Erik Jan <anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Roy Schestowitz had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 24-07-07 14:31:
>> (never mind Microsoft's sloppiness),
>>
>
> Why does the world not mind Microsoft's sloppiness? Is the EULA
> juridically valid? What products (software excepted) can be delivered
> without any guarantee of quality?
I do not believe that it is in the UK, and I believe that Microsoft are
very well aware of it, however, the use this tactic to con the public
into believing that they have fewer rights than they really have.
> Could we not demand that an operating
> systems operates without corruption or degneration? After all it is sold
> to us as a computersystem that operates, works. But it does not without
> third party products that slow down the corruption or try to prevent
> assaults.
I think you could ask for your money back.
>
> Some years ago MS promised us that spam would by now be suppressed. It
> is not. MS promised us that Vista would be secure, the most secure
> system ever; it is not. Could we not claim damages?
Probably not, at least, not for claims.
>
> As soon as MS will have to pay for all the costs of spam, insecure OS,
> loss of time because of frequent reinstalls, it would have some stimulus
> to improve its products.
>
> Erik Jan
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
