From: "Geo." 

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in
message news:909344.592d73{at}harborwebs.com...

> The key difference is what is known legally as the "master servant
> relationship" i.e. the MS person is normally directed to write s/w for MS
(i.e.
> MS is the master & the bod is the servant). Whereas with OSS people
scratch
> their own itch.

You aren't going to win this argument by redefining things so OSS doesn't
count. 

From my point of view, MS is one group, OSS is another. There, I can
redefine so it works for me. :)

Point is, MS makes a product called Windows, it doesn't include encarta
which is a totally separate product from the same group, so the group is
irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is what is the product. Windows
is a bunch of stuff grouped under the windows name, it's a product.
Likewise RedHat is a bunch of stuff grouped under the RedHat Linux product
name. Again SELinux is another bunch of stuff grouped under another product
name. So an exploit for RHLinux may or may not be an exploit for SELinux,
that's because they are different products.

Just because you happen to call them both Linux doesn't mean they are the
same thing. That's why I keep saying forget OS, forget the least common
denominator approach and look at this as a product issue. There are more
secure versions of Linux than Red Hat, do you agree with that? Do you
consider SELinux to be a more secure version of Linux than Red Hat? How can
that be if you aren't comparing products instead of the common denominator?

Geo.

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