From: "Chris Robinson" 

Geo. wrote:

> "Chris Robinson" 
wrote in message
> news:4033546d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
> > The simple basic fact here is that the comparison is unfair.  Lets
> > forget for a moment who's responsible for any patches.
>
> what is a "windows" patch?
>
> If I run W2K and a patch that only affects XP comes out, is that a
> windows patch? my distribution of windows didn't need it so how is
> this different from one linux distribution requiring a patch when
> another doesn't? If one distribution doesn't require the patch then
> you aren't calling it a linux patch so should I not consider XP only
> issues to be something separate from windows security issues?
>
> Geo.

I mean comparing a version of Windows (so yes, XP/ 2000/ whatever) to a
distribution of Linux (Redhat 9 in this case) - I should have been more
clear on that.  Saying "Windows patches" would be unfair to
Windows IMHO.  So, you could do Windows XP vs RedHat 9 for example - not
"Windows" vs Redhat 9.

Chris.

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