[BC] Microsoft AntiSpyware kills Symantec AntiVirusCorporateEdition

[Steve]

I surrender. Somedays it's easier to be at peace. :) This is one of those. Like most things today, we just put up with it. The lawyers won.

Steve
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cowboy 
  To: Broadcasters' Mailing List 
  Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 2:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [BC] Microsoft AntiSpyware kills Symantec AntiVirusCorporateEdition


  On Sunday 12 February 2006 11:40 am, Steve wrote:
  >Sid and all...
  >
  >I think it's time to throw this ******* back into court. His code stinks.

   First off, WHO's code ?
   
   The stuff actually written by Mr. Gates is quite good.

  >I ANY other business he would be libel for business interruption and well....I could go on and on.

   Methinks not !!

   If it were something like IBM-390 at $300K or so per seat,
   and you've actually paid for and licensed reliability, then perhaps.

   In the cases of W2K and XP, for instance, anyone who has actually read the license
   would know that using PCAnywhere is an illegal violation, and KVM's are
   questionable at best, but more importantly that license says that ( paraphrased )
   you acknowledge that the code is broken, may not do as advertised, may not be
   suitable for any purpose whatever, and that the manufacturer has no responsibility
   whatever to provide patches or fixes of any kind, but may opt to do so out of the
   goodness of their collective heart, AND you acknowledge that any patches or
   updates may also be broken, may not do what was intended, and that they have
   no responsibility whatever for any fix that any patch may fail to provide, nor any
   responsibility if any patch, fix, or update destroys what you already have.

   Why is it that so many eagerly accept a license like GPL, essentially a few
   pages of socialist propaganda with a few lines disavowing any responsibility
   for any and everything whatever, yet have a hissy when Microsoft essentially
   follows that lead, and offers much the same thing but then goes far above
   and beyond in actually fixing some of the problems they choose to address ?

   Microsoft stuff is really, Really good for *some* things.
   It's really, Really *NOT* good for other things.
   Neither is guaranteed.

   Forgive me, but I fail to understand how they should be liable for
   those that can't, or won't, tell the difference ?

  -- 
  Cowboy

  http://cowboys.homeip.net

  "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."
  -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234


  _______________________________________________
  This is the BROADCAST mailing list
  To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
  For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: http://www.radiolists.net/