From: "Chris Robinson" 

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