In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linønut
<linønut@xxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:05:36 -0600
<q6GdnTm65IP963beRVn-jQ@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> __/ [mlw] on Thursday 09 February 2006 16:28 \__
>>
>>> Could someone call a consumer protection agency or something?
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/08/windows_antivirus_protection/
>>>
>>> This is so bogus. Microsoft makes a product so defective that a whole
>>> industry exists to fix and secure it.
Fix? No. Secure? Maybe.
>>>
>>> Rather than FIX THEIR DAMN PRODUCT, they continue to sell the defective
>>> software and now sell a subscription to software that fixes their defects.
>>
>> Microsoft have learned a lesson or two from your typical garage.
>
> Yeah, but you can always go to another garage.
And if one's lucky they'll have the right part.
>
> I think Microsoft should be forced to open up their software so that
> competing versions of Windows can be written. May the best Windows win.
Windows is already, to some extent, open -- WinE is an
interesting venture, for example. I'll admit I don't know
how much of WinE is because of specifications and how much
is reverse engineering, though.
And then there's Vaporware Vista. Microsoft may have to
walk a bit of a line here: how many 3rd party products
are they willing to break to ensure a continued monopoly,
bearing in mind that if they break too many the vendors
might just find an alternative (Linux)? :-)
>
> Critical infrastructure should not be dependent on a sole-source vendor.
>
Not sure how "critical" the Internet is, though it's very important.
A bit like television and/or radio and/or electric power in that
respect (though refrigeration/food preservation complicates things).
One would hope the "football" doesn't have a NIC card... :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
|
|
