🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <i1tfe1$qq9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

> That's not the point.  The point was liability for a "mission critical" 
> situation.  If Windows fails there are people to sue.  If Linux fails, there 
> is nobody to sue.  

I guess you missed the fact that the government spent years and millions 
of dollars prosecuting an open and shut case involving unfair marketing 
practices and ended up with the most milquetoast verdict of its kind in 
history. Who would have those resources to pursue a nebulous case of 
what? What would you sue for? All Microsoft would have to do is point to 
the millions of satisfied customers, while pointing its expensive legal 
finger of blame at the hapless plaintiff's "defective software".

Since you are claiming that it is perfectly feasible to sue an operating 
system vendor for an unstable product, perhaps you could provide an 
example of this with documentation. Surely, you are not going to claim 
that no operating system vendor has ever provided a defective or 
unusable product to *someone*.

> I'm not talking about the "lowly user" suing, but let's say UCSF, where our 
> organ transplant software has been used for over 10 years.  Should Microsoft 
> Windows have been THAT bad that it couldn't be relied upon, you can BET that 
> the State of California, acting on behalf of UCSF would have sued 
> the pants off Microsoft.  But they haven't.  

Before they sued YOU? Not a chance.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last