From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:

> Sony is a company not a product, they would be sony's product's
> vulnerabilities since they affect that product.
>

Ah but that's why Rich is a master of diversion. Sony put together a bundle
of Windows + other Apps. Red Hat do the same with Linxu + other apps.
However we were discussing Linux per se vs windows per se. Rich diverted
the discussion (quite purposely) onto a distribution & then started
adding up lots of product level vulns. As such given he is conflating linux
with a Distrib (in this case RH) it is exactly the same to choose some
bundle of Window + apps & then to call it "Windows".

> You don't honestly believe consumers are going to try and figure out who
> made what parts of every product they own when something breaks? If your 60g
> IBM drive blows a chip on the controller do you track down the chip maker or
> do you go after IBM for a fix?
>

Indeed. But if windows breaks all by itself then most would not blame Sony.
With a comp like Apple where h/w & s/w are part of the package from the
same vendor then blame apple otherwise it's not right to blame MS for a
cracked monitor nor is it right to blame Sony for Code Red.

Adam


> Geo.
>
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:402d350d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Ah right so if sony bundle linux & Gaim & mutt then Gaim
& mutt would be
>>Sony vulnerabilites because they are part of sony's product.
>>
>>Adam
>
>
>
>

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