From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Here you go again.  You repeatedly try to claim that redhat linux 9 =
is not linux and otherwise try to narrowly define linux when you want to =
exclude something negative.  In other discussions you try to broadly =
define linux when you want to claim that linux is in anyway functional.  =
The use of the trademarked term linux to describe this product of =
redhat's does not appear to have triggered a dispute from the trademark =
owner who would likely be required to dispute this if redhat linux was = in
fact not linux as you are claiming.  stallman tries a spin like this = to
get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give credit to gnu.  = Do
you buy into stallman's position?  I doubt it since I don't see you = using
gnu/linux to describe what redhat and many others call linux.

   As for your lying attempts to put words in my mouth, even when you =
quote my message below your paraphrase you add is not accurate.  Maybe =
your lies are due to you having a reading comprehension problem.  Your =
insistance that redhat is not responsible for security vulnerabilities =
that they repeatedly not only accepted responsibility but released fixes =
is strong evidence that you aren't very bright.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message =
news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net...
  Rich wrote:

  >    Please stop putting words in my mouth especially when you are =
clearly=20
  > lying about it.
  > =20

  Bollox Rich. At least now you're not just lying, you're caught at it.

  Below you refer directly to a vulnerability in GAIM (=20
  https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html ) as a linux=20
  vulnerability. You are thus saying that a hole in GAIM is a hole in =
Linux.

  Read the post below. If you want me to spell it out for you given your =

  poor grasp of english then I will.
  I don't have to put words in your mouth let alone obvious lies like =
this=20
  one.

  Adam

  Your post starts here:



  "   You don't have to look so far.  RedHat released a bulletin for a=20
  remote attack and likely exploit today.  See=20
  https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html.  The previous remote =

  vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, was just three weeks=20
  earlier (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html).  There are =

  11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far this year and 81=20
  since it was released just 10-1/2 months ago.  That is about 7-1/2=20
  vulnerabilities per month.  It's not that linux is not full of =
problems,=20
  it's that virtually no one cares.

  Rich


       "Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message=20
  news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com...
       On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:55:34 -0500, Geo. wrote:

       > http://www..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html
       >
       > Just go look it's not an exploit it's a list of reasons why you =
can't
       > trust MS to protect your computers.
       >
       > Geo.

       There are some who would probably kill me for this.. but I'd =
really be
       interested in seeing what would happen if eeye turned some of =
that=20
  talent
       loose on Linux.

       Either we'd get a heck of a lot of fixes...or the Linux-heads =
would=20
  have
       some strong evidence to back up the claim that Linux is more =
secure=20
  than
       Windows. "



  Adam


  > Rich
  > =20
  >=20
  >     "Adam Flinton"      > wrote in message
  >     news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com...
  >      > From: "Geo." 
  >=20
  >      >> Yes I do. It is both a RH exploit & a linux one. Being a =
linux
  >     one it is
  >      >> also a mandrake one, a Suse/Novell one, a debian one, a =
knoppix
  >     one, a
  >      >> slackware one etc.etc.etc.
  >      > Ok so you do admit then that you can have a RH (or Mandrake,
  >     SUSE, knoppix,
  >      > slackware, etc) exploit that is NOT also a Linux exploit as =
you
  >     define
  >      > "Linux"? (the "&" in your
statement implies this)
  >=20
  >     Yup. I have not stated otherwise. What I have stated is that =
none of
  >     those
  >     distribs is by itself "linux". Rich was trying to say that a =
hole in
  >     Gaim is
  >     thus a hole in "linux".
  >=20
  >=20
  >     Adam
------=_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Here you
go again.  =
You=20
repeatedly try to claim that redhat linux 9 is not linux and otherwise = try to=20
narrowly define linux when you want to exclude something negative.  = In=20
other discussions you try to broadly define linux when you want to claim = that=20
linux is in anyway functional.  The use of the trademarked term =
linux to=20
describe this product of redhat's does not appear to have triggered a = dispute=20
from the trademark owner who would likely be required to dispute this if = redhat=20
linux was in fact not linux as you are claiming.  stallman tries a = spin=20
like this to get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give credit = to=20
gnu.  Do you buy into stallman's position?  I doubt it
since I = don't=20
see you using gnu/linux to describe what redhat and many others call=20
linux.
 
   As for
your lying attempts =
to put=20
words in my mouth, even when you quote my message below your paraphrase = you add=20
is not accurate.  Maybe your lies are due to you having a
= reading=20
comprehension problem.  Your insistance that redhat is not =
responsible for=20
security vulnerabilities that they repeatedly not only accepted = responsibility=20
but released fixes is strong evidence that you aren't very =
bright.
 
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:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net...Ri=
ch=20
  wrote:>    Please
stop putting words in my =
mouth=20
  especially when you are clearly > lying about
it.>  =

  Bollox Rich. At least now you're not just lying,
you're caught =
at=20
  it.Below you refer directly to a vulnerability in GAIM ( =
https://rhn.red" target="new">https://rhn.red=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html">https://rhn.red=
hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html=20
  ) as a linux vulnerability. You are thus saying that a hole in =
GAIM is a=20
  hole in Linux.Read the post below. If you want me to spell it =
out for=20
  you given your poor grasp of english then I will.I don't have =
to put=20
  words in your mouth let alone obvious lies like this=20
  one.AdamYour post starts=20
  here:"  
You don't have to look so =
far.  RedHat=20
  released a bulletin for a remote attack and likely exploit =
today. =20
  See https://rhn.red" target="new">https://rhn.red=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html">https://rhn.red=
hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html. =20
  The previous remote vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, =
was just=20
  three weeks earlier (https://rhn.red" target="new">https://rhn.red=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html">https://rhn.red=
hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html). =20
  There are 11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far =
this year=20
  and 81 since it was released just 10-1/2 months ago.  That is =
about=20
  7-1/2 vulnerabilities per month.  It's not that linux is not =
full of=20
  problems, it's that virtually no one=20
 
cares.Rich    
"Jeff Shultz" =
<jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=
>=20
  wrote in message news:p=
an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com...  =
;  =20
  On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:55:34 -0500, Geo.=20
  wrote:    
> http://ww" target="new">http://ww=">http://www..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html">http://ww=
w..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html   &n=
bsp;=20
  >     > Just
go look it's not an exploit =
it's a=20
  list of reasons why you
can't     > trust =
MS to=20
  protect your computers.    =20
  >     > =
Geo.    =20
  There are some who would probably kill me for this.. but I'd really=20
  be     interested in seeing
what would happen =
if eeye=20
  turned some of that
talent     loose
on=20
  Linux.     Either
we'd get a heck of a lot =
of=20
  fixes...or the Linux-heads would
have     =
some=20
  strong evidence to back up the claim that Linux is more secure=20
  than     Windows.=20
 
"Adam>
Rich>  >=20
  >     "Adam
Flinton" <Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.commailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com
A>>    =20
  <mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborweb=">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborweb=
s.com>>=20
  wrote in message>     news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.=
com...>     =20
  > From: "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net=20
  <mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>>=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>>=
;=20
  >     
>> Yes I do. It is both a =
RH=20
  exploit & a linux one. Being a =
linux>     one=20
  it is>     
>> also a mandrake =
one, a=20
  Suse/Novell one, a debian one, a =
knoppix>     one,=20
  a>     
>> slackware one=20
 
etc.etc.etc.>     
> Ok so you do =
admit=20
  then that you can have a RH (or =
Mandrake,>    =20
  SUSE,
knoppix,>     
> slackware, =
etc)=20
  exploit that is NOT also a Linux exploit as=20
  you>    =20
 
define>     
> "Linux"? (the =
"&" in=20
  your statement implies this)>
>     =
Yup. I=20
  have not stated otherwise. What I have stated is that none=20
  of>     =
those>    =20
  distribs is by itself "linux". Rich was trying to say that a hole=20
  in>     Gaim =
is>    =20
  thus a hole in "linux".> > =
>    =20
Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0--

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