3 ms·
They should simply perform their obligations around providing fixes for the product for the duration of the advertised support period. That they are running so
by wang_li 10y ago
They should simply perform their obligations around providing fixes for the product for the duration of the advertised support period.
That they are running software on thousands or hundreds of thousands of machines that was advertised as an update but is instead advertware is a crap move on their part. It's probably not a strong legal argument, but IMO they should be paying me to use my system to run software of their choice, much in the way that I would pay to use Azure to run software of my choice on their systems.
- tracker1 10y agoI'll agree that the nagware aspect is pretty harsh, but disagree they shouldn't have pushed it via autoupdate... it really is an opportunity to update/upgrade to a new version... or would you expect ubuntu to not tell you there's a new version you can upgrade to as well? That said, I'm kind of with GP, I'd rather have most people updated to the current windows, spyware issues aside, it's better for stability/security.