Holding the position of "most widely-attacked" is no reason for it to also be "least secure-due-to-widely-known-and-poorly-corrected-issues". Even if Apple/Posix products were as "widely attacked" as Windows products, the results would be far less damaging to the global infrastructure, despite Posix near stranglehold on server systems worldwide.
I'm in favor of investigating a lawsuit such as the one described, because Microsoft is in the same arena as other major manufacturers (automobiles, telephone systems, medical equipment, etc.) that are regularly held accountable for problems with their products that impact safety and economic issues on a broad scale. James *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 10/23/06 at 7:17 PM Duane Hill wrote: >Marc Perkel wrote: >> I'm considering filing a lawsuit against Microsoft to try to get an >> order to make them make public security updates for Windows to >> everyone, registered or not. >> >> The idea is that their product Windows creates a toxic byproduct >> (spam,ddos zombies) that interfere with everyone else's internet usage >> and that they have a responsibility to clean it up. It would be >> similar to a suit where a business that is otherwise legitimate >> attracts crime in a neighborhood or a manufacturer dumping toxic waste >> into a stream. >> >> Virus infected spam zombie are a toxic byproduct of their business >> model and it affects all of us and they have a duty to the public to >> fix it. I'm somewhat of a legal expert, not a lawyer though. But just >> wanted to get some feedback on the idea. >> >> >> >Good luck! As it is now, Windows is the most widely used platform at >present. That is the reason it is the most widely attacked. If Mac OSX >or any other platform were to rise up and be dominant, then guess what >would happen? Yes. That platform would be the one most widely attacked. > >So, should the other OS platforms start to take action now in preparing >for an OS mainstream shift?
