> From: "Rich" 
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> ------=_NextPart_000_0432_01C3FFBC.8CF8DC80
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Adam's way more off base than that.  For the purpose of claiming that =
> there is any security flaw in linux adam would like to consider only the =
> kernel with no device drivers, file systems, or other components that =
> are not a mandatory part of the kernel.  This defines linux as a useless =
> blob of code that does nothing.  Just see how Adam spins the opposite =
> side of the spectrum when he tries to claim that linux is in any way =
> useful.

ROFLMAO.

So then Rich 

A) You would consider any vuln in anything carrying the "Windows"
name to be a "Windows" vuln? So if there is a vuln in Win2K3S
then I should also patch any Windows CE powered devices such as a
smartphone or a PDA? This is your point wrt "linux" which also
runs from a fully featured PC distrib down to a PDA & a smartphone.

B) You are happy to consider "Windows" as simply the OS, shorn of
anything that makes it usefull, such as 3'rd party drivers that come with
the hardware & any other tools you might need. How many people do you
know that find a "pure" install of just Windows usefull? No
Office tools except WordPad. How do you watch DVD'es on say a Win98
"pure install"?

So as per usual with you you want to define things both ways to suit
yourself & I am simply responding in kind in the interests of balance.

If the Windows OS w/o any other s/w e.g. office tools etc is what you count
as "Windows" then I will count Linux w/o any other tools. 

& to pick a "distibution" to keep you happy I will pick 

http://www.coyotelinux.com/modules.php?name=Products&op=coyote

For security & mandrake for capability. That should be OK by you as
that is what you choose to do & to which I am responding.

Adam

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