There wasn't one single cause of Flash being killed. So everyone arguing for or against Steve Jobs being the cause is irrelevant. Jobs did bring focus to the ever growing problem that was Flash.
Flash originally was a solution to a problem that Web users/content creators had: With multiple platforms and browsers like OS X, Windows, Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, etc, how do web designers create consistent look and functionality for animations and video. While some browser specific optimizations were required for pages, animations and video had to work pretty much the same.
How Adobe did it was to code at very low levels the APIs needed to run everything. When CPUs and operating systems all had to do the work this wasn't much of a problem. Where it became more of a problem was when the work was being offloaded to GPUs and the OS became better at using the GPU. Flash unfortunately ignored these optimizations till very late. By that time, the reputation of it being a resource hog was well earned. For example, on OS X, there was a demo that showed how inefficient Flash was by taking the same video and putting it in two containers: MKV and Flash. The MKV container ran at low CPU usage while the Flash container ran at 100%. From what I remember this only happened on Flash for OS X so the problem was entirely Adobe's.
The second problem was security. Over time OS became more aware of the need for enhanced security. Flash unfortunately again was very late to fixing these in a serious way. Because of how Flash was written at a low level, it also was more of security hole as Flash requires escalated privileges to run/install.
The last problem was mobile UI. Flash was designed to be used with a mouse and pointer. When smart phones still relied on this UI, Flash would be fine. When they started moving towards touch-centric UIs, the promise of Flash was diminished. As consumers started to use more smart phones than computers, the original idea of using one platform to reach all users was negated.
The average Windows user can't be trusted to ever run updates, so their computer ends up getting compromised.
And the average Windows update has a chance of making your computer unusable. That also doesn't factor in updates which add no functional value to the customer but does things like reduce privacy for the customer.
Even if you are a rampant MS hater, this would set a really bad precedent: That software companies could be liable for data loss caused by things only incidentally related to their software. Talk about a ripe field for bullshit lawsuits.
Well part of the problem that MS inflicted this upon themselves was the forced nature of Windows 10. Had the users accepted an upgrade willingly (which they claim they didn't), MS might have a defense. They didn't have a choice and an upgrade wrecked their system. In the law, damages are applicable if the plaintiffs can prove the cause and damages.
Don't think OSS would be immune either. The argument of "but I didn't charge for it" doesn't eliminate liability. In fact, it would be something companies could use to try and bully OSS out of existence through bullshit lawsuits.
Again, OSS doesn't force their software on you. Not even updates are forced. So your comparison is bad.
I haven't seen a Windows upgrade (note: UPGRADE) destroy data in a meaningful way in.....I don't even know how long.
Because YOU haven't seen one does not mean it did not happen ever.
That's a neat trick, unless they mean their IDEA of their computer rather than the physical hardware. Windows is shitty, not malicious.
Well the summary already told you that the HD was destroyed. It's possible an update does that. Some Windows 10 update horror stories have had the machine on a continuous reboot loop. That would trash a weak HD pretty quick. So yes physical hardware can be damaged.
Wait. So, are they claiming it was the forced upgrade that caused it, or.....?
Sorry, unrelated. Though, if she could show otherwise, I would actually be shocked beyond belief.
Hello, continuous reboot?
Yes, in the same way that I would have to buy a new car if my starter gave out.
This relies on the premise that replacing your starter is not more than the cost of the car. Your analogy is not great as there are cars on the road today that replacing the starter is more than the car. Now in computers it is more likely because how valueless older computers are compared to new ones. It may not be worth it to the user to repair an old computer as opposed to replacing it.
I'm torn between hoping she succeeds (as I consider Microsoft a bad actor in the whole upgrade situation) and hoping she gets laughed out of court so hard she ends up with skid-marks that spell out "LOL".
I would say you learn about the exact details of the situation otherwise people will be laughing at you for not knowing them.
"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe