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.

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