Is that why the last three versions of the Word, PowerPoint, and Excel formats haven't changed? Previous versions can open newer doc formats, so long as basic document features were used? Several *nix projects change their config file format more often than MS changes office formats.
Why does this keep coming up? Microsoft does not force you to upgrade when upgrades are available. Therefore, you do not need to license new software. If what you have works, great. If not, obey the law and get the ugprades and new licenses.
Hell, it's not like there isn't licenses for software even in the open-source community or some other *nix software (and I'm not referring to SCO, but decent companies).
By voting all incumbants out of office. This won't work, however, because the majority of people don't realize what's going on and the mainstream media spins it in a rediculous manner, most often supporting the 'business protections' that the previous poster mentioned.
I agree with such sentiment, too, but more people need to care (and ultimately understand) before any such action is possible.
Are you insane? Whether the user has to type./someexecutable or double-click a file - they are still performing some action to execute the file! And if they are "uninformed", then they're friggin' stupid! I never open attachments I'm not expecting and I certainly will never open attachments from people I don't know. My wife picked this up easily. If users aren't getting informed, it's not the OS's fault - it's simply not a function of the OS. File operations, process management, security (where applicable - and this worm has nothing to do with security since it easily runs in userland), and a few other basic functions are functions of an OS - not educating the user. That's up to them.
You mean that the fact Microsoft has over 80% of the desktop market now, and had much more before, has nothing to do with the worms that attack it? Do the math - it's an easy one.
I'm not saying they don't have holes - every piece of software does. Heck, one such (primarily) *nix bug was features in Matrix Reloaded! But I suppose that *nix shell was actually a Windows machine that Bill "the Borg" designed to attract *nix users?
And Windows XP does hide the administrator from the user. Nothing is preventing the user from running as administrator or joining the adminisrators group however, just like nothing is preventing users from running as root on their own system, or adding themselves to the root group. Again, it comes down to user stupidity.
No, there's something about Outlook containing a scriptable and consistent address book (something I have yet to see on *nix) that makes it easy to pirate. This trojan is not using a hole or bug - it's using shear user-stupidity to spread!
No, users should be better educated. But education is not a function of any OS. Besides, Windows help files seem far more consistent and easier for users to understand to *nix man or info pages. But most users don't read any of those, either, and forcing users to read the appropriate help files is also not a function of any OS.
Because, in this case, the TROJAN doesn't need to access system resources with escalated privileges - it accesses the user's address book. This isn't a security problem. THEY executed the attachment, and the TROJAN executed with THEIR credentials to access THEIR records. This could just as easily been done on any platform: a user could save an attachment from, say, Pine, and execute that. In turn, if could easily check the.addressbook file or just "rm -rf ~"! I suppose that's Linus's fault since he wrote the linux kernel, huh?
And this is Microsoft's fault that applications don't take unprivileged users into account! That's major bullsh**t! I know of many applications and have written most of my applications to work the same that contradict your point. I can also think of several *nix applications that require escalated privileges to install kernel mods or something. You're blaming the platform developers for the application developer's faults! (in most cases)
Some applications need to run outside userland, and most can probably run in userland. The ones that can need to be written correctly to take that into account. If they read from the PATH env. var. (apparent in all platforms I've seen), then they shouldn't care where the libs are installed. If the apps were to use their own config file (such as.NET guidelines are asking developers to do), they don't need to read from or write to the registry. And if they do, there's always the user's hive in the registry that the apps can use intead of the machine's.
For example, I am a software architect that recently developed a very large.NET application. The application itself can run without escalated privileges, but it requires that the.NET Framework be installed (the.NET BCL and CLR). Once done (and that was being distributed via Windows Update and is part of every OS from 2003 on), the app runs great. The CLR must be global because some if requires system resources - the same can be said about some linux services I've installed. The appliation just uses that and can happily run in userland.
Point: it's up to the application developers to make their app work - if possible - without escalated privileges. Those applications you mentioned probably good if the developers paid better attention to their source and architecture.
Windows 2003 (and the eventual "Longhorn") do turn most stuff off by default. This, I agree, will definitely help things.
The problem with educating users, though, is not limited to Windows, though. While I tend to favor MS platforms a little more (mostly for development), I'm no stranger to *nix and do use it quite often. I think having a stronger desktop share would be good for many reasons. *nix is good for some things while MS, currently, is good for others (like for users that are stupid enough to run unknown attachments). If users were more educated, I think you would see a stronger *nix desktop share.
The problem is education, though - it doesn't matter if its for Windows, *nix, or OSX. As younger generations grow, thing will get better (OT: racism problems have gotten better as younger generations grow and, in turn, have kids). It's a slow process, I agree, but you can't force users to learn (or accept, as in my OT example) - it just won't happen. Let's just not be putting blame on MS for uneducated users. Besides, I think the help system in Windows is far easier for most people to use and is more consistent across the OS and applications that run on it. (Yes, man pages and their respective readers are consistent, but I know of a lot of projects that choose HTML, info, or some made-up format).
The same thing can be said about Windows and escalated privileges, though. It's true that most users shouldn't run as 'root' or 'Administrator' (or have equivalent privileges based on their group membership). The problem isn't so much with corporate networked computers as it is with home computers. Most people do have administrative privileges because they wouldn't even know how to log as 'root' or 'Administrator'. It's true that, for instance, the RedHat installation lets the users add themselves and this helps a little. Windows XP started doing something similar, too, but it does give the first user added administrative access (so that one user is an administrator). During installation of the network, it does prompt to set an administrative password, but after that it is pretty much hidden - especially in Windows XP home.
As far as apps, go, Windows does work in a similar matter. Apps, too, also run under the user's security tokens, unless that app is a client to a service running as something else. The service CAN implement impersonation, but that isn't typically done while *nix makes it almost transparent.
Outlook and IE aren't actually privileged apps, either. They, too, run under the user's credentials but do allow users to execute attachments instead of downloading and saving them first. I've seen several *nix projects that allow this, too. And Mozilla is no different - it, too, allows a user to execute a link. And really, both IE and Mozilla have the same idea - the actually browser is really a control that is embedded in their respective mail readers. Mozilla.exe and IExplore.exe are really just clients to their respective web browser components.
My point is that this behavior isn't limited to Windows. There are a lot of things in common. Keep in mind that, as a percentage, more knowledgable people run *nix as opposed to Windows - *nix still has a ways to go before your average Joe Schmoe (you know, the ones that execute attachments they aren't expecting) can use it.
You're reiterating everything I said, and forgetting other parts. If a person is dumb enough to format your NT-based OS's filesystem as FAT32, they've eliminated security, bloated the block size, and screwed yourself royally - they're a stupid user.
In using *nix in my statement, I mentioned that a user that has sufficient privileges could hose their system. Someone just as stupid could be logging in as 'root' all the time and reading mail from there. If they execute an attachment, they're just as stupid.
In either case - as I mentioned in my article - a user with sufficient privileges can screw their system no matter what OS they're running.
If you look at the actual content, I did mention that it was a trojan. Just as "virus" is a blanket term (to most, esp. the media - and is far overused like it was in the article), "worm" tends to be covering trojan.
Then the user should get educated. Is it anyone else's fault that they aren't educated? I put blame were blame is due - no one's holding them hostage, keeping them from some sort of education.
Besides, I think it is easier to spot an executable on Windows as opposed to linux. Most executables (that you can execute and not link to) start with.exe. On most systems, you can also execute.vbs,.pl (of course, after installing ActivePerl - but who wouldn't?!:-). Sure, any knowledgable person can tell the different usually in either case, but users are used to the whole 8.3 format where executables end with ".exe".
Remember, more users in this world are Windows users so they know Windows ways (not about umasks and file octet mods). Maybe the surgance in linux on the desktop will cause more people to get a clue (and younger generations learning more should help immensly!), but who knows. (I personally don't care, so long as common formats always exist.)
Let's not forget that this is a worm. It requires that a user launches the executable so it can infect the system. Let's also not forget that many users are using non NOS's such as Windows Me (I'll admit that was a big mistake, however). Users that receive this worm must actually execute it and, since there is not concept of "administrator" on many flavors of Windows (or perhaps the users are the only user of, say, WinXP and are in the Administrators group) so the worm can do whatever it wants - the user did, after all, execute it as an administrator.
The point is - it's the user's fault! Not Microsoft's. Something like this could just as easily happen on a *nix box if the user has sufficient privileges.
Several of the users at work on the network I manage have gotten such worms before, but because they didn't have sufficient privileges, the worms were ineffective. In most of those cases, the virus scanner picked it up anyway.
So, if the user doesn't have sufficient privileges, some worms don't work. Sure, this one would because it runs in userland, but the user still executed it! Besides, they should have a virus scanner anyway. Again - it's their fault.
When it comes down to it, a worm such as a this (trojan horse) requires a stupid user to execute it - so blame the user for once.
Perhaps, but you also stop a lot of valid uses as well. And let's not forget that there are plenty of *nix clients that display HTML mail as well. I guess it's all that anti-Microsoft propaganda again.
This is f*in' stupid! Microsoft designed and programmed IE to allow for plugins using various methods, as well as to act as an application host for IE-driven applications (such as HTAs and the like). Who in the hell does this company think they are?! If Microsoft didn't program IE to be extensible, the company couldn't have done it at all!
This is just another example of the software industry going bad - and the government is sure doing their part to screw it up.
More than likely, Sony forbids it because they can't profit. So, why don't they try to profit on this by starting a new store - or something of the like - where users can buy and sell in-game items? Heck, with all the greed going on in this day and age, I'm surprised they didn't think of this.
Or is there some other legal / "moral" (like corporations know what that is these days) problem with this concept?
Wow, aren't you on a high horse! How was I using my "wealth of knowledge" to infer anything? It's true - and practically any/.er will agree - that most people don't know crap about computers. Remember, as big as the/. community (and other techies) may seem, we're a small percent of the global population.
And no, I don't just believe in "commercial" players (most aren't - just their services and content are...and Microsoft isn't the only ones doing it). WinAmp (there, happy?) can also be setup to be your default player. In fact, a bug from a long time ago that I reported for several versions even made it the default player for files with no extension. How's that for defaulting file types on a system.
You act as if there is no alternative to what you're given on a Windows-based machine! Heck, you even have the alternative to reformat your drive and install whatever linux/bsd distro you want!
First, "IE" is not the actual web browser - it's merely a COM client that contains the WebBrowser2 control. If you don't want to use "IE", then don't. You could even delete iexplore.exe with no problems.
Second, install Mozilla and set it to be your default web browser and email/news reader. Viola'! Sure, the WebBrowser2 ActiveX control is there SINCE IT'S PART OF THE SHELL, but "IE" isn't used as far as people are concerned.
Don't like WMP - install the spyware-infested RealPlayer and set it to be your default media file player...or even QuickTime (now there's a speed deamon!). Sure they don't play WMA or WMV files, but WMP can't play Readl media files because Real stopped that from happening several years ago. QuickTime went through the same hastles.
So bitch all you want and complain about your "lack of options". Clearly you have no idea what an "installation program" is and that you can download them, install them, and make them your default viewer/player.
To add, I think the one of the biggest problems is that most of the people that complain are smart enough to know that things can be different and know how to make them different (ex, reformat and install linux). The problem is that at least 90% of the people don't know such things. Most people can't even figure out the term "right-click". You expect them to know how to get Mozilla, where to get Mozilla, or even *why* they should get Mozilla? If Microsoft were forced to install it with Windows (and your excellent McD's analogy would show this isn't a good idea), would it make any difference? IE (actually, the WebBrowser2 control, for which IE is merely a client app for the WebBrowser2 ActiveX control, which is shdocvw.dll, mshtml.dll, and some others) is integrated into the shell and makes it easy for users to get around.
Remember, most people don't know squat about computers and either don't care what they use (as long as it works, and IE works just as well and has just as many proprietary technology as Mozilla - so don't even go there people) or don't even know what they're using.
Microsoft bundles things like IE and WMP so users have a browser and media player when they install their own OS. Taking them out is not the solution, since many will be left without such things. Forcing the company to stick competitors products in their own product is not necessarily the way to go, but is perhaps a solution to all the bitching and moaning going on.
Should KDE be forced to remove Konquerer or its various KDE-installed media players? Sure, there's other choices outside the KDE RPMs (or whatever distribution method you use), but people have a choice of OSes, too - don't install it and install linux instead.
This whole thing has gotten out of hand, IMO. I guess if a company is successful, they obviously must be doing something illegal, huh?
Re:Smart Tags in the article (or is it me?)
on
LinuxTag Show Report
·
· Score: 1
It's OSNews. BetaNews does it too. If it were SmartTags, the HTML would actually contain a lot of XML markup using namespaces that include "urn:schemas-microsoft-com" as the root (and the page itself would probably be XHTML to make things easier).
Slashdot Mirror
Is that why the last three versions of the Word, PowerPoint, and Excel formats haven't changed? Previous versions can open newer doc formats, so long as basic document features were used? Several *nix projects change their config file format more often than MS changes office formats.
Why does this keep coming up? Microsoft does not force you to upgrade when upgrades are available. Therefore, you do not need to license new software. If what you have works, great. If not, obey the law and get the ugprades and new licenses.
Hell, it's not like there isn't licenses for software even in the open-source community or some other *nix software (and I'm not referring to SCO, but decent companies).
By voting all incumbants out of office. This won't work, however, because the majority of people don't realize what's going on and the mainstream media spins it in a rediculous manner, most often supporting the 'business protections' that the previous poster mentioned.
I agree with such sentiment, too, but more people need to care (and ultimately understand) before any such action is possible.
Are you insane? Whether the user has to type ./someexecutable or double-click a file - they are still performing some action to execute the file! And if they are "uninformed", then they're friggin' stupid! I never open attachments I'm not expecting and I certainly will never open attachments from people I don't know. My wife picked this up easily. If users aren't getting informed, it's not the OS's fault - it's simply not a function of the OS. File operations, process management, security (where applicable - and this worm has nothing to do with security since it easily runs in userland), and a few other basic functions are functions of an OS - not educating the user. That's up to them.
You mean that the fact Microsoft has over 80% of the desktop market now, and had much more before, has nothing to do with the worms that attack it? Do the math - it's an easy one.
I'm not saying they don't have holes - every piece of software does. Heck, one such (primarily) *nix bug was features in Matrix Reloaded! But I suppose that *nix shell was actually a Windows machine that Bill "the Borg" designed to attract *nix users?
And Windows XP does hide the administrator from the user. Nothing is preventing the user from running as administrator or joining the adminisrators group however, just like nothing is preventing users from running as root on their own system, or adding themselves to the root group. Again, it comes down to user stupidity.
No, there's something about Outlook containing a scriptable and consistent address book (something I have yet to see on *nix) that makes it easy to pirate. This trojan is not using a hole or bug - it's using shear user-stupidity to spread!
Show me the originating TROJAN message and I'll show you one that doesn't have that X-Mailer header.
Besides, you're skirting the question - what limits any user on any platform from executing an attachment?!
No, users should be better educated. But education is not a function of any OS. Besides, Windows help files seem far more consistent and easier for users to understand to *nix man or info pages. But most users don't read any of those, either, and forcing users to read the appropriate help files is also not a function of any OS.
Because, in this case, the TROJAN doesn't need to access system resources with escalated privileges - it accesses the user's address book. This isn't a security problem. THEY executed the attachment, and the TROJAN executed with THEIR credentials to access THEIR records. This could just as easily been done on any platform: a user could save an attachment from, say, Pine, and execute that. In turn, if could easily check the .addressbook file or just "rm -rf ~"! I suppose that's Linus's fault since he wrote the linux kernel, huh?
And this is Microsoft's fault that applications don't take unprivileged users into account! That's major bullsh**t! I know of many applications and have written most of my applications to work the same that contradict your point. I can also think of several *nix applications that require escalated privileges to install kernel mods or something. You're blaming the platform developers for the application developer's faults! (in most cases)
Some applications need to run outside userland, and most can probably run in userland. The ones that can need to be written correctly to take that into account. If they read from the PATH env. var. (apparent in all platforms I've seen), then they shouldn't care where the libs are installed. If the apps were to use their own config file (such as .NET guidelines are asking developers to do), they don't need to read from or write to the registry. And if they do, there's always the user's hive in the registry that the apps can use intead of the machine's.
For example, I am a software architect that recently developed a very large .NET application. The application itself can run without escalated privileges, but it requires that the .NET Framework be installed (the .NET BCL and CLR). Once done (and that was being distributed via Windows Update and is part of every OS from 2003 on), the app runs great. The CLR must be global because some if requires system resources - the same can be said about some linux services I've installed. The appliation just uses that and can happily run in userland.
Point: it's up to the application developers to make their app work - if possible - without escalated privileges. Those applications you mentioned probably good if the developers paid better attention to their source and architecture.
Windows 2003 (and the eventual "Longhorn") do turn most stuff off by default. This, I agree, will definitely help things.
The problem with educating users, though, is not limited to Windows, though. While I tend to favor MS platforms a little more (mostly for development), I'm no stranger to *nix and do use it quite often. I think having a stronger desktop share would be good for many reasons. *nix is good for some things while MS, currently, is good for others (like for users that are stupid enough to run unknown attachments). If users were more educated, I think you would see a stronger *nix desktop share.
The problem is education, though - it doesn't matter if its for Windows, *nix, or OSX. As younger generations grow, thing will get better (OT: racism problems have gotten better as younger generations grow and, in turn, have kids). It's a slow process, I agree, but you can't force users to learn (or accept, as in my OT example) - it just won't happen. Let's just not be putting blame on MS for uneducated users. Besides, I think the help system in Windows is far easier for most people to use and is more consistent across the OS and applications that run on it. (Yes, man pages and their respective readers are consistent, but I know of a lot of projects that choose HTML, info, or some made-up format).
The same thing can be said about Windows and escalated privileges, though. It's true that most users shouldn't run as 'root' or 'Administrator' (or have equivalent privileges based on their group membership). The problem isn't so much with corporate networked computers as it is with home computers. Most people do have administrative privileges because they wouldn't even know how to log as 'root' or 'Administrator'. It's true that, for instance, the RedHat installation lets the users add themselves and this helps a little. Windows XP started doing something similar, too, but it does give the first user added administrative access (so that one user is an administrator). During installation of the network, it does prompt to set an administrative password, but after that it is pretty much hidden - especially in Windows XP home.
As far as apps, go, Windows does work in a similar matter. Apps, too, also run under the user's security tokens, unless that app is a client to a service running as something else. The service CAN implement impersonation, but that isn't typically done while *nix makes it almost transparent.
Outlook and IE aren't actually privileged apps, either. They, too, run under the user's credentials but do allow users to execute attachments instead of downloading and saving them first. I've seen several *nix projects that allow this, too. And Mozilla is no different - it, too, allows a user to execute a link. And really, both IE and Mozilla have the same idea - the actually browser is really a control that is embedded in their respective mail readers. Mozilla.exe and IExplore.exe are really just clients to their respective web browser components.
My point is that this behavior isn't limited to Windows. There are a lot of things in common. Keep in mind that, as a percentage, more knowledgable people run *nix as opposed to Windows - *nix still has a ways to go before your average Joe Schmoe (you know, the ones that execute attachments they aren't expecting) can use it.
You're reiterating everything I said, and forgetting other parts. If a person is dumb enough to format your NT-based OS's filesystem as FAT32, they've eliminated security, bloated the block size, and screwed yourself royally - they're a stupid user.
In using *nix in my statement, I mentioned that a user that has sufficient privileges could hose their system. Someone just as stupid could be logging in as 'root' all the time and reading mail from there. If they execute an attachment, they're just as stupid.
In either case - as I mentioned in my article - a user with sufficient privileges can screw their system no matter what OS they're running.
Agreed. To be fair, I was more specific than using "virus" like the article - and even the title on /. did.
If you look at the actual content, I did mention that it was a trojan. Just as "virus" is a blanket term (to most, esp. the media - and is far overused like it was in the article), "worm" tends to be covering trojan.
Then the user should get educated. Is it anyone else's fault that they aren't educated? I put blame were blame is due - no one's holding them hostage, keeping them from some sort of education.
Besides, I think it is easier to spot an executable on Windows as opposed to linux. Most executables (that you can execute and not link to) start with .exe. On most systems, you can also execute .vbs, .pl (of course, after installing ActivePerl - but who wouldn't?! :-). Sure, any knowledgable person can tell the different usually in either case, but users are used to the whole 8.3 format where executables end with ".exe".
Remember, more users in this world are Windows users so they know Windows ways (not about umasks and file octet mods). Maybe the surgance in linux on the desktop will cause more people to get a clue (and younger generations learning more should help immensly!), but who knows. (I personally don't care, so long as common formats always exist.)
Let's not forget that this is a worm. It requires that a user launches the executable so it can infect the system. Let's also not forget that many users are using non NOS's such as Windows Me (I'll admit that was a big mistake, however). Users that receive this worm must actually execute it and, since there is not concept of "administrator" on many flavors of Windows (or perhaps the users are the only user of, say, WinXP and are in the Administrators group) so the worm can do whatever it wants - the user did, after all, execute it as an administrator.
The point is - it's the user's fault! Not Microsoft's. Something like this could just as easily happen on a *nix box if the user has sufficient privileges.
Several of the users at work on the network I manage have gotten such worms before, but because they didn't have sufficient privileges, the worms were ineffective. In most of those cases, the virus scanner picked it up anyway.
So, if the user doesn't have sufficient privileges, some worms don't work. Sure, this one would because it runs in userland, but the user still executed it! Besides, they should have a virus scanner anyway. Again - it's their fault.
When it comes down to it, a worm such as a this (trojan horse) requires a stupid user to execute it - so blame the user for once.
Perhaps, but you also stop a lot of valid uses as well. And let's not forget that there are plenty of *nix clients that display HTML mail as well. I guess it's all that anti-Microsoft propaganda again.
This is f*in' stupid! Microsoft designed and programmed IE to allow for plugins using various methods, as well as to act as an application host for IE-driven applications (such as HTAs and the like). Who in the hell does this company think they are?! If Microsoft didn't program IE to be extensible, the company couldn't have done it at all!
This is just another example of the software industry going bad - and the government is sure doing their part to screw it up.
More than likely, Sony forbids it because they can't profit. So, why don't they try to profit on this by starting a new store - or something of the like - where users can buy and sell in-game items? Heck, with all the greed going on in this day and age, I'm surprised they didn't think of this.
Or is there some other legal / "moral" (like corporations know what that is these days) problem with this concept?
Wow, aren't you on a high horse! How was I using my "wealth of knowledge" to infer anything? It's true - and practically any /.er will agree - that most people don't know crap about computers. Remember, as big as the /. community (and other techies) may seem, we're a small percent of the global population.
And no, I don't just believe in "commercial" players (most aren't - just their services and content are...and Microsoft isn't the only ones doing it). WinAmp (there, happy?) can also be setup to be your default player. In fact, a bug from a long time ago that I reported for several versions even made it the default player for files with no extension. How's that for defaulting file types on a system.
You act as if there is no alternative to what you're given on a Windows-based machine! Heck, you even have the alternative to reformat your drive and install whatever linux/bsd distro you want!
First, "IE" is not the actual web browser - it's merely a COM client that contains the WebBrowser2 control. If you don't want to use "IE", then don't. You could even delete iexplore.exe with no problems.
Second, install Mozilla and set it to be your default web browser and email/news reader. Viola'! Sure, the WebBrowser2 ActiveX control is there SINCE IT'S PART OF THE SHELL, but "IE" isn't used as far as people are concerned.
Don't like WMP - install the spyware-infested RealPlayer and set it to be your default media file player...or even QuickTime (now there's a speed deamon!). Sure they don't play WMA or WMV files, but WMP can't play Readl media files because Real stopped that from happening several years ago. QuickTime went through the same hastles.
So bitch all you want and complain about your "lack of options". Clearly you have no idea what an "installation program" is and that you can download them, install them, and make them your default viewer/player.
Thank you. I'd mod you up if I could.
To add, I think the one of the biggest problems is that most of the people that complain are smart enough to know that things can be different and know how to make them different (ex, reformat and install linux). The problem is that at least 90% of the people don't know such things. Most people can't even figure out the term "right-click". You expect them to know how to get Mozilla, where to get Mozilla, or even *why* they should get Mozilla? If Microsoft were forced to install it with Windows (and your excellent McD's analogy would show this isn't a good idea), would it make any difference? IE (actually, the WebBrowser2 control, for which IE is merely a client app for the WebBrowser2 ActiveX control, which is shdocvw.dll, mshtml.dll, and some others) is integrated into the shell and makes it easy for users to get around.
Remember, most people don't know squat about computers and either don't care what they use (as long as it works, and IE works just as well and has just as many proprietary technology as Mozilla - so don't even go there people) or don't even know what they're using.
Microsoft bundles things like IE and WMP so users have a browser and media player when they install their own OS. Taking them out is not the solution, since many will be left without such things. Forcing the company to stick competitors products in their own product is not necessarily the way to go, but is perhaps a solution to all the bitching and moaning going on.
Should KDE be forced to remove Konquerer or its various KDE-installed media players? Sure, there's other choices outside the KDE RPMs (or whatever distribution method you use), but people have a choice of OSes, too - don't install it and install linux instead.
This whole thing has gotten out of hand, IMO. I guess if a company is successful, they obviously must be doing something illegal, huh?
It's OSNews. BetaNews does it too. If it were SmartTags, the HTML would actually contain a lot of XML markup using namespaces that include "urn:schemas-microsoft-com" as the root (and the page itself would probably be XHTML to make things easier).