Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
Thread beginning with comment 359134
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
k1773r37f
Member since:
2009-04-17

I would agree to that.

On the other hand, I would say there is nobody to blame.
Microsoft made clear in their EULAs that it cannot be held liable for any damage which may be done by their software or by their lack of providing security patches.
Open source software also makes the same statement in their various licenses.


That may make them not legally responsible. I would still like to see some major corporation with the fiscal resources, legal resources and cajones to do so try that in a court of law.

But it does not negate their moral or ethical responsibility. Oh wait! Were talking Microsoft. Nevermind, I'll hush now.

Reply Parent Score: 1