I love IP Tables....

[Patrick]

jdow wrote:

> And the first time a Fedora Core release is hacked Red Hat goes out of
> business. Is this your goal? (Mind you, there are days when I have
> uttered enough unkind words Fedora-wards that I'd applaud the concept.
> Note, there are not as many such days as there are days I've felt the
> urge to disembowel somebody on the Microsoft campus - which would be
> too kind for some of them such as the doofus who invented "Clippy.")
> 
> {^_-}

   I tend to think that if Red Hat is selling a distribution; then yes, 
they are liable just like Microsoft would be. If they are just selling 
support for a free distribution; then no, they would not be liable for 
anything they did not service. The end user should be liable for the 
software their machine is running unless it can be proven to be a 
problem which they could not be reasonably expected to know about.

   For instance, using the popular car analogy: if I buy a car from Ford 
and I keep it in the stock condition, then they are responsible for it 
working as it should. If I do not maintain it properly, then I can be 
held partially or fully responsible for an accident resulting from a 
problem with the vehicle. The court would have to assign the percentage 
of blame depending on how well I maintained the vehicle and if it had 
anything to do with the accident.

   However, if I modify the car from stock; then I become responsible 
for the modifications if they contribute to an accident. If I bought a 
kit, then I can also get the court to assign blame fully or a percentage 
depending on if I correctly followed the installation instructions.

   If I buy a Windows product and leave it totally stock, then I cannot 
be held responsible for problems with it. If Microsoft notifies me of a 
problem with the software and I ignore it, then I can be held partially 
or fully responsible (depending on what the court finds). If I install 
other software on the computer, then I assume responsibility unless I 
can show that the third-party was negligent in troubleshooting the 
software. Under those circumstances they can be assigned partial or full 
blame in the matter (depending on their user agreement).

   If I get a Linux distribution for free and agree to a user agreement 
which states that I am fully responsible for anything bad happening to 
the computer, then I should be held responsible for any problems it 
could create. If I do not want that responsibility, then I should not 
install the software and just stick with a stock Microsoft (or other 
vendor's) product.

   Just my thoughts. They could be subject to revision should a good 
argument present itself.  :-)

Patrick