Linked by Adam S on Wed 9th Jul 2008 12:59 UTC, submitted by Caffeine Deprived
Even if you love it, there are some things for which Windows is clearly a silly solution. Richard Stiennon lists 10 of the worst uses of Windows he's seen, including using it to display a static green arrow over the open TSA security lanes at Detroit Metro.
Thread beginning with comment 322190
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-06
RE[4]: Mission Critical ?
by Whats That There on Wed 9th Jul 2008 20:57
in reply to "RE[3]: Mission Critical ?"
Member since:2005-09-21
"The point I was making, was that some people think that because Microsoft is a massive corporation, there will be some comeback when things screw up.
So what. Who am I going to sue when Linux fails me?
*chirp*... *chirp*...
Exactly... "
I see you are still full of shit. The article and the posts are about Windows not being suitable for certain jobs. Linux will not fail you in the slightest.
Besides, you always have the comeback of the company who sold you the service level agreement....
RE[5]: Mission Critical ?
by tomcat on Thu 10th Jul 2008 00:45
in reply to "RE[4]: Mission Critical ?"
Member since:2006-01-06
Linux will not fail you in the slightest.
That would be hilarious, if it weren't so naive. I almost feel sorry for you, if you really believe that.
Besides, you always have the comeback of the company who sold you the service level agreement....
The point is that there is no accountability with ANY vendor unless you have a support agreement and, even then, there are limits to what they will do. Unless you have specific guarantees in your contract for uptime, they're NOT going to reimburse you for lost time or data. So, the original point about EULA language is MOOT.
RE[4]: Mission Critical ?
by raver31 on Wed 9th Jul 2008 21:02
in reply to "RE[3]: Mission Critical ?"
Member since:2005-07-06
You don't get it do you ?
Some people install Microsoft products because it is a name they recognise as the biggest software producer in the world.
These people expect it to work out of the box.
These people expect Microsoft to back them up when things don't work out.
These people are shocked when they realise they have lost years of work and Microsoft tell them to "piss off, you should not have installed our products"
You made a point about who you sue over Linux ? Did any Linux company give Microsoft the blueprint for the wording on their EULA's ? No.
There is no point you coming on here trying to be abusive towards Linux when this has nothing to do with Linux or Linux companies.
This is purely about Microsoft supplying software that is not capable for doing the jobs it was being sold for, and Microsoft sticking two fingers up to you when you find this fact out.
RE[5]: Mission Critical ?
by tomcat on Thu 10th Jul 2008 00:47
in reply to "RE[4]: Mission Critical ?"
Member since:2006-01-06
These people are shocked when they realise they have lost years of work and Microsoft tell them to "piss off, you should not have installed our products"
Show me ANY Linux vendor who will reimburse you for loss of time or data, absent a specifically-worded support contract (which amounts to a EULA).
RE[5]: Mission Critical ?
by Karitku on Thu 10th Jul 2008 22:22
in reply to "RE[4]: Mission Critical ?"
Member since:2006-01-12
You don't get it do you ?
I think you don't really get it since posting such a crap.
Some people install Microsoft products because it is a name they recognise as the biggest software producer in the world. These people expect it to work out of the box.
No they don't, thats why there is technet and huge community that can help. If guy puts up even normal server and excepts it just work right up he is idiot, and its same for ALL OSes!
These people expect Microsoft to back them up when things don't work out. These people are shocked when they realise they have lost years of work and Microsoft tell them to "piss off, you should not have installed our products"
This is pure FUD, firstly EULA clause about financial payment is only due poor justice system of USA and few other countries. Like clause in GPL and everyother software product is purely there to protect companies and software writers against ridicilous court cases. Microsoft does offer support but not gonna take financial responsible if some idiot didn't know how to disable auto-updates or secure system enough against hackers.
You made a point about who you sue over Linux ? Did any Linux company give Microsoft the blueprint for the wording on their EULA's ? No. There is no point you coming on here trying to be abusive towards Linux when this has nothing to do with Linux or Linux companies.
If GPL and other software wouldn't have such a clauses greedy bastards called lawyers could sue them if some idiot makes mistake and gets hurt. Yes even Linus Torvalds could be sued and whole Linux Foundation. Have you ever wondered why popcorn machines have label that says "Don't put hands in oil when machine is on", no shit Einstein.
This is purely about Microsoft supplying software that is not capable for doing the jobs it was being sold for, and Microsoft sticking two fingers up to you when you find this fact out.
More pure FUD. Keep mind that everyone of these systems has 4 components, hardware, 3rd party software, OS and person who makes whole system. Who knows how many times problem is HW or crappy 3rd party software. Most cases problem might be just some idiot who didn't design system good enough. So I give YOU just one finger, guess which?
Member since:
2006-01-06
So what. Who am I going to sue when Linux fails me?
*chirp*... *chirp*...
Exactly...