From: Adam Flinton 

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