Linux security

[Adam Conrad]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> 
> I can't.  It's simply not true.  "Windows" isn't some single entity that's
> slowly growing into Vista or whatever the next version will be.  Windows 95
> was a quantum leap from Windows 3.1, and Windows XP was a quantum leap from
> ME.  At both phase changes they didn't just remove bugs and introduce new
> ones, they introduced entirely new operating systems and just ignored old
> bugs.

This is completely irelevant.  XP was a minor version bump (5.1) over
Windows 2000 (5.0), which was a version bump over Windows NT 4.0, which
was a version bump over Windows NT 3.51, 3.5, 3.1.  Windows NT 3.1 was
the first publically-released NT version (the version number chosen
because it matched the current DOS/Win3.1 release in look-and-feel,
despite being a completely new OS)

Comparing WinNT to DOS sure does look like a whole new OS, but keep in
mind that NT has been in development since the late 80s, it's not "new".

... Adam