From: "Chris Robinson" 

Rich wrote:

>    Your quote of what I wrote is correct.  Your interpretation is
> wrong.

So, you're not trying to say that Linux is as/ more, insecure/ buggy than
Windows?  What are you trying to say? (Just to clarify it).

> I also disagree with your claim of unfairness.  Productized
> linux is no different from other operating systems like Windows,
> MacOS, Solaris, etc and include plenty of applications to actually
> make them useful.

Well, actually, it is.  Plenty?  Windows includes a basic set of
applications to get you up and running.  It does not include many Gb's
worth of software like many Linux distributions do.  I use both Windows and
Linux, so I do know the difference regarding the amount of software
installed.  I'm not Windows bashing here - I've used it for years, and
still do.  I'm saying it's an unfair comparrison.

>  Products like redhat linux 9 have tons of
> vulnerabilities.  Just look at the redhat security bulletins of which
> I provided an example.

I'm not debating that Redhat have issued more advisories for their Linux
distribution than Microsoft have for Windows.  This is obvious - they have!
 But, if that was your original point, then that's fine - you're correct. 
However, this doesn't prove one bit that Linux is as/ more, insecure/ buggy
than Windows.

>  You keep deluding yourself if it makes you
> feel better.

I feel fine thanks.  What am supposed to be deluding myself about?

Chris.

>
> Rich
>
>   "Chris Robinson" 
wrote in message
> news:4033546d$1{at}w3.nls.net...    Rich wrote:
>
>   >    My examples were redhat supplied applications with security
>   > vulnerabilities for which redhat took responsibility despite your
>   > claims that since they don't own the copyright they are not
>   > responsible.
>   >
>   > Rich
>   >
>
>   The simple fact here is that it's an unfair comparison.  Your
> original   post and point was (unless I've totally misinterpreted it)
> trying to   say that Linux is as/ more, insecure/ buggy than Windows,
> or to put in   your words: "It's not that Linux is not full of
> problems, it's that   virtually no one cares".
>
>   You chose to use the Linux distribution "Redhat Linux 9" to try and
>   illustrate you point.  Unfortunately, your point has flaws when it
>   comes to Windows/ Linux security/ bugs etc.  Due to the unique
> nature   of Open Source software and Linux, Linux is bundled as a
> distribution   that often includes an extremely large amount of
> bundled software.    This is very convenient for the user and eases
> installation.
>
>   I'm not arguing that Redhat didn't issue more patches/ bugfixes than
>   were issued for Windows.  In fact, considering the huge amount of
>   software bundled by Redhat, I'd be extremely worried if Windows did
>   have more patches available for it.
>
>   The simple basic fact here is that the comparison is unfair.  Lets
>   forget for a moment who's responsible for any patches.  Simply
>   comparing Windows patches Vs Redhat Linux 9 patches is not a fair or
>   valid way of judging the bugginess/ security of these two operating
>   systems when comparing Windows to Linux in this way.
>
>   Other issues aside, surely anyone can see that.
>
>   Chris.

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