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? =
You really are poor at any form of debate.
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
A>=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
A>=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
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
"Adam Flinton" <Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.commailto:Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com">Adam.Flinton{at}harborwebs.com
A>>=20
wrote in message 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 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" <adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=
>=20
wrote in message =3D> 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> 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> 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 (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"
<jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=
>=20
wrote in message=3D20> 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:>> 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" <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
=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"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
A>>=3D>=20
>=3D20> wrote in message
<A=3D20> =3D> =
href=3D3D"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"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"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"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"jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.commailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com
>mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com</A
A>>=3D>=20
>=3D20> wrote in message
<BR><A=3D20> =
=3D>=20
href=3D3D"news:p=
'>news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com">news:p=3D>=20
mailto:an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com...=
 ">an.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.=
com</A>...<BR>  =3D>=20
; =3D20> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004
20:55:34 -0500, =
Geo.=3D20>=20
wrote:<BR><BR>
=
>=20
<A=3D20> =3D> href=3D3D"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"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"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"news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs'=
>news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.com">news:809386.616af5{at}harborwebs.=
=3D>=20
=
com</A>...<BR>>  =
; =3D20>=20
> From: "Geo." <<A
=3D> href=3D3D"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"mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>=
;>'>
>><BR>>=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<=
BR>>=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>>  =
;=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>
------=_NextPart_000_0475_01C4002F.84325310--
--- 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
|