From: "Chris Robinson" 

Geo. wrote:

> "Chris Robinson" 
wrote in message
> news:4034de0a{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > 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.
>
> But everyone says "Windows" exploits, or "Windows"
security issues.
>
> Geo.

Well perhaps they shouldn't.

Also, I suppose some people say that because a "Windows" exploit
is easier to define due to the way it's bundled (i.e. unlike Linux which is
often bundled with a ton of apps).  For comparing Linux vs Windows on these
issues though, I'd pick a Windows version like XP, for example, if I was to
compare - otherwise it's not fair to Microsoft.

Chris.

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