Good protection SHOULD be provided in the first place and that same protection would need to be updated and improved and can you see anyone paying for that? That is why norton and other vendors do well because they dont sell you updates to a free product. They make you pay for it in the first place and therefore impute value to it in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gene Wirchenko Sent: Saturday, 8 February 2014 9:53 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: Microsoft Security Essentials At 14:26 2014-02-07, "Geoff Flight" <[email protected]> wrote: >It is a little amusing to hear people complaining about free software. >Personally, I think that if you own a computer then you should own (and >pay >for) quality protection. You wouldn't buy a car and put third-rate free >tyres on it (or you shouldn't at least). Buy quality anti-virus and >stop But I would expect locks on the doors. >complaining. One of the side-effects of the internet has been the >belief that nobody should now pay for anything like software or movies >etc but can reserve the right to complain about them. > >in this century, computer protection is essential so why do we think >that protection should be free> In this century, computer protection is essential so why do we think that good protection should be not be included in the first place? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
