Why is Windows the only major operating system to come with a warranty that it will work as advertised in its licence?
Windows license:
>Limited Warranty. Depending on how you obtained the Windows software, Microsoft, or the device manufacturer or installer, warrants that properly licensed software will perform substantially as described in any Microsoft materials that accompany the software. This limited warranty does not cover problems that you cause, that arise when you fail to follow instructions, or that are caused by events beyond the reasonable control of Microsoft, or the device manufacturer or installer. The limited warranty starts when the first user acquires the software, and lasts for one year if acquired from Microsoft, or for 90 days if acquired from a device manufacturer or installer. If you obtain updates or supplements directly from Microsoft during the 90-day term of the device manufacturer’s or installer’s limited warranty, Microsoft provides the limited warranty for those updates or supplements…
OSX license:
>TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE”, WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND APPLE AND APPLE'S LICENSORS (COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS “APPLE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8) HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY, QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
I also checked if Mac OS 9 had a warranty (in case Windows' was just left in from the 1990s) and found that although apple did offer a warranty for the install disks themselves, they had a very aggressive disclaimer for the software, even including "NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY APPLE OR AN APPLE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY…" lol.
MIT license (Standing in for most GNU/Linux distros, which usually use MIT or GPL.):
>THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
GPL (Standing in for most GNU/Linux distros, which usually use MIT or GPL):
>THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
You can add a warranty to the GPL if you want to, but no major Linux distros appear to do so. The closest thing to a warranty that I'm aware of is that Red Hat has a 30 day warranty on install media. (i.e. disks etc), which is closer to Mac OS 9's license ("the install disk won't be scratched to pieces, but if a horrible programming bug blows up your iBook, that's your problem.") than Microsoft's offer of a legal promise that properly licensed software will perform substantially as described in any Microsoft materials that accompany the software.
Despite having the worst reputation for bugs, and having to operate on an unpredictable range of hardware configurations and general use cases (a challenge shared by GNU/Linux, one reason Linux distros have a license that washes the developer's hands of any problems, and a challenge largely avoided by Apple aggressively controlling the approved Mac OS hardware, which doesn't offer a warranty), Microsoft alone take on the risk of legally warranting the software will at least mostly work. Why?
>>25695Microsoft is the sole developer and vendor of their proprietary software. Open-source and shareware developers usually disclaim warranty from anything they release, so they can prevent, with the minimum possible effort, some hypothetical company from doing something stupid with it, like using it in a safety critical system without proper expertise, and busting a lawyer on their asses for it.
I'm unsure why Apple doesn't have it. Maybe it's because OSX incorporates some open-source software in their releases or they can just get away with it. Windows definitely needs some kind of warranty though, because the base-system for home desktop-use and commercial installations has been mostly the same since XP. I'm pretty any license for one of the commercial Unixen, like Solaris, QNX, AIX and HP-UX, would come with an appropriate warranty.