From: /m 


In these comparisons, you need to keep in mind that (for better or worse)
the Linux OS's come with a lot of apps as part of the OS distribution. 
Those apps are patched as well.

Is that aggregating of apps a good thing?  I'm of two minds.  On one hand,
Ubuntu does a very good job of bundling important apps.  While other
distributions seem to bundle multiple apps of the same genre (e.g., two
different email clients), and putting them all on the menu system.

I like the Ubuntu approach, personally, because it allows me to get started
and then branch out to other apps once I've got my feet on the ground.

 /m

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 11:16:37 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>Windows 2000 CD (any CD, server, workstation, whatever), if you take it from
>release in 2000, apply SP4 and all patches you are at 268mb of patches 132mb
>of which is sp4 that was released 6/2003. So since 6/2003, it's had 140mb of
>patches.
>
>Geo.
>
>"Mike N."  wrote in message
>news:uomka25te08aogq7dd0tpv5o4nf78i6ksu{at}4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 00:17:39 -0400, "Geo"
 wrote:
>>
>> >600mb since June, that's ONE MONTH of updates?
>>
>>    I double checked the DVD - it was created on 3/15/2006.  So that's 600
>> MB in 3 1/2 months that it took to get the DVD into the distribution
>> channel.   That is similar to the 200 MB/month seen by Rich's last Apple
>> update one month after purchase.
>>
>>    XP installs from one CD, Fedora takes about 4 CDs for install.   So
>> there's more software and tools included with Fedora compared to XP.   In
>> addition, there is no attempt to restrict updates in this distribution to
>> security fixes only.  So every odd package having the most trivial of
>> updates will be downloaded.    RedHat Enterprise Linux (and CentOS) would
>> have less frequent updates, however the volume might be as large because
>of
>> the number of tools.
>>
>>    So, Apple & Linux definitely require a high speed internet connection
>to
>> be completely kept up to date.
>

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