Damn near every site has clauses like this, yet it doesn't happen. So, either it *can* happen, but doesn't. Or it can't happen.
Seriously, do you think Dropbox would survive as a service and a company, if they started selling their customers' personal files? Do you think they'd survive in court if they did this?
Yes, the Apple Software Updater on Windows is a nagware mess. But you don't have to have it on your computer to have iTunes. Also, you can disable parts of it if you do want it around.
I can understand why that might be annoying, but I would hardly count Chrome among other installer crap-ware.
Any bundled software that the customer specifically doesn't want is crapware. Basically, anything beyond the OS, drivers, and requested software is open to being called "crapware" if it's hoist upon the user.
Chrome is by far the fastest browser I've ever used.
(aside: Safari on Lion is much faster than on Snow Leopard) Speed isn't the sole metric of a browser. You may be surprised to learn that there are people who do not like Chrome. And by that, I mean, they uninstall it after finding it on their system. To those people, Chrome is potentially "crapware".
The part where they take a hit to their balance sheet for offering the software at reduced price to PC makers.
Um, no. That's called offering ad bulk discount. It's MS who sets the price in the first place. And they don't "take a hit" to their balance sheet. Where did you get such a silly idea?
If they offered the software at below cost to the PC makers, would you then agree that they are "paying" them to install the software?
Of course not. The math is really simple: if you give someone money, you are paying them. Who is paying who? I'm pretty sure the PC maker is the one writing the check to MS. Google, on the other hand, writes a check to the PC maker.
What's so hard to understand? It's not the PC maker that's paying for Windows, it's the person buying the PC.
Who is the one writing the check to Microsoft?
But looking at it another way, in some sense Microsoft does 'pay' to get Windows installed by PC makers, because they offer OEM versions of Windows to them at a significantly reduced cost.
Notice how you had to put "pay" in quotes? That's because they aren't paying, the PC maker is.
But let's throw reason to the wind for a second and look at it from your deliberately odd point of view and think of it as though the customer is paying MS and Intel and ATI, etc., for their products. Even in this way, MS is the one getting money, not the other way around, unlike Google who pays to have their software bundled on new computers.
Has nothing to do with that. Simple disclaimers fix that. They are doing it to profit off what they don't own.
For example? And by 'example', I mean an example of something they are actually doing and not just something you think they could conceivably do.
These sorts of clauses are almost always about trying to legally protect the way the site/service works. Why would Dropbox think it could just take your shit and sell it (what you seem to think they are going to do here)?
Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.
Not quite. Leveraging a monopoly is generally consider abusing a monopoly. Fortunately for Google regarding the topic at hand, they don't have a monopoly. But if they did, then tying Chrome to their monopoly service would be highly likely to run afoul of antitrust laws.
No, the consumer pays to install Windows. The PC manufacturer gets a commission on that.
Now *that's* some tortured logic! The PC maker pays to get Windows on their PCs. Other software makers (like Norton) pay the PC makers to include their software. I don't know if Google pays to have Chrome bundled or not, but if they do, this is very different from how it works with Windows.
MS does (presumably) pay to have the Office trial bundled, not that this has any bearing on browsers. But at least it's logically sound.
Only company from the list that I worry about is Apple. They're really been left and right everyone about patent issues. Microsoft, not so much, unless some patent troll has attacked them first.
How is it that slashdot nerds are so ass-backwards about Apple? This all started when Android started gaining steam. You guys need to take a page from Jobs' playbook and stop acting like for Android to succeed, Apple has to lose. It's been leading you guys to believe completely stupid shit, like that Android has outsold iOS, that they want to control their users, or that Apple goes around suing people.
On your specific claim, Microsoft has been the one going around suing Android handset maker for infringing on their patents to gain royalties. It's been calculated that Microsoft now makes more money from Android sales than Windows Phone 7 sales.
To my knowledge, Apple has exactly *two* notable Android-related lawsuits. One is against Samsung for allegedly copying the look of iPhone and iPad. The other is against HTC for copying some of iOS's look and feel.
Whether you agree with hardware and software look and feel lawsuits, they are very consistent with Apple's position over the past 30+ years. Apple protects the uniqueness of their hardware and software. This Nortel patent consortium has absolutely nothing to do with that. Apple won't (and most likely can't, since this is a consortium), use these patents offensively. That's not in Apple's character. Apple's lawsuits are almost universally along the lines of, "This is ours. We came up with it, you didn't. This is what makes our products uniquely our products, and we won't let you take our hard work and use it in your products, or make things for our products that cause problems for our carefully designed user experience."
Agree with it or not, that's the way Apple operates, and is quite consistent. When you turn this into "oh no, Apple has patents, they're gonna sue all the things!" you are just making yourself look ignorant.
Apple is definitely not the patent troll you seem to think they are, and although neither is MS, they are not the angels you seem to think they are (NTFS and FAT lawsuits, for example, as well as the suits against Android handset makers).
What are you talking about? I didn't say CUPS isn't in OS X, I said AirPrint isn't enabled on OS X as a server like was planned (and like this story allows Ubuntu to do).
What do you expect them to do instead? AirPrint won't work with just any zerconf printer. It has to support the AirPrint driver.
Zeroconf is just a discovery service - it's not a printing protocol.
That's exactly my point. In that specific section I was replying to, jtara was talking about zeroconf as though Apple were deliberately breaking/modding/extending/whatever the standard by identifying printers as specifically being AirPrint printers. I was explaining the reason.
The main reason this isn't in CUPS proper is that it's not even in CUPS on the Mac. This is presumed to be due to a lawsuit (or threat of lawsuit) from someone who holds a patent on network printing that caused Apple to pull AirPrint sharing on OS X at the last minute. There's a small workaround available, but Apple seems to think it's not a feature they can legally provide themselves.
Airprint, like so many Apple services, is a specific configuration of open-standard protocols, APIs, etc. that they've given a a proprietary name to, while trying to convince customers that they've created something unique and proprietary.
Um, no. They generally make a specific *point* of noting that they are using open standards. AirPrint uses two of Apple's own open projects: zeroconf and CUPS.
Other examples of Apple "proprietary" technology that isn't include FaceTime and iMessage.
Um... When Apple introduced FaceTime, they made a specific point about how it was built on open standards, and that they were going to fully release the specs soon. It's been over a year now and they still haven't made good on that last part.
As for iMessage, that's the only example of the bunch where Apple didn't make any mention of it being open. The reasonable explanation is that this uses many of the same technologies as FaceTime, and whatever reason they had for reversing course on FaceTime applies here.
They do throw in little gotchas like, for example, the additional fields they require in the service announcements for Airprint. You can bet that if an open standard has the capability of adding arbitrary data fields, Apple will use and require them.
And you can be sure that Apple doesn't do this to simply be incompatible. It's because they are doing things the way things are *SUPPOSED* to be done. If you extent a standard, you are supposed to use nonconflicting names and fields.
What do you expect them to do instead? AirPrint won't work with just any zerconf printer. It has to support the AirPrint driver.
Wow. There's hardly a single thing in this post that isn't 100%, no-questions-about-it, false.
...yet despite this never bothered to include CUPS in PhoneOS directly.
What do you think AirPrint uses? Do you mean that you think Apple should have, instead of making it absolutely *simple* to print to any AirPrint printer, exposed the user to a printer settings panel, and allowed installation of third party drivers, which can take up hundreds of megabytes, on iOS devices?
Really?
Instead you have to go through extra uneccessary contortions and proprietary nonsense.
There is absolutely nothing proprietary about AirPrint. And "extra unnecessary contortions" is the exact *opposite* of what they've done. AirPrint just works. It's basically as simple as can possibly be done.
This Ubuntu patch is for dealing with something that Apple does that is gratuitiously proprietary.
Only if by "gratuitously proprietary", you mean, "completely open".
The very first post you replied to was included this statement:
This is why I cannot place any faith in any antivirus being used in the typical configuration - as part of a running Windows system. That just doesnt work.
This took a specific, and not terribly common, scenario and applied it too broadly.
I don't disagree whatsoever that extreme cases like this this story refers to warrant extreme measures. I also don't see anything terribly wrong with your methodology (which appears to be specific to IT-style customer interactions, but not necessarily to such severe infections). It maybe be a bit of overkill, but it's a system that I'm sure works just fine for you.
But the thing I *do* disagree with. The thing I kept asking you over and over again. The thing that the posts I've been replying to indicate. The thing that may be off topic, but wasn't me going off topic but those I was replying to (including you) veered off course with is: why are you acting like this is somehow the norm?
Antivirus software running on the host system works just *fine* most of the time. And when it doesn't, *most* infections are easily completely removed *by hand*. Yes, when things get severe, more severe actions are called for, but that doesn't detract from the benefit of going the normal route first and just jumping straight into full-nerd battle mode.
That's not the question. How many times do I have to say this?
Antivirus software isn't only run when you are fixing someone else's computer. You can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.
Every response of yours is in reference to only IT-type interactions. You fail to answer the question as to why you think that's the sole scope of the discussion. I don't know how I could make this any clearer, multiple times in a row now. Are you stupid, or just unwilling to read a post before you reply to it?
If you are in any IT support role you have a customer. Good service to your coworkers or clients is best served if you perform your service in that manner. It's not what you know or what you can do that keeps your job secure.
Do you even know how questions are supposed to work?
Again:
Why are you acting like this is ONLY under the context of computer repair support? Antivirus scans isn't something that only occurs at the help desk, in the repair shop, or on a visit to a client's computer. In fact, most scans happen outside of these contexts. So, why are you acting like the only scenario that applies here is that of a computer repair one?
The number of scenarios where a computer both doesn't have an optical drive and can't boot from USB is exceptionally rare.
I am beginning to think you haven't been around much in the IT world, as this is more common than you can possibly imagine.
And like the average nerd, you can't seem to believe there's a world outside of your own, limited scope. I never said it doesn't happen, just that it's exceptionally rare. The number of computers in use today that do not have either an optical drive or the capability of booting from a USB drive is small. Very small.
A computer or server with a problem is not going to behave as you would expect. So far we have only discussed virus removal. How about data recovery? Same thing.
OF COURSE we only discussed viruses. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE THREAD IS ABOUT! You keep making it out as thought it's about something it's not.
Again, why are you acting like this is only under the context of computer repair support?
Even if you are at the customers site, you cannot be sure they will have a CDRom or DVD Rom they can boot from, or a NIC in their PC or even the ability to boot from a USB stick. The fastest route is just grab the HDD, throw it in the tray and scan. But at this point it's triage anyways.
The number of scenarios where a computer both doesn't have an optical drive and can't boot from USB is exceptionally rare.
Sorry about being overly brash. The basic idea still applies, but I didn't need to go overboard.
The problem, however, is the discussion you butted in on was about whether "imaginary property" is something that should exist, not whether there are differences. You've completely missed my point. It's not that cars are physical, while IP isn't generally. It's that the very idea that you *OWN* a car is artificial, except when it's under your direct control.
If you physically possess something, that's reality. It's inherent to the laws of the universe, and not just the laws of man. But if you claim ownership over something that is *not* under your direct, physical control, that's imaginary. There's nothing inherent to the physical properties of the universe that makes this so, but the laws of man do. The reason someone can't legally supersede your ownership of a car that's wholly outside of your physical control is because of an imaginary idea that the car is still yours, even when you don't directly control it. This is done via property laws and instantiated in the form of a title (in the US).
No different then a boot disc. I PXE boot mine on a segmented part of the network and go to town.
So, removing a hard drive and connecting it to another computer is no different than a boot disc? Really? You see no difference?
The end result is almost the same (it's actually a mild bit better than using a boot disc, since it bypasses a possibly (but exceptionally unlikely) infected BIOS), but the procedure is quite a bit more involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn near every site has clauses like this, yet it doesn't happen. So, either it *can* happen, but doesn't. Or it can't happen.
Seriously, do you think Dropbox would survive as a service and a company, if they started selling their customers' personal files? Do you think they'd survive in court if they did this?
In other words, you have no example.
You'd think if there was some actual, concrete reason to fear this TOS, there'd be examples readily available.
Yes, the Apple Software Updater on Windows is a nagware mess. But you don't have to have it on your computer to have iTunes. Also, you can disable parts of it if you do want it around.
I can understand why that might be annoying, but I would hardly count Chrome among other installer crap-ware.
Any bundled software that the customer specifically doesn't want is crapware. Basically, anything beyond the OS, drivers, and requested software is open to being called "crapware" if it's hoist upon the user.
Chrome is by far the fastest browser I've ever used.
(aside: Safari on Lion is much faster than on Snow Leopard) Speed isn't the sole metric of a browser. You may be surprised to learn that there are people who do not like Chrome. And by that, I mean, they uninstall it after finding it on their system. To those people, Chrome is potentially "crapware".
The part where they take a hit to their balance sheet for offering the software at reduced price to PC makers.
Um, no. That's called offering ad bulk discount. It's MS who sets the price in the first place. And they don't "take a hit" to their balance sheet. Where did you get such a silly idea?
If they offered the software at below cost to the PC makers, would you then agree that they are "paying" them to install the software?
Of course not. The math is really simple: if you give someone money, you are paying them. Who is paying who? I'm pretty sure the PC maker is the one writing the check to MS. Google, on the other hand, writes a check to the PC maker.
This is all very straightforward.
What's so hard to understand? It's not the PC maker that's paying for Windows, it's the person buying the PC.
Who is the one writing the check to Microsoft?
But looking at it another way, in some sense Microsoft does 'pay' to get Windows installed by PC makers, because they offer OEM versions of Windows to them at a significantly reduced cost.
Notice how you had to put "pay" in quotes? That's because they aren't paying, the PC maker is.
But let's throw reason to the wind for a second and look at it from your deliberately odd point of view and think of it as though the customer is paying MS and Intel and ATI, etc., for their products. Even in this way, MS is the one getting money, not the other way around, unlike Google who pays to have their software bundled on new computers.
Has nothing to do with that. Simple disclaimers fix that. They are doing it to profit off what they don't own.
For example? And by 'example', I mean an example of something they are actually doing and not just something you think they could conceivably do.
These sorts of clauses are almost always about trying to legally protect the way the site/service works. Why would Dropbox think it could just take your shit and sell it (what you seem to think they are going to do here)?
Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.
Not quite. Leveraging a monopoly is generally consider abusing a monopoly. Fortunately for Google regarding the topic at hand, they don't have a monopoly. But if they did, then tying Chrome to their monopoly service would be highly likely to run afoul of antitrust laws.
No, the consumer pays to install Windows. The PC manufacturer gets a commission on that.
Now *that's* some tortured logic! The PC maker pays to get Windows on their PCs. Other software makers (like Norton) pay the PC makers to include their software. I don't know if Google pays to have Chrome bundled or not, but if they do, this is very different from how it works with Windows.
MS does (presumably) pay to have the Office trial bundled, not that this has any bearing on browsers. But at least it's logically sound.
Only company from the list that I worry about is Apple. They're really been left and right everyone about patent issues. Microsoft, not so much, unless some patent troll has attacked them first.
How is it that slashdot nerds are so ass-backwards about Apple? This all started when Android started gaining steam. You guys need to take a page from Jobs' playbook and stop acting like for Android to succeed, Apple has to lose. It's been leading you guys to believe completely stupid shit, like that Android has outsold iOS, that they want to control their users, or that Apple goes around suing people.
On your specific claim, Microsoft has been the one going around suing Android handset maker for infringing on their patents to gain royalties. It's been calculated that Microsoft now makes more money from Android sales than Windows Phone 7 sales.
To my knowledge, Apple has exactly *two* notable Android-related lawsuits. One is against Samsung for allegedly copying the look of iPhone and iPad. The other is against HTC for copying some of iOS's look and feel.
Whether you agree with hardware and software look and feel lawsuits, they are very consistent with Apple's position over the past 30+ years. Apple protects the uniqueness of their hardware and software. This Nortel patent consortium has absolutely nothing to do with that. Apple won't (and most likely can't, since this is a consortium), use these patents offensively. That's not in Apple's character. Apple's lawsuits are almost universally along the lines of, "This is ours. We came up with it, you didn't. This is what makes our products uniquely our products, and we won't let you take our hard work and use it in your products, or make things for our products that cause problems for our carefully designed user experience."
Agree with it or not, that's the way Apple operates, and is quite consistent. When you turn this into "oh no, Apple has patents, they're gonna sue all the things!" you are just making yourself look ignorant.
Apple is definitely not the patent troll you seem to think they are, and although neither is MS, they are not the angels you seem to think they are (NTFS and FAT lawsuits, for example, as well as the suits against Android handset makers).
What are you talking about? I didn't say CUPS isn't in OS X, I said AirPrint isn't enabled on OS X as a server like was planned (and like this story allows Ubuntu to do).
Zeroconf is just a discovery service - it's not a printing protocol.
That's exactly my point. In that specific section I was replying to, jtara was talking about zeroconf as though Apple were deliberately breaking/modding/extending/whatever the standard by identifying printers as specifically being AirPrint printers. I was explaining the reason.
The main reason this isn't in CUPS proper is that it's not even in CUPS on the Mac. This is presumed to be due to a lawsuit (or threat of lawsuit) from someone who holds a patent on network printing that caused Apple to pull AirPrint sharing on OS X at the last minute. There's a small workaround available, but Apple seems to think it's not a feature they can legally provide themselves.
Airprint, like so many Apple services, is a specific configuration of open-standard protocols, APIs, etc. that they've given a a proprietary name to, while trying to convince customers that they've created something unique and proprietary.
Um, no. They generally make a specific *point* of noting that they are using open standards. AirPrint uses two of Apple's own open projects: zeroconf and CUPS.
Other examples of Apple "proprietary" technology that isn't include FaceTime and iMessage.
Um... When Apple introduced FaceTime, they made a specific point about how it was built on open standards, and that they were going to fully release the specs soon. It's been over a year now and they still haven't made good on that last part.
As for iMessage, that's the only example of the bunch where Apple didn't make any mention of it being open. The reasonable explanation is that this uses many of the same technologies as FaceTime, and whatever reason they had for reversing course on FaceTime applies here.
They do throw in little gotchas like, for example, the additional fields they require in the service announcements for Airprint. You can bet that if an open standard has the capability of adding arbitrary data fields, Apple will use and require them.
And you can be sure that Apple doesn't do this to simply be incompatible. It's because they are doing things the way things are *SUPPOSED* to be done. If you extent a standard, you are supposed to use nonconflicting names and fields.
What do you expect them to do instead? AirPrint won't work with just any zerconf printer. It has to support the AirPrint driver.
Wow. There's hardly a single thing in this post that isn't 100%, no-questions-about-it, false.
...yet despite this never bothered to include CUPS in PhoneOS directly.
What do you think AirPrint uses? Do you mean that you think Apple should have, instead of making it absolutely *simple* to print to any AirPrint printer, exposed the user to a printer settings panel, and allowed installation of third party drivers, which can take up hundreds of megabytes, on iOS devices?
Really?
Instead you have to go through extra uneccessary contortions and proprietary nonsense.
There is absolutely nothing proprietary about AirPrint. And "extra unnecessary contortions" is the exact *opposite* of what they've done. AirPrint just works. It's basically as simple as can possibly be done.
This Ubuntu patch is for dealing with something that Apple does that is gratuitiously proprietary.
Only if by "gratuitously proprietary", you mean, "completely open".
What does this allow that simply connecting to wifi and printing to a networked printer on the same wifi network can't do?
Zeroconf and simplified drivers. This makes network printing about as effortless as is technologically possible.
How long before they receive some legal love from Apple^h^h^h^h^h Steve?
Why, exactly, do you think they will?
The very first post you replied to was included this statement:
This is why I cannot place any faith in any antivirus being used in the typical configuration - as part of a running Windows system. That just doesnt work.
This took a specific, and not terribly common, scenario and applied it too broadly.
I don't disagree whatsoever that extreme cases like this this story refers to warrant extreme measures. I also don't see anything terribly wrong with your methodology (which appears to be specific to IT-style customer interactions, but not necessarily to such severe infections). It maybe be a bit of overkill, but it's a system that I'm sure works just fine for you.
But the thing I *do* disagree with. The thing I kept asking you over and over again. The thing that the posts I've been replying to indicate. The thing that may be off topic, but wasn't me going off topic but those I was replying to (including you) veered off course with is: why are you acting like this is somehow the norm?
Antivirus software running on the host system works just *fine* most of the time. And when it doesn't, *most* infections are easily completely removed *by hand*. Yes, when things get severe, more severe actions are called for, but that doesn't detract from the benefit of going the normal route first and just jumping straight into full-nerd battle mode.
That's not the question. How many times do I have to say this?
Antivirus software isn't only run when you are fixing someone else's computer. You can't seem to grasp this very simple concept.
Every response of yours is in reference to only IT-type interactions. You fail to answer the question as to why you think that's the sole scope of the discussion. I don't know how I could make this any clearer, multiple times in a row now. Are you stupid, or just unwilling to read a post before you reply to it?
If you are in any IT support role you have a customer. Good service to your coworkers or clients is best served if you perform your service in that manner. It's not what you know or what you can do that keeps your job secure.
Do you even know how questions are supposed to work?
Again:
Why are you acting like this is ONLY under the context of computer repair support? Antivirus scans isn't something that only occurs at the help desk, in the repair shop, or on a visit to a client's computer. In fact, most scans happen outside of these contexts. So, why are you acting like the only scenario that applies here is that of a computer repair one?
The number of scenarios where a computer both doesn't have an optical drive and can't boot from USB is exceptionally rare.
I am beginning to think you haven't been around much in the IT world, as this is more common than you can possibly imagine.
And like the average nerd, you can't seem to believe there's a world outside of your own, limited scope. I never said it doesn't happen, just that it's exceptionally rare. The number of computers in use today that do not have either an optical drive or the capability of booting from a USB drive is small. Very small.
A computer or server with a problem is not going to behave as you would expect. So far we have only discussed virus removal. How about data recovery? Same thing.
OF COURSE we only discussed viruses. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE THREAD IS ABOUT! You keep making it out as thought it's about something it's not.
Uhm.. regardless of Microsoft, Apple is considered a quite aggressive litigious company.
Um.... You can't ignore Microsoft when the thing I'm replying to is a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
I never said that Apple doesn't file lawsuits. I was responding specifically to the comparison hairyfeet made between MS and Apple regarding lawsuits.
Again, why are you acting like this is only under the context of computer repair support?
Even if you are at the customers site, you cannot be sure they will have a CDRom or DVD Rom they can boot from, or a NIC in their PC or even the ability to boot from a USB stick. The fastest route is just grab the HDD, throw it in the tray and scan. But at this point it's triage anyways.
The number of scenarios where a computer both doesn't have an optical drive and can't boot from USB is exceptionally rare.
Sorry about being overly brash. The basic idea still applies, but I didn't need to go overboard.
The problem, however, is the discussion you butted in on was about whether "imaginary property" is something that should exist, not whether there are differences. You've completely missed my point. It's not that cars are physical, while IP isn't generally. It's that the very idea that you *OWN* a car is artificial, except when it's under your direct control.
If you physically possess something, that's reality. It's inherent to the laws of the universe, and not just the laws of man. But if you claim ownership over something that is *not* under your direct, physical control, that's imaginary. There's nothing inherent to the physical properties of the universe that makes this so, but the laws of man do. The reason someone can't legally supersede your ownership of a car that's wholly outside of your physical control is because of an imaginary idea that the car is still yours, even when you don't directly control it. This is done via property laws and instantiated in the form of a title (in the US).
No different then a boot disc. I PXE boot mine on a segmented part of the network and go to town.
So, removing a hard drive and connecting it to another computer is no different than a boot disc? Really? You see no difference?
The end result is almost the same (it's actually a mild bit better than using a boot disc, since it bypasses a possibly (but exceptionally unlikely) infected BIOS), but the procedure is quite a bit more involved.
You must have a curious definition of effort.
It's nothing to remove a drive for a machine that's already in for service.
Where did you get the idea anyone was talking about only doing this while your computer is in for service?