Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released
<snipped>
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party
> application, not the other way around?
V Green wrote:
> Why not?
>
> ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it.
> So it's ZA's problem?
>
> Get real.
Yes.
Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say
otherwise... Leave out any specific names.
The original manufacturer of an original product released a patch/upgrade
for their original product. The original product had been modified in this
case by a third party product. The original manufacturer has no
responsibility to test all the possible third party add-ons/changes you can
perform on their product - because they simply would not have the resources
or time to do so - nor is it probably logistically possible/plausible.
Therefore - if a change (critical) is made to the original product and the
third party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it
would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make it
right.
I responded like this in another location already - if you have someway to
legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad to read. This is
what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many ways to what I wrote above -
but perhaps seeing it described in a couple of ways will allow more people
to understand the point... And if there is another side to it - perhaps be
able to explain that point of view.
( begin repost )
No offense meant below - honest question...
You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original product you
purchased because you have modified the original product with the addition
of a third party product that has no relation with the manufacturer of the
original product other than the fact they made their product to fit 'on top
of' that original product - and your complaint is with the original product
manufacturer?
Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who made the
third party product you chose to replace the parts of the original product
when you decided you wanted to modify it?
P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about Microsoft,
Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left out names in my actual
query completely.
It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if you chose
to modify it with some third party product and then some
recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you honestly
believe the manufacturer of the original product should find out every
modification you *could have made* to their product is and make sure their
upgrade/update for their product works with all of those possibilities? Or
would it be more logical to place the responsibility of maintaining the
third party modification to the makers of said modification?
( end repost )
In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that it is the
end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are the one who made
the conscience choice to change the original product for 'supposed' more
protection with a third party add-ons; and then, when the original product
is changed in some way (by the original manufacturer) and that makes the
original product fail unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the
choice to utilize that product?
But that's a completely different point of view than the one I originally
presented - but one I could see someone taking and being able to defend.
Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would actually like
to hear it because I am finding it difficult to fathom it right now.
Perhaps you have a generalized way of explaining it where I can see your
point of view.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html