3 ms·
So you're conflating legality with good practice I think. In general I agree touching other publishers software is a bad idea but far from illegal. MS is not fo
by badrabbit 7y ago
So you're conflating legality with good practice I think. In general I agree touching other publishers software is a bad idea but far from illegal. MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. You picked their platform's installer so they configure it for their platform ,that's it. They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights, I hope some foss package maintainers chime in on this. Would suck if it was illegal to change upstream's defaults.
- diffeomorphism 7y agoI did not mention either legality or good practice. > MS is not forcing people to use their installer, they're not blocking you from using the default chrome installer. That sentence makes no sense to me. The chrome installer is completely unrelated to this and MS is not shipping anything resembling a chrome installer. They are shipping their office installer (which you are kinda forced to use to install office), which unexpectedly(!) tampers with your chrome install. > You're trying to infringe upon packaging rights Nope.
- creato 7y ago> They have every right to do that just like for example a privacy friendly website (or distro) can provide a package/installer with defaults that are privacy friendly for example. Everything you are saying makes sense if you are talking about controlling the defaults of the software maintained/installed by the package. That's not what is happening here.