Robert Millan wrote: > [ Sorry for the late reply, but ideas don't always flow the way you'd want ] > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote: >> Even if such malware wouldn't damage the system, it could still do >> things like sending spam and infecting other computers. That would >> probably work in wine. > > Now I really wonder, is that *our* problem? It doesn't reflect badly in *our* > users, only in users of Windows. There are ethical reasons why seeking this > would be a bad thing, but working to prevent it, to the point that we have to > give up on legitimate features, is really what we want?
Isn't it our problem if our users' systems get turned into spam proxies and botnets? > If that cost is too high for Microsoft to break compatibility for the sake of > reducing the virus problem *in their own platform*, why would the cost (i.e > letting our users run viruses than can only harm our rivals) be too high for > us to provide this compatibility in our platform? Spam proxies and botnets harm all users. Even worms that only infect Wine and Windows harm all users because of wasted bandwidth. -- Pelle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]