> 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.

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 =
> is not linux and otherwise try to narrowly define linux when you want to =
> exclude something negative. 

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 =
> define 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 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 =
> 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.

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 = 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? 

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 =
> to get the name gnu/linux used because he wants to give credit to gnu.  =
> Do you buy into stallman's position? 

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 =
> 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 =
> quote my message below your paraphrase you add is not accurate. 

I quoted the exact message. Read it yourself if that's not too taxing for you. 

I repeat, do you need me to spell it out for you? 

Is https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html a hole in linux per se?


> 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.

Back to ye olde ad hominem. 


I'd trim the quoteback but you might get upset.

Adam


> 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
> 
> 
>  charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    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
>  
>  style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> "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  =
>
href=3D"news:4043b3e1{at}w3.nls.net">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 ( =
>  =
>
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 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  =
>
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 vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, =
> was just=20
> three weeks 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 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" =
> < =
>
href=3D"jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=
> >=20
> wrote in message  =
>
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.=20
> 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   &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" < =
>
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
> >     
>> 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

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