so how is it that the non-negotiable "hold harmless" provisions within EULAs for forced updates are actually enforceable when software you didn't want goes around eliminating your vital files?
obviously you make backups but c'mon, Windows 95 didn't do this bullshit
so how is it that the non-negotiable "hold harmless" provisions within EULAs for forced updates are actually enforceable when software you didn't want goes around eliminating your vital files?
obviously you make backups but c'mon, Windows 95 didn't do this bullshit
(post is archived)