__/ [ Jim ] on Friday 17 March 2006 12:33 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Peter ] on Friday 17 March 2006 08:24 \__
>>>Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>that makes perfect sense for them. How can they trust it otherwise?
>> Precisely. So how long will it be before they demand to see what runs some
>> mission-critical systems which use Windows? Given the sheer number of
>> security alerts, one should raise the level of skepticism. Europe is
>> getting closer to that demand, but the intent is different altogether.
>>>They will never admit it, but MI5, GCSB, etc no doubt make extensive use
>>>Linux for top secret applications. As long as they use it themselves and
>>>do not market it, they can modify the kernel, and other GPL software
>>>without needing to disclose the source code.
>> LINUX DIGEST
>> ***patch submitted by mysticshark
> read the M$ EULA. They actually disclaim ANY liability if you attempt to
> use ANY M$ software for ANY mission-critical application.
> So if Grandma dies because the cardiopulmo box has BSoD'd a lagpatched
> copy of Win2K and locked the pumps down, tough titties. Can't sue M$,
> they did warn you.
My friend and I used to joke about such things when we were 15. Remember the
ability to 'Nuke' people by exploiting a flaw in the way Windows handles
TCP/IP (especially in Windows 95)? Well, it's almost as though Microsoft
hands over a weapon and takes no liability. No liability for what the weapon
gets used for, _let alone_ liability if the weapon fails to operate and
causes accidental death. Think of the car and seatbelt analogy; asbestos as