Re: Virus to Virus IdeaFrom: email@example.com
- Previous message: Jean-François Asselin: "RE: IE6 Release"
- In reply to: sari sari: "Virus to Virus Idea"
- Next in thread: JohnNicholson@aol.com: "Re: Virus to Virus Idea"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-ID: <3B8EB0F8.29DA@erols.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:32:53 -0400 From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Virus to Virus Idea
Old idea (aka 'the road to hell') periodically resurrected and
occasionally equated to the 'mandatory update'; said idea almost
uniformly phhhbbbt'd each time no matter the good intentions or guise
under which it travels.
Think of it this way: one man's trash is another man's treasure. All
you're proposing is just another kind of virus - just because YOU think
it does something "good" doesn't mean that *I* think the same way.
There's not much of a line between a 'good virus' and a 'bad virus';
even if that virus destroys your OS, if that's what I wrote it to do and
that's what I set out to do, then I can easily call it 'a good one'.
And who decides what constitutes 'good' and 'bad'? (LOL, see: camel's
nose|under the tent|Net Police)
The whole idea of someone else deciding what kind of software I should
use is, um, well, an abomination. Give me rules to live by so we can
nominally get along, sure enough -- but your right to swing your fist
ends where my nose begins...or at my firewall. :)