From: "Geo." 

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in
message news:909262.514049{at}harborwebs.com...

> Ah right so....if MS includes other s/w then heck it's a
"distribution" &
it's
> part of Windows as much as say GAIM "is part of Linux"?

Yes of course, for example if someone found a way to exploit the defrag or
backup utilities in W2K I would consider that a W2K security issue and
expect a patch from MS.

> Neither the commission nor Microsoft would comment yesterday, but
Microsoft
> believes providing CDs with rival programs could also help resolve other
> pending allegations of bundling and avoid future litigation.

Tough question. I would view a free AOL CD provided in the box with Windows
as an AOL responsibility, mostly because it's obviously an AOL product
being included. It's not an MS specific version of AOL like in your Dell
bundling example where they had their own distribution that is restored by
their restore CD's.

HOWEVER, if MS were to include AOL on the windows CD, so that a reinstall
of windows would place an old version of AOL back on a computer requiring
it to be patched then I would view that as part of the MS distribution and
I would consider that product defective and requiring patches.

This is why I didn't like your Dell example, in that you have a restore CD
from dell so you are forced to reinstall from a dell distribution, but if
at the same time Gateway provided the exact same components but with an
Office CD from MS and a Photoshop CD from adobe as opposed to a Gateway
distribution then I wouldn't hold Gateway responsible for providing
patches.

Do you see the logic I'm using to determine these things yet? I'm not
having any trouble figuring out who I would hold responsible for providing
patches but I am having trouble explaining how I make that determination.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5