System".
>      >      >
>      >      >     Would you like me to list what is included within
>     "Windows"
>      >     in those 2?
>      >      >
>      >      >     On the Windows Server system you can get:
>      >      >
>      >      >     "• Windows Server 2003
>      >      >     • Application Center
>      >      >     • BizTalk Server
>      >      >     • Commerce Server
>      >      >     • Content Management Server
>      >      >     • Exchange Server
>      >      >     • Host Integration Server
>      >      >     • Identity Integration Server
>      >      >     • ISA Server
>      >      >     • Live Communications Server
>      >      >     • Operations Manager
>      >      >     • SharePoint Portal Server
>      >      >     • Speech Server
>      >      >     • SQL Server
>      >      >     • Systems Management Server
>      >      >     • Windows Small Business Server 2003
>      >      >     • Windows Storage Server"
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     & gee it looks like as part of the
"Windows Small Business
>      >     Server 2003"
>      >      >     you get such "OS features" as
SQLServer & Exchange.
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >     Adam
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      >      > Rich
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >     "Geo."       
>      >     
>      >      >     > wrote in message
>      >      >      >     news:40c3b7f4{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >      >     Adam claimed only the Linux kernel
counted when
>     counting
>      >      >     vulns since
>      >      >      >     embedded
>      >      >      >     linux (or whatever it's called) was nothing
>     more than
>      >     that. You
>      >      >      >     claimed that
>      >      >      >     whatever was included in the
distribution RedHat
>      >     counted as a
>      >      >     RedHat
>      >      >      >     vuln.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >     Now I'm claiming that if MS included sendmail
>     and bind
>      >     in Windows
>      >      >      >     2006, any
>      >      >      >     sendmail or bind exploits would
count as security
>      >     issues thus
>      >      >     making
>      >      >      >     Windows
>      >      >      >     2006 less secure than previous versions. It
>     appeared
>      >     to me you
>      >      >      >     disagreed with
>      >      >      >     that logic, do you?
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >     Geo.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >     "Rich"  wrote in message
>     news:40c3abe5{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >      >        I have no idea what your "least common
>     demoninator"
>      >      >     approach is
>      >      >      >     so I can't
>      >      >      >     comment.  I never suggested anything with that
>     name or
>      >     to which I
>      >      >      >     would apply
>      >      >      >     that name.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >     Rich
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >       "Geo."       
>      >     
>      >      >     > wrote in message
>      >      >      >     news:40c389bf{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >      >       "Rich"  wrote in message
>     news:40c363bd{at}w3.nls.net...
>      >      >      >       >>   Not when trying to make
apples to apples
>      >     comparisons
>      >      >     such as
>      >      >      >     claiming
>      >      >      >     one
>      >      >      >       version is more or less secure than another
>     version.  If
>      >      >     you just
>      >      >      >     want to
>      >      >      >     count
>      >      >      >       things, and you can tell from this
discussion
>     there
>      >     isn't
>      >      >      >     agreement on what
>      >      >      >     or
>      >      >      >       how to count, then including bind and
>     sendmail would
>      >     result in
>      >      >      >     more things to
>      >      >      >       be counted.<<
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >       I see, so saying that one version
of Linux is
>     more
>      >     secure
>      >      >     than another
>      >      >      >     version
>      >      >      >       of Linux must then take the least common
>     denominator
>      >      >     approach? I'm
>      >      >      >     sure Adam
>      >      >      >       will be overjoyed to hear you have finally
>     come over
>      >     to his
>      >      >     line of
>      >      >      >     reasoning.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >       Geo.
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >
>      >      >      >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5