[dheretic]

I didn't say they were identical. When people refer to "Linux" bugs, they are referring to any bug that occurs in any Linux distribution. Linux proponents have this funny tendency to say that anything which isn't in the kernel isn't a Linux bug; however, in their hypocritical way, they then turn around and say that bugs in IIS are bugs in Windows. Can't you see how ludicrous that dichotomy is?

1. bugs are identified on a per distro basis. There are at least 100 known distros out there
2. Linux is just a kernel. Repeat after me, Linux is just a kernel. If you don't believe me go take a look at the various projects other than OpenBeOS attempting to use the Linux kernel as the basis for a new BeOS.
3. If a bug is found in say... apache or OpenSSH. It's the fault of that development team, not the linux kernel team. Most programs that come with a linux distribution are multiplatform programs. They are not specifically linux only programs. BASH, XFree86, KDE, GNOME, Apache, GCC, etc all run on the BSDs, Solaris and MacOS X in one form or another. There are virtually no Linux-only programs.
4. IIS is tied very closely to Windows. A lot of other Windows services such as the directory services depend on it. It would not be a far stretch to say that it is as much a part of Windows as Internet Explorer. IE is the foundation for Explorer, the graphical user interface that Windows users use. Microsoft has claimed that the Windows version of IE is not a part of the OS, but without it I can assure you Explorer in new versions of Windows would not work.
5. There is nothing ridiculous about going after a software vendor for bugs. Sun's Solaris OS has various servers bundled and integrated into Solaris 9. If they are integrated at the level that IIS and IE are into Windows then any security hole they create is indeed a Solaris hole. Solaris and Windows are full operating systems whereas Linux is not.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"IIS is tied very closely to Windows. A lot of other Windows services such as the directory services depend on it."

Really? I guess I better load IIS on my domain servr for that ADS to continue running. LOL.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Explorer, the graphical user interface that Windows users use"

No kidding? You mean GDI.dll and all those other UI services are really Explorer? WOW! /sarcasm

[Bush2000]

bugs are identified on a per distro basis. There are at least 100 known distros out there

And each bearing the name Linux: RedHat Linux, etc.

Linux is just a kernel. Repeat after me, Linux is just a kernel. If you don't believe me go take a look at the various projects other than OpenBeOS attempting to use the Linux kernel as the basis for a new BeOS.

Fine. You want to play that game. Windows is just a kernel, too. So I can reasonably say, by your definition, that bugs in IE and IIS are simply middleware bugs that have nothing to do with the OS.

If a bug is found in say... apache or OpenSSH. It's the fault of that development team, not the linux kernel team.

You are the one who set up that false dichotomy. I can't agree with you that those components aren't part of the OS unless you likewise agree that IIS and IE aren't part of Windows, either.

IIS is tied very closely to Windows. A lot of other Windows services such as the directory services depend on it.

You don't know what you're talking about. AD does not depend on IIS at all. You pulled that out of your rear end.

There is nothing ridiculous about going after a software vendor for bugs.

I didn't say there was. But, by the same token, don't try to avoid blame when we level the same criticisms against your sacred cows. You can't have it both ways (as much as you'd like to think so).