TIP: Click on subject to list as thread!

ANSI

echo:	nthelp
to:	Rich
from:	Adam Flinton
date:	2004-03-03 07:36:16
subject:	Re: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html
> From: "Rich" > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > ------=_NextPart_000_0475_01C4002F.84325310 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Is the best you can do in order to claim that redhat linux 9 is not = > linux is to try to use the almost decades old Windows 1.0 as an example? = Red Hat is A linux distribution. It is interesting how logic 101 conflicts with propaganda 101 & you always choose propaganda 101 (keep repeating the lie in the hope that by doing so people mistake it for the truth). > You really are poor at any form of debate. Says a man whose sole form of debate is propaganda & then when that propaganda is exposed, reverts initially to diversionary questions, dissembling & a complete inabilty to answer questions & then when that fails to std ad hominem. Adam > Rich > "Adam Flinton" wrote in message = > news:30939b.6240cd{at}harborwebs.com... >> From: "Rich" >> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >> ------=3D_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0 >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=3D"iso-8859-1" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> Here you go again. > Go on Rich. Answer a question or 2. It must be possible for you to = > formulate > answers as well as questions. >> You repeatedly try to claim that redhat linux 9 =3D >> is not linux and otherwise try to narrowly define linux when you = > want to =3D >> exclude something negative.=20 > So a Windows vulnerability is anything from Windows 1.0 to Win2KS = > including > WinCE powered devices? & then there is "Windows Mobile". >> In other discussions you try to broadly =3D >> define linux when you want to claim that linux is in anyway = > functional. =20 > I don't need to claim that. It is. How functional is a pure windows = > install? > No spreadsheet? No database? Call that functional? > Oh but doesn't Windows CE have Pocket Excel & Pocket Word etc....hence = > isn't an > Excel or Word exploit a "Windows" exploit? >> The use of the trademarked term linux to describe this product of = > =3D >> redhat's does not appear to have triggered a dispute from the = > trademark =3D >> owner who would likely be required to dispute this if redhat linux = > was =3D >> in fact not linux as you are claiming. > As usual your attempts at spin let you down. Either that or you're = > oddly > deficient in logic. > RH is a distrib of Linux. The only way RH could =3D Linux is if RH was = > the only > distrib of linux. Merely because a dog has 4 legs, it does not follow = > that > everything with 4 legs is a dog unless the only thing that had 4 legs = > was a dog > . > Is RH the only distrib of Linux?=20 > Someday you should do a course in logic as it might help. > I know that the plethora of linux distributions might be a bit hard = > for you but > cheer up, if Lindows win their case then there could be a plethora of = > Operating > Systems called Windows as well. >> stallman tries a spin like this =3D >> to get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give credit to = > gnu. =3D >> Do you buy into stallman's position?=20 > No. Linus Torvalds holds the copyright & if he decided to call it = > GNU/Linux > then that would be his choice & not Stallman's. >> I doubt it since I don't see you =3D >> using gnu/linux to describe what redhat and many others call linux. > You doubt correctly. >> As for your lying attempts to put words in my mouth, even when you = > =3D >> quote my message below your paraphrase you add is not accurate.=20 > I quoted the exact message. Read it yourself if that's not too taxing = > for you.=20 > I repeat, do you need me to spell it out for you?=20 > Is https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html a hole in linux = > per se? >> Maybe =3D >> your lies are due to you having a reading comprehension problem. = > Your =3D >> insistance that redhat is not responsible for security = > vulnerabilities =3D >> that they repeatedly not only accepted responsibility but released = > fixes =3D >> is strong evidence that you aren't very bright. > Back to ye olde ad hominem.=20 > I'd trim the quoteback but you might get upset. > Adam >> Rich >> "Adam Flinton" wrote in message =3D >> news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net... >> Rich wrote: >>> Please stop putting words in my mouth especially when you are =3D >> clearly=3D20 >>> lying about it. >>> =3D20 >> Bollox Rich. At least now you're not just lying, you're caught at = > it. >> Below you refer directly to a vulnerability in GAIM (=3D20 >> https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html ) as a linux=3D20 >> vulnerability. You are thus saying that a hole in GAIM is a hole in = > =3D >> Linux. >> Read the post below. If you want me to spell it out for you given = > your =3D >> poor grasp of english then I will. >> I don't have to put words in your mouth let alone obvious lies like = > =3D >> this=3D20 >> one. >> Adam >> Your post starts here: >> " You don't have to look so far. RedHat released a bulletin for = > a=3D20 >> remote attack and likely exploit today. See=3D20 >> https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html. The previous = > remote =3D >> vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, was just three = > weeks=3D20 >> earlier (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html). There = > are =3D >> 11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far this year and = > 81=3D20 >> since it was released just 10-1/2 months ago. That is about = > 7-1/2=3D20 >> vulnerabilities per month. It's not that linux is not full of =3D >> problems,=3D20 >> it's that virtually no one cares. >> Rich >> "Jeff Shultz" wrote in message=3D20 >> 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 >>> =20 >>> Just go look it's not an exploit it's a list of reasons why you =3D >> can't >>> trust MS to protect your computers. >>> =20 >>> Geo. >> There are some who would probably kill me for this.. but I'd =3D >> really be >> interested in seeing what would happen if eeye turned some of =3D >> that=3D20 >> talent >> loose on Linux. >> Either we'd get a heck of a lot of fixes...or the Linux-heads =3D >> would=3D20 >> have >> some strong evidence to back up the claim that Linux is more =3D >> secure=3D20 >> than >> Windows. " >> Adam >>> Rich >>> =3D20 >>> =3D20 >>> "Adam Flinton" >> > wrote in message >>> news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com... >>> > From: "Geo." >>> =3D20 >>> >> Yes I do. It is both a RH exploit & a linux one. Being a =3D >> linux >>> one it is >>> >> also a mandrake one, a Suse/Novell one, a debian one, a =3D >> 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 =3D >> you >>> define >>> > "Linux"? (the "&" in your statement implies this) >>> =3D20 >>> Yup. I have not stated otherwise. What I have stated is that =3D >> none of >>> those >>> distribs is by itself "linux". Rich was trying to say that a =3D >> hole in >>> Gaim is >>> thus a hole in "linux". >>> =3D20 >>> =3D20 >>> Adam >> ------=3D_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0 >> Content-Type: text/html; >> charset=3D"iso-8859-1" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> >> >> > charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> >> >> >> >> >> Here you go = > again. =3D >> You=3D20 >> repeatedly try to claim that redhat linux 9 is not linux and = > otherwise =3D >> try to=3D20 >> narrowly define linux when you want to exclude something = > negative. =3D >> In=3D20 >> other discussions you try to broadly define linux when you want to = > claim =3D >> that=3D20 >> linux is in anyway functional. The use of the trademarked term = > =3D >> linux to=3D20 >> describe this product of redhat's does not appear to have triggered = > a =3D >> dispute=3D20 >> from the trademark owner who would likely be required to dispute = > this if =3D >> redhat=3D20 >> linux was in fact not linux as you are claiming. stallman = > tries a =3D >> spin=3D20 >> like this to get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give = > credit =3D >> to=3D20 >> gnu. Do you buy into stallman's position? I doubt it = > since I =3D >> don't=3D20 >> see you using gnu/linux to describe what redhat and many others = > call=3D20 >> linux. >> >> As for your lying = > attempts =3D >> to put=3D20 >> words in my mouth, even when you quote my message below your = > paraphrase =3D >> you add=3D20 >> is not accurate. Maybe your lies are due to you having a = > =3D >> reading=3D20 >> comprehension problem. Your insistance that redhat is not =3D >> responsible for=3D20 >> security vulnerabilities that they repeatedly not only accepted =3D >> responsibility=3D20 >> but released fixes is strong evidence that you aren't very =3D >> bright. >> >> Rich >> >> > style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = > =3D >> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> >> "Adam Flinton" <> =3D >> = > href=3D3D"adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.commailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com >> =3D >> >=3D20 >> wrote in message > =3D >> = > href=3D3D"news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net">news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net...= > Ri=3D >> ch=3D20 >> wrote:> Please stop putting words in my = > =3D >> mouth=3D20 >> especially when you are clearly > lying about = > it.> =3D >> Bollox Rich. At least now you're not just lying, you're = > caught =3D >> at=3D20 >> it.Below you refer directly to a vulnerability in GAIM ( =3D >> > =3D >> = > href=3D3D"https://rhn.r" target="new">https://rhn.r=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html">https://rhn.r= > ed=3D >> hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html=3D20 >> ) as a linux vulnerability. You are thus saying that a hole in = > =3D >> GAIM is a=3D20 >> hole in Linux.Read the post below. If you want me to spell = > it =3D >> out for=3D20 >> you given your poor grasp of english then I will.I don't = > have =3D >> to put=3D20 >> words in your mouth let alone obvious lies like this=3D20 >> one.AdamYour post starts=3D20 >> here:" You don't have to look so =3D >> far. RedHat=3D20 >> released a bulletin for a remote attack and likely exploit =3D >> today. =3D20 >> See > =3D >> = > href=3D3D"https://rhn.r" target="new">https://rhn.r=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html">https://rhn.r= > ed=3D >> hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html. =3D20 >> The previous remote vulnerability, not the previous = > vulnerbility, =3D >> was just=3D20 >> three weeks earlier (> =3D >> = > href=3D3D"https://rhn.r" target="new">https://rhn.r=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html">https://rhn.r= > ed=3D >> hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html). =3D20 >> There are 11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far = > =3D >> this year=3D20 >> and 81 since it was released just 10-1/2 months ago. That = > is =3D >> about=3D20 >> 7-1/2 vulnerabilities per month. It's not that linux is = > not =3D >> full of=3D20 >> problems, it's that virtually no one=3D20 >> cares.Rich "Jeff Shultz" = > =3D >> <> =3D >> = > href=3D3D"jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.commailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com >> =3D >> >=3D20 >> wrote in message > =3D >> = > href=3D3D"news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com">news= > :p=3D >> = > an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com... = > =3D >> ; =3D20 >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:55:34 -0500, Geo.=3D20 >> wrote: > > =3D >> = > href=3D3D"http://" target="new">http://=">http://www..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html">http://= > ww=3D >> = > w..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html &n= > =3D >> bsp;=3D20 >> > > Just go look it's not an = > exploit =3D >> it's a=3D20 >> list of reasons why you can't > trust = > =3D >> MS to=3D20 >> protect your computers. =3D20 >> > > =3D >> Geo. =3D20 >> There are some who would probably kill me for this.. but I'd = > really=3D20 >> be interested in seeing what would = > happen =3D >> if eeye=3D20 >> turned some of that talent loose = > on=3D20 >> Linux. Either we'd get a heck of a = > lot =3D >> of=3D20 >> fixes...or the Linux-heads would = > have =3D >> some=3D20 >> strong evidence to back up the claim that Linux is more secure=3D20 >> than Windows.=3D20 >> "Adam> Rich> = > >=3D20 >> > "Adam Flinton" <> =3D >> = > href=3D3D"Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com=">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com= > >> > =3D20 >> <> =3D >> = > href=3D3D"mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborw=">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborw= > eb=3D >> s.com>>=3D20 >> wrote in message> > =3D >> = > href=3D3D"news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com">news:809386.616af5{at}harborweb= > s.=3D >> com...> =3D20 >> > From: "Geo." <> href=3D3D"georger{at}nls.net=3D20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net=3D20 >> <> =3D >> = > href=3D3D"mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&= > gt=3D >> ;=3D20 >> > >> Yes I do. It is both = > a =3D >> RH=3D20 >> exploit & a linux one. Being a =3D >> linux> one=3D20 >> it is> >> also a mandrake = > =3D >> one, a=3D20 >> Suse/Novell one, a debian one, a =3D >> knoppix> one,=3D20 >> a> >> slackware one=3D20 >> etc.etc.etc.> > Ok so you do = > =3D >> admit=3D20 >> then that you can have a RH (or =3D >> Mandrake,> =3D20 >> SUSE, knoppix,> > slackware, = > =3D >> etc)=3D20 >> exploit that is NOT also a Linux exploit as=3D20 >> you> =3D20 >> define> > "Linux"? (the =3D >> "&" in=3D20 >> your statement implies this)> = > > =3D >> Yup. I=3D20 >> have not stated otherwise. What I have stated is that none=3D20 >> of> =3D >> those> =3D20 >> distribs is by itself "linux". Rich was trying to say that a = > hole=3D20 >> in> Gaim =3D >> is> =3D20 >> thus a hole in "linux".> > =3D >> > =3D20 >> Adam > ------=_NextPart_000_0475_01C4002F.84325310 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > charset=3Diso-8859-1"> > > > > > Is the best you can do in = > order to=20 > claim that redhat linux 9 is not linux is to try to use the almost = > decades old=20 > Windows 1.0 as an example? You really are poor at any form of=20 > debate. > > Rich > > style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = > BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > "Adam Flinton" < = > href=3D"Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.commailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com >> >=20 > wrote in message = > href=3D"news:30939b.6240cd{at}harborwebs.com">news:30939b.6240cd{at}harborwebs.= > com...>=20 > From: "Rich" <{at}>> This is a multi-part message in MIME=20 > format.> ------=3D_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0>=20 > Content-Type: text/plain;> charset=3D"iso-8859-1">=20 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable> Here you go=20 > again.Go on Rich. Answer a question or 2. It must be possible = > for you=20 > to formulateanswers as well as questions.> You = > repeatedly=20 > try to claim that redhat linux 9 =3D> is not linux and = > otherwise try to=20 > narrowly define linux when you want to =3D> exclude something = > negative.=20 > So a Windows vulnerability is anything from Windows 1.0 to = > Win2KS=20 > includingWinCE powered devices? & then there is "Windows=20 > Mobile".> In other discussions you try to broadly = > =3D> define=20 > linux when you want to claim that linux is in anyway functional. = > I don't need to claim that. It is. How functional is a pure = > windows=20 > install?No spreadsheet? No database? Call that = > functional?Oh=20 > but doesn't Windows CE have Pocket Excel & Pocket Word = > etc....hence isn't=20 > anExcel or Word exploit a "Windows" exploit?> The = > use of=20 > the trademarked term linux to describe this product of =3D> = > redhat's does=20 > not appear to have triggered a dispute from the trademark =3D> = > owner who=20 > would likely be required to dispute this if redhat linux was = > =3D> in fact=20 > not linux as you are claiming.As usual your attempts at spin = > let you=20 > down. Either that or you're oddlydeficient in logic.RH is = > a=20 > distrib of Linux. The only way RH could =3D Linux is if RH was the=20 > onlydistrib of linux. Merely because a dog has 4 legs, it does not = > follow=20 > thateverything with 4 legs is a dog unless the only thing that had = > 4 legs=20 > was a dog.Is RH the only distrib of Linux? Someday = > you=20 > should do a course in logic as it might help.I know that the = > plethora=20 > of linux distributions might be a bit hard for you butcheer up, if = > Lindows=20 > win their case then there could be a plethora of OperatingSystems = > called=20 > Windows as well.> stallman tries a spin like this = > =3D>=20 > to get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give credit to = > gnu. =20 > =3D> Do you buy into stallman's position? No. Linus = > Torvalds=20 > holds the copyright & if he decided to call it GNU/Linuxthen = > that=20 > would be his choice & not Stallman's.> I doubt it since = > I don't=20 > see you =3D> using gnu/linux to describe what redhat and many = > others call=20 > linux.You doubt correctly.> As for your lying = > attempts to=20 > put words in my mouth, even when you =3D> quote my message = > below your=20 > paraphrase you add is not accurate. I quoted the exact = > message. Read=20 > it yourself if that's not too taxing for you. I repeat, do you = > need me=20 > to spell it out for you? Is = > href=3D"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 > a hole in linux per se?> Maybe =3D> your lies = > are due to=20 > you having a reading comprehension problem. Your =3D> = > insistance=20 > that redhat is not responsible for security vulnerabilities = > =3D> that=20 > they repeatedly not only accepted responsibility but released fixes = > =3D>=20 > is strong evidence that you aren't very bright.Back to ye olde = > ad=20 > hominem. I'd trim the quoteback but you might get=20 > upset.Adam> Rich> "Adam Flinton" < = > href=3D"adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com= > >=20 > wrote in message =3D> = > href=3D"news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net">news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net...>= > Rich=20 > wrote:>> Please stop putting words in my mouth especially = > when you=20 > are =3D> clearly=3D20>> lying about it.>> = > =3D20>=20 > Bollox Rich. At least now you're not just lying, you're caught at = > it.>=20 > Below you refer directly to a vulnerability in GAIM (=3D20> = > href=3D"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=3D20> vulnerability. You are thus saying that a = > hole in GAIM=20 > is a hole in =3D> Linux.> Read the post below. If you = > want me to=20 > spell it out for you given your =3D> poor grasp of english then = > I=20 > will.> I don't have to put words in your mouth let alone = > obvious lies=20 > like =3D> this=3D20> one.> Adam> Your post = > starts=20 > here:> " You don't have to look so far. = > RedHat=20 > released a bulletin for a=3D20> remote attack and likely = > exploit=20 > today. See=3D20> = > href=3D"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 =3D> vulnerability, not the previous = > vulnerbility,=20 > was just three weeks=3D20> earlier ( = > href=3D"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 =3D> 11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so = > far this=20 > year and 81=3D20> since it was released just 10-1/2 months = > ago. =20 > That is about 7-1/2=3D20> vulnerabilities per month. It's = > not that=20 > linux is not full of =3D> problems,=3D20> it's that = > virtually no one=20 > cares.> Rich> "Jeff Shultz" < = > href=3D"jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com= > >=20 > wrote in message=3D20> = > href=3D"news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com">news:p= > an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com...>=20 > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:55:34 -0500, Geo. wrote:>> = > href=3D"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>>=20 > >> Just go look it's not an exploit it's a list of reasons = > why you=20 > =3D> can't>> trust MS to protect your = > computers.>>=20 > >> Geo.> There are some who would probably kill me = > for this..=20 > but I'd =3D> really be> interested in seeing what would = > happen if=20 > eeye turned some of =3D> that=3D20> talent> loose = > on=20 > Linux.> Either we'd get a heck of a lot of fixes...or the = > Linux-heads=20 > =3D> would=3D20> have> some strong evidence to = > back up the=20 > claim that Linux is more =3D> secure=3D20> than> = > Windows.=20 > "> Adam>> Rich>> =3D20>> = > =3D20>>=20 > "Adam Flinton" < = > href=3D"Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.commailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com >> >>=20 > < = > href=3D"mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborweb=">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborweb= > s.com>>=20 > wrote in message>> = > href=3D"news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com">news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.= > com...>>=20 > > From: "Geo." < href=3D"georger{at}nls.net=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net=20 > < = > href=3D"mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>>=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>>= > ;>=20 > =3D20>> >> Yes I do. It is both a RH exploit & a = > linux one.=20 > Being a =3D> linux>> one it is>> >> = > also a=20 > mandrake one, a Suse/Novell one, a debian one, a =3D> = > knoppix>>=20 > one, a>> >> slackware one etc.etc.etc.>> = > > Ok so=20 > you do admit then that you can have a RH (or Mandrake,>> = > SUSE,=20 > knoppix,>> > slackware, etc) exploit that is NOT also a = > Linux=20 > exploit as =3D> you>> define>> > = > "Linux"? (the=20 > "&" in your statement implies this)>> =3D20>> = > Yup. I=20 > have not stated otherwise. What I have stated is that =3D> none = > of>> those>> distribs is by itself "linux". Rich = > was=20 > trying to say that a =3D> hole in>> Gaim = > is>> thus a=20 > hole in "linux".>> =3D20>> =3D20>> = > Adam>=20 > ------=3D_NextPart_000_0417_01C3FF9A.080E7EC0> Content-Type:=20 > text/html;> charset=3D"iso-8859-1"> = > Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20 > quoted-printable> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML = > 4.0=20 > Transitional//EN">> <HTML><HEAD>> = > <META=20 > http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D>=20 > charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML = > 6.00.3790.118"=20 > name=3D3DGENERATOR>> <STYLE></STYLE>>=20 > </HEAD>> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff>>=20 > <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>   = > Here you go=20 > again.  =3D> You=3D20> repeatedly try to claim = > that redhat=20 > linux 9 is not linux and otherwise =3D> try to=3D20> = > narrowly define=20 > linux when you want to exclude something negative.  = > =3D>=20 > In=3D20> other discussions you try to broadly define linux when = > you want=20 > to claim =3D> that=3D20> linux is in anyway = > functional. =20 > The use of the trademarked term =3D> linux to=3D20> = > describe this=20 > product of redhat's does not appear to have triggered a =3D>=20 > dispute=3D20> from the trademark owner who would likely be = > required to=20 > dispute this if =3D> redhat=3D20> linux was in fact not = > linux as you=20 > are claiming.  stallman tries a =3D> spin=3D20> = > like this=20 > to get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give credit = > =3D>=20 > to=3D20> gnu.  Do you buy into stallman's = > position?  I=20 > doubt it since I =3D> don't=3D20> see you using = > gnu/linux to=20 > describe what redhat and many others call=3D20>=20 > linux.</FONT></DIV>> <DIV><FONT = > face=3D3DArial=20 > size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>> = > <DIV><FONT=20 > face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>   As for your lying = > attempts=20 > =3D> to put=3D20> words in my mouth, even when you quote = > my message=20 > below your paraphrase =3D> you add=3D20> is not = > accurate. =20 > Maybe your lies are due to you having a =3D> = > reading=3D20>=20 > comprehension problem.  Your insistance that redhat is not = > =3D>=20 > responsible for=3D20> security vulnerabilities that they = > repeatedly not=20 > only accepted =3D> responsibility=3D20> but released = > fixes is strong=20 > evidence that you aren't very =3D>=20 > bright.</FONT></DIV>> <DIV><FONT = > face=3D3DArial=20 > size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>> = > <DIV><FONT=20 > face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>>=20 > <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial=20 > size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>>=20 > <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20> style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; = > PADDING-LEFT: 5px;=20 > MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =3D> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; = > MARGIN-RIGHT:=20 > 0px">> <DIV>"Adam Flinton" <<A=3D20> = > =3D>=20 > href=3D3D" = > href=3D'adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.commailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com >> mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com</A >> >=3D>=20 > >=3D20> wrote in message <A=3D20> =3D> = > href=3D3D" = > href=3D'news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net">news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net...Ri= > '>news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net">news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net</A>...</= > DIV>Ri=3D>=20 > ch=3D20> = > wrote:<BR><BR>>   =20 > Please stop putting words in my =3D> mouth=3D20> = > especially when you=20 > are clearly <BR>> lying about = > it.<BR>> =20 > =3D> <BR><BR>Bollox Rich. At least now you're not = > just lying,=20 > you're caught =3D> at=3D20> it.<BR><BR>Below = > you refer=20 > directly to a vulnerability in GAIM ( =3D> = > <BR><A=3D20>=20 > =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'https://rhn.red" target="new">https://rhn.red=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html">https://rhn.red= > '> >> =3D>=20 > hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html</A>=3D20> ) as a linux=20 > <BR>vulnerability. You are thus saying that a hole in = > =3D> GAIM is=20 > a=3D20> hole in Linux.<BR><BR>Read the post below. = > If you=20 > want me to spell it =3D> out for=3D20> you given your = > <BR>poor=20 > grasp of english then I will.<BR>I don't have =3D> to=20 > put=3D20> words in your mouth let alone obvious lies like = > this=3D20>=20 > <BR>one.<BR><BR>Adam<BR><BR>Your post=20 > starts=3D20>=20 > here:<BR><BR><BR><BR>"   You = > don't=20 > have to look so =3D> far.  RedHat=3D20> = > released a bulletin=20 > for a <BR>remote attack and likely exploit =3D>=20 > today. =3D20> See <BR><A=3D20> = > =3D>=20 > href=3D3D" = > href=3D'https://rhn.red" target="new">https://rhn.red=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html">https://rhn.red= > '> >> =3D>=20 > hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html</A>. =3D20> = > The previous=20 > remote <BR>vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, = > =3D> was=20 > just=3D20> three weeks <BR>earlier (<A=3D20> = > =3D>=20 > href=3D3D" = > href=3D'https://rhn.red" target="new">https://rhn.red=">https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html">https://rhn.red= > '> >> =3D>=20 > hat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html</A>). =3D20> = > There are=20 > <BR>11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far = > =3D> this=20 > year=3D20> and 81 <BR>since it was released just 10-1/2 = > months=20 > ago.  That is =3D> about=3D20> 7-1/2=20 > <BR>vulnerabilities per month.  It's not that linux is = > not=20 > =3D> full of=3D20> problems, <BR>it's that = > virtually no=20 > one=3D20>=20 > = > cares.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR><BR> &am= > p;nbsp;  =20 > "Jeff Shultz" =3D> <<A=3D20> =3D> = > href=3D3D" = > href=3D'jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.commailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com >> mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com</A >> >=3D>=20 > >=3D20> wrote in message <BR><A=3D20> = > =3D>=20 > href=3D3D" = > href=3D'news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com">news:p= > '>news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com">news:p> =3D>=20 > = > href=3D"mailto:an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com...= >  &nbsp">an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.= > com</A>...<BR> &nbsp=3D>=20 > ;  =3D20> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:55:34 -0500, = > Geo.=3D20>=20 > wrote:<BR><BR>     = > >=20 > <A=3D20> =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'http://ww" target="new">http://ww=">http://www..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html">http://ww= > '> >> =3D>=20 > = > w..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html</A><BR>&nbs= > p;  &n=3D>=20 > bsp;=3D20> = > ><BR>    =20 > > Just go look it's not an exploit =3D> it's = > a=3D20> list of=20 > reasons why you = > can't<BR>    =20 > > trust =3D> MS to=3D20> protect your=20 > = > computers.<BR>    =3D20>= > =20 > ><BR>     > = > =3D>=20 > = > Geo.<BR><BR>    =3D20= > >=20 > There are some who would probably kill me for this.. but I'd = > really=3D20>=20 > be<BR>     interested in = > seeing what=20 > would happen =3D> if eeye=3D20> turned some of that=20 > <BR>talent<BR>     = > loose=20 > on=3D20>=20 > Linux.<BR><BR>     = > Either we'd=20 > get a heck of a lot =3D> of=3D20> fixes...or the = > Linux-heads would=20 > <BR>have<BR>     = > =3D>=20 > some=3D20> strong evidence to back up the claim that Linux is = > more=20 > secure=3D20>=20 > <BR>than<BR>    =20 > Windows.=3D20>=20 > = > "<BR><BR><BR><BR>Adam<BR><BR><BR&g= > t;>=20 > Rich<BR>>  <BR>>=3D20>=20 > <BR>>     "Adam = > Flinton"=20 > <<A=3D20> =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.commailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com > '>mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com</= > =3D>>=20 > = > <BR>>    =3D20>=20 > <<A=3D20> =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborweb=">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">mailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborweb= > '> >> =3D>=20 > s.com</A>>>=3D20> wrote in=20 > message<BR>>    =20 > <A=3D20> =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com">news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs'= >> news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com">news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.= > =3D>=20 > = > com</A>...<BR>>   &nbsp= > ; =3D20>=20 > > From: "Geo." <<A =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'georger{at}nls.net=3D20'>mailto:georger{at}=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net=3D20'>mailto:georger{at}= > nls.net">georger{at}nls.net</A>=3D20>=20 > <<A=3D20> =3D> href=3D3D" = > href=3D'mailto:georger{at}nls.net>&gt=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>&gt= > ;&gt'> > >><BR>&gt=3D>=20 > ;=3D20>=20 > <BR>>     =20 > >> Yes I do. It is both a =3D> RH=3D20> = > exploit=20 > & a linux one. Being a =3D>=20 > linux<BR>>     = > one=3D20>=20 > it = > is<BR>>     =20 > >> also a mandrake =3D> one, a=3D20> = > Suse/Novell one,=20 > a debian one, a =3D>=20 > knoppix<BR>>    =20 > one,=3D20>=20 > a<BR>>     =20 > >> slackware one=3D20>=20 > = > etc.etc.etc.<BR>>    &am= > p;nbsp;=20 > > Ok so you do =3D> admit=3D20> then that you can = > have a RH=20 > (or =3D>=20 > = > Mandrake,<BR>>    =3D20<= >> >=20 > SUSE,=20 > = > knoppix,<BR>>    &nb= > sp;=20 > > slackware, =3D> etc)=3D20> exploit that is NOT = > also a Linux=20 > exploit as=3D20>=20 > = > you<BR>>    =3D20>= > ;=20 > = > define<BR>>    &nbsp= > ;=20 > > "Linux"? (the =3D> "&" in=3D20> your = > statement=20 > implies this)<BR>>=20 > <BR>>     =3D> = > Yup.=20 > I=3D20> have not stated otherwise. What I have stated is that=20 > none=3D20> = > of<BR>>    =20 > =3D>=20 > = > those<BR>>    =3D20&= > gt;=20 > distribs is by itself "linux". Rich was trying to say that a = > hole=3D20>=20 > in<BR>>     Gaim = > =3D>=20 > = > is<BR>>    =3D20>= > thus a=20 > hole in "linux".<BR>> <BR>> =3D>=20 > = > <BR>>    =3D20>=20 > = > Adam</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>> --- 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
SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com

Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.