> From: "Geo." 
> "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.

MS are the ones who carry on trying to convince people that there is
"a" Windows.  They refer to the training advantages of
"Windows" etc all the time as part of their "windows value
add proposition". 

But hey MS has always had a problem between their marketing & their reality.

e.g. head to :

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp

& you see stuff like:

"The cost advantage of Windows was:

    * 28.2% less for large enterprises.
    * 25.0% less for medium organizations.
"

& "Windows has a lower total cost of ownership & outperforms
linux".

Adam



Adam

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