From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0096_01C44E32.CE1F0FD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You didn't edit this one. I was confusing your spining here with =
another thread.
You did misrepresent me and you are still full of it.
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=20
> message in this thread.=20
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=20
> by editing out portions of my message from your reply and put words =
in=20
> 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=20
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=20
with Linux in the name are one. Your vulnerablity numbers would be=20
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=20
those of others. To then use that inabilty as the basis for your reply =
is a humorous example of bathos.
Adam
> =20
> Rich
> =20
>=20
> "Adam Flinton" > wrote in message
> news:40c71d4f{at}w3.nls.net...
> Rich wrote:
>=20
> > Do you consider all products with a word in product name =
in
> common to
> > be a single product?
>=20
> Gee MS obviously do coz it's an MS product, MS webpages, MS =
marketing
> etc. Are you really dissing MS to that extent?
>=20
> > I'm surprised. This means that all products with
> > Linux in the name are one.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > Your vulnerablity numbers would be through
> > the roof. Is that really how you want to spin things now?
> >
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Adam
>=20
>=20
> > Rich
> >=20
> >
> > "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:
> >
> > "=95 Windows Server 2003
> > =95 Application Center
> > =95 BizTalk Server
> > =95 Commerce Server
> > =95 Content Management Server
> > =95 Exchange Server
> > =95 Host Integration Server
> > =95 Identity Integration Server
> > =95 ISA Server
> > =95 Live Communications Server
> > =95 Operations Manager
> > =95 SharePoint Portal Server
> > =95 Speech Server
> > =95 SQL Server
> > =95 Systems Management Server
> > =95 Windows Small Business Server 2003
> > =95 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
------=_NextPart_000_0096_01C44E32.CE1F0FD0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You
didn't edit this =
one. I was=20
confusing your spining here with another thread.
You did
misrepresent me =
and you are=20
still full of it.
Rich
"Adam Flinton" <adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=
>=20
wrote in message news:40c75370{at}w3.nls.net...Ri=
ch=20
wrote:> So you
are now arguing against =
your own=20
claims in your previous > message in this thread.
No =
I'm not.=20
Where you posed a question I answered with a statement & I =
pointed the=20
obvious flaws in your statements.> You also
misrepresent my =
simple=20
position > by editing out portions of my message from your =
reply and=20
put words in > my mouth that misrepresent what you =
removed. How=20
sad for you.I edited nothing out of your message. I did not =
remove=20
anything. Not a single word nor punctuation mark. Given your usual =
english=20
comprehension problems I will quote your entire message so you can =
compare:" Do you consider
all products with a word =
in=20
product name in common to be a single product? I'm =
surprised. =20
This means that all products with Linux in the name are one. =
Your=20
vulnerablity numbers would be through the roof. Is that =
really how=20
you want to spin things now?Rich"How
sad you can not even=20
understand or read your own messages let alone those of others. To =
then=20
use that inabilty as the basis for your reply is a humorous =
example of=20
bathos.Adam>
> Rich> =
>=20
> "Adam
Flinton" <adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=
> =20
<mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=
com>>=20
wrote in message> news:40c71d4f{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
Rich wrote:>
> =20
> Do you consider all products with
a word in =
product=20
name in> common=20
to>
> be a single =
product?>=20
> Gee MS
obviously do coz it's an MS =
product,=20
MS webpages, MS
marketing> etc.
Are you =
really=20
dissing MS to that extent?> =
> >=20
I'm surprised. This means that all products=20
with>
> Linux in the name are=20
one.>
> You have in the
past =
tried to=20
claim products which don't have Linux =
in> the=20
name nor which are linux only applications (e.g. GAIM) as part=20
of> linux so
please at least get your =
position=20
straight & consistent.> =
> =20
> Your vulnerablity numbers would be=20
through>
> the roof. Is =
that=20
really how you want to spin things =
now?> =20
>>
> You are at the
mercy of =
MS=20
marketing. If they decide (like they =
did> =20
with> IE
& WMP) that something =
should be=20
part of Windows & covered by
the> =
Windows=20
moniker then the fault lies with them. As for vulns=20
going> through
the roof, best get onto =
MS=20
marketing as they've
obviously> decided
=
that=20
following the debacle of calling everything ".Net"=20
now> everything
has to live under =
"Windows" not=20
me.>
>
Adam> >=20
> >=20
Rich>
>=20
> =20
>> =
> "Adam=20
Flinton" <adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=
> =20
<mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=
com>> =20
> <mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=
com>>=20
wrote in
message> =20
> news:40c5bb5c$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
> =20
> Rich =
wrote:> =20
>> =
> =20
> Adam's claim, at least what you claim is =
Adam's, is=20
bogus.> =
> You=20
want> =
> =20
> to count redhat vulnerbilities you count everything in=20
the>
> =
product.
If> =20
> > you
want to compare this count =
of=20
redhat vulnerabilities
to> =20
> =
something> =20
> > else
that is fine too. =
If you=20
want to use this comparison
to> =20
> =
support> =20
> > some
conclusion, well, you =
better be=20
comparing counts of> =20
something> =20
> >
appropriate for the conclusion =
being=20
made. In the case
of> Russ,=20
not> =
> =20
> only were his numbers inaccurate, they were misleading=20
and> =20
didn't> =20
> > support his=20
conclusion.> =20
> =
>> =20
>> =20
>> =
> Rich,=20
you're full of it. If you want to count "windows"=20
vulns> then=20
by>
> =
your own=20
reckoning you are at the mercy of not the =
tech> =20
people in MS> =20
>
but> =
> the marketing people
e.g. hummmm let's =
have a=20
look at say:> =20
>> =
> http=">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx">http=
://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx> =
=20
>> =
> or=20
even:> =20
>> =
> http:/" target="new">http:/=">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/default.mspx">http:/=
/www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/default.mspx> &nbs=
p; =20
>> =
> &=20
gee guess what....there's lots of stuff which come=20
under> =20
"Windows">
=
> =20
e.g. the "Windows Small Business Server" & the "Microsoft=20
Windows> =
> =20
Server> =
> =20
System".> =20
>> =
> Would=20
you like me to list what is included within=20
"Windows">
in those=20
2?> =20
>> =
> On the=20
Windows Server system you can =
get:> =20
>> =
> "=95=20
Windows Server
2003> =20
> =95 Application=20
Center> =
> =95=20
BizTalk
Server> =20
> =95 Commerce=20
Server> =
> =95=20
Content Management
Server> =20
> =95 Exchange=20
Server> =
> =95=20
Host Integration
Server> =20
> =95 Identity Integration=20
Server> =
> =95=20
ISA Server> =
> =20
=95 Live Communications
Server> =20
> =95 Operations=20
Manager> =
> =95=20
SharePoint Portal
Server> =20
> =95 Speech=20
Server> =
> =95=20
SQL Server> =
> =20
=95 Systems Management
Server> =20
> =95 Windows Small
Business Server=20
2003> =
> =95=20
Windows Storage
Server"> =20
>> =20
>> =
> &=20
gee it looks like as part of the "Windows Small=20
Business> Server=20
2003"> =
> you=20
get such "OS features" as SQLServer &=20
Exchange.> =20
>> =20
>> =
> =20
Adam> =20
>> =20
>> =
> =20
>
Rich> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> "Geo." =
<georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net
<mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=
sp; =20
<mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=
sp; =20
> <mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>
=
wrote in=20
message> =20
>
> news:40c3b7f4{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
>
> Adam =
claimed=20
only the Linux kernel counted when=20
counting> =
> =20
vulns since> =20
>
> =20
embedded> =20
>
> linux =
(or=20
whatever it's called) was nothing more =
than> =20
that. You> =20
>
> =
claimed=20
that> =
> =20
> whatever was included in
the distribution =
RedHat> counted as=20
a>
> =20
RedHat> =20
>
> =20
vuln.> =
> =20
>> =
> =20
> Now I'm claiming that if
MS included =
sendmail and=20
bind> in=20
Windows> =20
>
> 2006,=20
any> =
> =20
> sendmail or bind
exploits would count as=20
security> issues=20
thus> =
> =20
making> =20
>
> =20
Windows> =20
>
> 2006 =
less=20
secure than previous versions. It =
appeared> to=20
me you> =20
>
> =
disagreed=20
with> =
> =20
> that logic, do=20
you?> =
> =20
>> =
> =20
> =
Geo.> =20
> =
>> =20
>
> "Rich" =
<{at}> wrote in message news:40c3abe5{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
> =20
>
I have no idea what =
your "least=20
common
demoninator"> =20
> approach =
is> =20
>
> so I=20
can't> =
> =20
> comment. I
never suggested anything =
with=20
that name or> to which=20
I> =
> =20
> would =
apply> =20
>
> that=20
name.> =
> =20
>> =
> =20
> =
Rich> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
> =20
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net =
<mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=
sp; =20
<mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=
sp; =20
> <mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>
=
wrote in=20
message> =20
>
> news:40c389bf{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
> =
> =20
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:40c363bd{at}w3.nls.net...>=
=20
> =
> =20
>> Not when trying to make apples to=20
apples> =20
comparisons> =
> =20
such as> =20
>
> =20
claiming> =20
>
> =20
one> =
> =20
>
version is more or less =
secure than=20
another version.
If> =20
> you =
just> =20
>
> want=20
to> =
> =20
> =
count> =20
> =
> =20
things, and you can tell from this discussion=20
there> =20
isn't> =
> =20
> agreement on=20
what> =
> =20
>
or> =20
> =
> =20
how to count, then including bind and sendmail=20
would> result=20
in> =
> =20
> more things=20
to> =
> =20
> be=20
counted.<<> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
> I=20
see, so saying that one version of Linux is=20
more> =20
secure> =
> than=20
another> =20
>
> =20
version> =20
> =
> of=20
Linux must then take the least common=20
denominator> =
> =20
approach?
I'm> =20
>
> sure=20
Adam> =
> =20
> will
be overjoyed to hear you =
have=20
finally come over> to=20
his>
> =
line=20
of> =
> =20
> =
reasoning.> =20
> =
>> =20
> =
> =20
Geo.> =
> =20
>> =
> =20
>> =
> =20
>
------=_NextPart_000_0096_01C44E32.CE1F0FD0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/45 1 633/267
|