> In response to your example, that was a DOS attack and is illegal. > Microsoft updates have causes systems including servers to fail and > crash, should you be petitioning to have Microsoft prosecuted under > this law?
It happens. Anyway, the fact is that you keep comparing two different thing. The fact that an *occasional* old system in bad shape breaks because of an update is not the same as an update meant to break old systems. Microsoft of course knows that every and each update they ship is potentially going to break some old bix, but I believe they are putting every feasible effort in keeping numbers low. This is not only because of people possibly filing a law suit against them, but because every system broken by an update is a very bad return in terms of corporate image. As I already said, when 95, 98, me and 2k went at EOL, Microsoft didn't send an update meant to stop them. It could mean a big class action against Microsoft. Worse, it would surely mean a huge loss of faith in the Microsoft platforms by users. Not even to mention how competitors would have ride it. This kind of loss of image is something the clamav project now shall expect (and probably deserve). Which is not my main concern, by the way: the thing I really dislike is that the open-source community as a whole will get somehow damaged by this sole clamav action. And please keep in mind that the EOL problem could easily and inexpensively be circumvented. No excuse, then. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
