RE: [cobalt-users] Cobalt to provide compensation for server hack?

[<rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Yes, but IIRC, Win98 comes setup as the default having the
> task scheduler check the MS web site for updates, or remind
> you to.

Win98 finally did this... NT didn't, 95/3.11 didn't.

RH7 finally did this... previous versions didn't.

> What does Cobalt do to make sure that everyone running a
> server finds out about this if they didn't sign up for one
> of Cobalt's lists?

BlueLinQ finally did this... previous versions didn't.

No real difference between them, other than Cobalt is slightly behind
the curve.

> > But Cobalt promises an appliance that will let you plug it
> > in and start hosting - and they deliver.
> > At no time do they say that your data on the machine will be
> > impenetrable or secure.
>
> There's the argument about the implied warranty of merchantability. If
> Cobalt somehow knew, or it could be proven that they should
> have known, that the box was insecure, (and thus useless), the moment
> it's plugged in, then they were negligent.

All boxes are insecure the moment they're plugged in, *particularly*
Windows boxes. Those are even *deliberately* insecure, since Microsoft
takes information without asking you (registration 'bug', anyone?) and
since Microsoft configures things to low security "for the user's
convenience." They know for sure that the box will be insecure, so
they're negligent according to you.

Merchantability means that the product does what it's for. NT and Cobalt
both do hosting. They're both insecure. They both need updates. Neither
one reminded you. What's your point?

> > It's up to you to learn how to use it to its fullest potential.
> > Yes?
> >
> We might realized that, but that's exactly the opposite of
> how Cobalt sells it.

It's how Microsoft sells Windows, too.

--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>