Flash has been taking on more and more functionality. It used to be a plugin for animations and some user interaction. Now it interacts with hardware that has definate possiblities of abuse. One has to be sure that Macromedia will completely honor the end users' options AND has implemented these controls in a secure manner. This seems unlikely considering the increased influence of the advertisers in technology and the complete lack of understanding of security issues by the vast majority of developers.
It also seems that Flash can also be used to track users, despite the popularity of controlling the usual method - cookies. I would be interested to see if it is possible to disable these methods in a simular manner as cookies can now be controlled. My guess is that it is not and that this is a key feature sold to developers of ad banners.
The situation brings to mind other applications that have an apparent functionality bundled with hidden functionality; Kazaa and Comet Cursor to name two.
"I have to turn my camera off for Flash! Invasion of privacy! Invasion of privacy! Cookies are evil! The sun is disappearing, the dragons are coming! The dragons are coming!"
I handle infosec issues professionaly. It is sometimes amazing how often users and IT professionals shrug off infosec issues as some kind of "black helicopter" theory. They simply underestimate the potential for abuse many technologies present.
Cookies are a great example. Double-click was the king of using ID-tracking cookies in online advertisements. People used to scoff at those who were concerned with this practice. After all, these cookies were anonymous! Double-click stated so. And they promised they would remain so. Then Double-click bought the largest mail order database in the United States. And they began a program that would link these anonymouse IDs (and all the collected browsing data associated with them) with real identities contained within their new database. This program was put on hold due to public backlash. Expect it to resurface once Double-click has managed to lobby the appropriate laws to ensure this behavior is legal.
They may not fit your definition... but the "dragons" ARE out there.
shame blizzard didn't do some research before turning the lawyers lose. even if they get an injunction against bnetd, they'll be shutting down the wrong group.
That was my first reaction too. But after giving it some additional thought, I have come up with a reason the Blizzard/Vivendi legal team might be acting with more insight than it appears to at first blush.
There are several theories as to why Blizzard is taking action now. Possible movement of battle.net to a subscription service. Blizzard's announced future offering of World of Warcraft, certainly to be a subscription service. And the new release Warcraft III which is supported by the bnetd fork called Warforge. And there's the key. Warforge is a fork. A spinoff. Further development of a project that has been an annoyance to Blizzard since 1998.
If Blizzard managed to kill Warforge, what is to stop another group from retracing those footsteps and modifying bnetd again? What about fans who decide they don't wish to continue paying a subscription to World of Warcraft and use bnetd as a basis for a new, freely available alternative? What if battle.net goes pay-to-play and private and public bnetd servers offer a much more attractive alternative?
The fact is that bnetd makes a very sensible target to head off all these possible forks. And once the legal groundwork is laid in killing bnetd, it would be trivial to send out cease-and-desist letters to those whose work is based on bnetd.
Sure. It will be almost impossible to wipe bnetd off the face of the net. But development is going to slow down considerably if bnetd source code is just as illegal as a warez copy of Warcraft III.
"Evil Empire" is derogatory but true? And, let's be honest -- ANY corporate strategy involves making as much money as possible.
Profit is the motive of many businesses, especially if they are publicly held. There are hundreds if not thousands of publicly held corporations in the United States. Yet with all this business and profit going on... Microsoft is one of the few corporations convicted of anti-trust violations.
Profit does not excuse any and all conduct. It does not override law. And it does not shield a company of moral judgement.
Danese seems like a pretty bright person, but damn does she ever go for corporatespeak.
I've always found this aspect of language interesting. Sure, we're all familiar with buzzword laden speech that use a lot of words to say nothing. However, there are some environments that develop their own language for more than buzzword effect. Often this odd dialect conveys additional meaning or understanding. Although that additional communication is lost to those who are not a part of that environment.
I'm guitly of this. When within a technical peer group, I talk tech. When within a corporate setting, I tend to speak corporate. And when I was in the military (which creates a unique social and professional environmen), my speech was heavily laden with acronyms, military jargon, and... errr... colorful terms. In fact, the military lifestyle is so removed from civilian life that I wasn't aware of how much it affected my speech until I went to visit family and friends. They would often gave me blank looks if I didn't think about what I was going to say (unless they had a military background of their own).
Yea. Danese hit us with a heavy dialect. But I would hazard a guess that she tends to address coporate people most often when talking about this subject. So I don't find it suprising she would automatically find herself using a corporate dialect.
It seems to me that if you have the resources to post on Slashdot, you probably have a disposible income that could handle a $5 (US) fee. Please go ahead and put that in an envelope and send it to me immediately. I won't be providing you with any goods or services that you can use. But hey - you can afford it. And its a bargain! I charge non-Slashdot posters $30. I don't see anything wrong with this, do you?
Of course you do. If you are going to pay for something, you would prefer that it was something you are actually going to use. In this case, Microsoft is requiring payment for goods and services that are not being used. In most environments, this is often referred to as "waste".
There is some anti-competative undertones to this action too. First, Microsoft manages to collect fees on competing platforms. Secondly, since you are already going to pay these fees... does it become cheaper to just use Microsoft products?
At first blush, that second point seems like fair competition. But its not. If I have the OPTION of an inexpensive product, THAT is competition. Instead, I am forced to buy the product whether I wish to use it or not. That leaves competing products with a potentially higher cost.
Of course, this is all standard fare for Microsoft. The only difference is that these issues are now coming under more and more public scrutiny.
Certainly students will need some familiarity with computers, maybe even some common apps, like word processing or spread sheets, but it seems to me that a book is still a book and a pen is still a pen, if you can't work with either of those, you'll be lucky to get a job pumping gas.
And if all you are familiar with is a book and a pen, then you may find that pumping gas is one of the few jobs still open to you. If you can find somewhere that has people that pump gas.
Sure... books, pencils, and pens are standard equipment for students as well as many professions. But then, so are computers. Familiarity with basic computing concepts and applications are becomming as important as other skills traditionally taught in schools.
BTW - as I write this, my daughter is borrowing my laptop to type out her grade school writing project.
Now.. I fully support the fact that the Internet is an anarchy, that each individual is free to decide how their network will or will not accept traffic from others, yada yada yada. On that I am firm.
Actually, I would characterize the Internet as more a "community" than "anarchy". It works via a network of relationships. It does have standards - but they are really more related to technical issues and ensuring the continued functionality of that community. The community is always open to new members. But if one member wishes to behave in a way that goes against the community's standards, they will find themselves eventually ostracized. And they have only themselves to blame.
But when it comes to an ISP.. we have a problem. An ISP that subscribes to this, sure, it's their choice, but it's awfully hard to explain to the client that they have to instruct their ISP to stop using this service. And the odds of the ISP stopping? Not likely.
The ISP shouldn't have to stop using this service. You're putting effort in the wrong direction. The direction to go is YOUR ISP. Government or not, your challenge is to collect some references and explain the situation. Get them to understand that their actions are effectively cutting themselves off from the Internet.
You are the one with the sociopath in your family and its your problem to deal with. Not the community's.
When you cut&paste a referenced article and try to pass it off as your own... aren't you supposed to include the WHOLE article? Granted, its a long post. I guess just doing the top paragraph (with a tiny modification) is a quick, easy bite to swallow and hook the suckers with mod points, eh?
Proof that "trolling" involves less bridges and more hook-line-and-sinker.
The problem as I see it is that these same points apply to the arguments organizations like the RIAA are making. Whats worse, they are using these questionable arguments to push for equally questionable laws that will require considerable time and effort as well as an expesive court process or an act of congress to repeal. If that ever happens.
Sure, these arguments are flawed. But the industry is acting now and forces those who wish to counteract their actions to also act. There is no time for truely accurate analysis (as screwy as that may be).
One final comment - the music industry is happy with the current status quo. They have spent the past handfull of decades developing the system that is their current business model. They also realize that they are being presented with a possible disruptive technology. And while it is possible that technology may present new opportunity some time in the future, it is the safer bet to limit the effectiveness of that technology now even at the risk of outright killing it. The worse that can happen is they'll be forced to deal with the current status quo.
...if you found an article that showed "sharing" hurt purchases, you guys would never post it, or at least accuese them of being RIAA lackeys.
Hello, Capt. Obvious.
Slashdot HAS, in fact, posted articles that mention just such a study (heck - THIS article mentions it even if it leaves out a link). And yes, they noted that the study was from the RIAA.
To be fair, this article admits that studies tend to favor the views of those who are paying for them.
You're a smart reader. Follow the links. Read the studies. Note who is paying for the study. Make up your own mind.
Ah, but in May 2001 the ReplayTV 4000 series didn't exist yet, and those are the devices that the magistrate wants to collect information from despite the fact that those devices have never had that capability.
Maybe I'm missing the point... but I don't see how this makes that much of a difference. With the earlier products, SonicBlue included firmware (I'm assuming its "firmware") that allowed them to collect data. They saw Tivo get burned over this practice and promptly stopped doing so themselves. Later product lines didn't include software/firmware to perform a function SonicBlue had deemed a PR risk and wouldn't use.
BUT.. they did continue to leave the clause in their EULA and had already proven that it was possible to do with earlier products.
Sure - its outlandish for a court to demand that they develop code to reimplement this invasion of privacy (rather than turn over any existing records from previous data collection). But at the same time, SonicBlue DID collect data in the past.
And now it's being used for obtrusive banner ads that even take up entire pages!
I've noticed more and more flash ads these days. Sometimes its obvious why - animations and interactive productions. But I've also seen very simple ads that would normaly be handled with either a still or animated GIF. So... why Flash?
With the various shenanigans marketing types seem compelled to do these days, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a more nefarious reason Flash is becoming popular.
With that in mind, how do YOU control Flash? I've been looking at junkbuster. I prefer to show banner ads where possible. But when an ad campaign uses technology I find offensive (tracking cookies, stupid java tricks, Flash) I will block it. Let the acceptable banners generate the stats.
The saddest part is, that lasts 1 hour 15 minutes whilst Sealab is only 15. What a crock.
Actually, I like Home Movies. And while Sealab 2021 is amusing, I couldn't see it managing to hold on a larger time slot. But then, humor is a very subjective thing. To each their own.
It's funny that some want government regulations (RIAA, MPAA to name a few) and others don't (MSFT) AND they're all wrong!
Actually, the RIAA (and likely MPAA) both want and don't want government regulations depending on the situation.
Hilary Rosen of the RIAA has received awards for her fight against censorship and Government intervention / control over what her member companies can sell. Obviously, this interferes with the revenue stream and can not be allowed.
At the same time, Rosen is a champion of new law and court intervention concerning content found on the Internet. If it circumvents the revenue stream then it can not be allowed.
Sure, its not shocking. But I still find it an interesting observation.
So far as I know, and I could be wrong, Replay has never collected such information.
From the article:
SonicBlue said it stopped collecting anonymous user data in May 2001, after a furor erupted over competitor TiVo's practice of secretly gathering information about its users' viewing habits.
I'm mixing two apt metaphors. "Starting down a slippery slope" and "sleeping in the bed they made."
SonicBlue (and Tivo) laid the foundation for this sort of action with their EULA and origional policy of collecting user data ("anonymous" or not). They removed this functionality when, suprise, there was a public backlash. But by then, the damage is done. They have demonstrated the ability for those who would abuse it.
Enter the entertainment industry. Sure, I'm dismayed that a court would force this kind of action. But I'm sad to say I'm not shocked - we've all seen this kind of attitude from the entertainment industry and the legal and political system that seems to favor it, and these kinds of tactics.
But let us not forget that it is the current PVR industry (SonicBlue AND Tivo) who have created the industry standard that allows invasion of consumer rights. It is their short-sightedness that gave the entertainment industry this option to push for in court.
They created the slippery slope and despite their attempts to get off of it, they will now be forced to continue their slide.
I'd like to be able to play a MMORPG without paying a dime for monthly service.
...
I mean, doesn't it seem stupid to buy a $50 game and be expected to pay another 10-15 bucks a month to continue to use it?
I would prefer to not pay for the client and foot the monthly bill to support continued development of the client, content, and server upkeep.
Free servers would fall back to an environment familiar MUD and Quake players - fan-supported infrastructure. Individuals either pay for, or find donated space and bandwidth to run their servers. Its worked well for Quake. You can STILL find QWTF servers (although the game has fewer and fewer players... which is still amazing considering its age).
Of course, there is a difference between Quake and a MUD. First, Quake does not involve developing characters so one server is pretty much as good as another. Secondly, Quake does not involve developing content - there are no campaigns in Quake. Although, there ARE a number of excellent free MUDs available and chock-full of origional code and content.
It is possible we'll see this happen soon. As Quake launched a series of very popular and successful mods, Neverwinter Nights may provide a platform for a new breed of fan-ran graphical MUDs.
Nah... Remedy phase designed to help Microsoft's competitors. Let's not sugar-coat the truth.
By definition, anything that hurts Microsoft will help their competitors. How does hurting Microsoft help the consumer?
The consumer is supposed to be served by a free market. A free market requires competitors. Yet, Microsoft has been rather skillfull in dismantling that free market - abusing their position to remove competition.
The remedy phase is designed to help consumers by restoring competition. Let's not obscure the truth with anti-market Microsoft cheering.
At first I thought "KDE is NOT an operating system". But then it dawned on me... in light of the current conversation... that's a pretty darned funny statement. Its either amazingly uninformed or a great grasp of the situation at hand.
i hope i'm wrong, but first charging for staroffice, and now the departure of the guy in charge of linux strategy... it doesn't sound very promising.
I agree with a "wait and see" attitude and not having blind trust. But I don't see these events as solid indications. Yet.
First, charging for StarOffice is mostly a non-issue. Sun supports OpenOffice and bases their StarOffice offering on it. Unless you need the business-directed (and other value-added tidbits) functionality of StarOffice, your free download is OpenOffice. And OO tends to be more on the cutting edge than SO anyway.
Secondly, its a bit early to tell what this departure means. Was it a personal? Was it internal company politics? Or is it signaling a major move in strategy in the area that this executive oversaw? That's the speculation right now. And as of yet, the public does not know.
It might not look good. But its still too early to tell. Keep watching.
A man has been imprisoned for writing software. Not killing, raping, or even dealing drugs. No, just writing software. What will it come to next? Will I be imprisoned for describing a virus in public where anyone could put my ideas to code? Will they be imprisoned for putting my ideas to code?
SOFTWARE IS FREE SPEECH!!!
I follow what you're saying here. And I generally agree. But in this case, the author is being imprisoned for not just writing code but using it.
This is a really important distinction. In most cases, potentially destructive tools are generally legal as long as they are not used for illegally destructive acts (your local laws my varry). Some examples include firearms, knives, hammers... and exploit code.
But, unless I am mistaken, Smith did not simply post the code on a site warning the world of the vulnerability he found. He released it. He used it. He put in motion the events that lead to infamy.
Because of this act, I can understand the conviction. Although, I don't find myself as thrilled as some here seem to be.
Virus writers seem to be, for the most part, an annoying messanger. A vandalistic Paul Revere. Damages accredited to these outbreaks seem to be mostly the man hours billed in detecting, stopping, and removing the malicious code. Yet these worms and virii ("viruses" my be correct, but its clumsy) could very well have done MUCH more damage if their writers were so inclined. Instead, they propogate and (again - for the most part) leave their host systems' valuable data intact.
Yea, its a pain in the butt to deal with these things. Especially when an outbreak blossoms within a client's or employer's environment. But the ugly truth is that these malicious agents take advantage of completely insecure environments organizations insist on using. And I have come to realize that many managers and IT reps will not pay attention to infosec issues unless they directly experience the consequences to these issues.
That's right. Virus writers are doing us a favor. Sofar. Its when an individual or organization with a much more malicious intent (damage, espionage, etc) begins to employ these methods that we should REALLY be worried.
Slashdot Mirror
Flash has been taking on more and more functionality. It used to be a plugin for animations and some user interaction. Now it interacts with hardware that has definate possiblities of abuse. One has to be sure that Macromedia will completely honor the end users' options AND has implemented these controls in a secure manner. This seems unlikely considering the increased influence of the advertisers in technology and the complete lack of understanding of security issues by the vast majority of developers.
It also seems that Flash can also be used to track users, despite the popularity of controlling the usual method - cookies. I would be interested to see if it is possible to disable these methods in a simular manner as cookies can now be controlled. My guess is that it is not and that this is a key feature sold to developers of ad banners.
The situation brings to mind other applications that have an apparent functionality bundled with hidden functionality; Kazaa and Comet Cursor to name two.
I handle infosec issues professionaly. It is sometimes amazing how often users and IT professionals shrug off infosec issues as some kind of "black helicopter" theory. They simply underestimate the potential for abuse many technologies present.
Cookies are a great example. Double-click was the king of using ID-tracking cookies in online advertisements. People used to scoff at those who were concerned with this practice. After all, these cookies were anonymous! Double-click stated so. And they promised they would remain so. Then Double-click bought the largest mail order database in the United States. And they began a program that would link these anonymouse IDs (and all the collected browsing data associated with them) with real identities contained within their new database. This program was put on hold due to public backlash. Expect it to resurface once Double-click has managed to lobby the appropriate laws to ensure this behavior is legal.
They may not fit your definition... but the "dragons" ARE out there.
All the functionality of Back Orifice, now with animations!
[1]
[2]
That was my first reaction too. But after giving it some additional thought, I have come up with a reason the Blizzard/Vivendi legal team might be acting with more insight than it appears to at first blush.
There are several theories as to why Blizzard is taking action now. Possible movement of battle.net to a subscription service. Blizzard's announced future offering of World of Warcraft, certainly to be a subscription service. And the new release Warcraft III which is supported by the bnetd fork called Warforge. And there's the key. Warforge is a fork. A spinoff. Further development of a project that has been an annoyance to Blizzard since 1998.
If Blizzard managed to kill Warforge, what is to stop another group from retracing those footsteps and modifying bnetd again? What about fans who decide they don't wish to continue paying a subscription to World of Warcraft and use bnetd as a basis for a new, freely available alternative? What if battle.net goes pay-to-play and private and public bnetd servers offer a much more attractive alternative?
The fact is that bnetd makes a very sensible target to head off all these possible forks. And once the legal groundwork is laid in killing bnetd, it would be trivial to send out cease-and-desist letters to those whose work is based on bnetd.
Sure. It will be almost impossible to wipe bnetd off the face of the net. But development is going to slow down considerably if bnetd source code is just as illegal as a warez copy of Warcraft III.
Profit is the motive of many businesses, especially if they are publicly held. There are hundreds if not thousands of publicly held corporations in the United States. Yet with all this business and profit going on... Microsoft is one of the few corporations convicted of anti-trust violations.
Profit does not excuse any and all conduct. It does not override law. And it does not shield a company of moral judgement.
I've always found this aspect of language interesting. Sure, we're all familiar with buzzword laden speech that use a lot of words to say nothing. However, there are some environments that develop their own language for more than buzzword effect. Often this odd dialect conveys additional meaning or understanding. Although that additional communication is lost to those who are not a part of that environment.
I'm guitly of this. When within a technical peer group, I talk tech. When within a corporate setting, I tend to speak corporate. And when I was in the military (which creates a unique social and professional environmen), my speech was heavily laden with acronyms, military jargon, and... errr... colorful terms. In fact, the military lifestyle is so removed from civilian life that I wasn't aware of how much it affected my speech until I went to visit family and friends. They would often gave me blank looks if I didn't think about what I was going to say (unless they had a military background of their own).
Yea. Danese hit us with a heavy dialect. But I would hazard a guess that she tends to address coporate people most often when talking about this subject. So I don't find it suprising she would automatically find herself using a corporate dialect.
And I still find that facinating.
Of course you do. If you are going to pay for something, you would prefer that it was something you are actually going to use. In this case, Microsoft is requiring payment for goods and services that are not being used. In most environments, this is often referred to as "waste".
There is some anti-competative undertones to this action too. First, Microsoft manages to collect fees on competing platforms. Secondly, since you are already going to pay these fees... does it become cheaper to just use Microsoft products?
At first blush, that second point seems like fair competition. But its not. If I have the OPTION of an inexpensive product, THAT is competition. Instead, I am forced to buy the product whether I wish to use it or not. That leaves competing products with a potentially higher cost.
Of course, this is all standard fare for Microsoft. The only difference is that these issues are now coming under more and more public scrutiny.
And if all you are familiar with is a book and a pen, then you may find that pumping gas is one of the few jobs still open to you. If you can find somewhere that has people that pump gas.
Sure... books, pencils, and pens are standard equipment for students as well as many professions. But then, so are computers. Familiarity with basic computing concepts and applications are becomming as important as other skills traditionally taught in schools.
BTW - as I write this, my daughter is borrowing my laptop to type out her grade school writing project.
Actually, I would characterize the Internet as more a "community" than "anarchy". It works via a network of relationships. It does have standards - but they are really more related to technical issues and ensuring the continued functionality of that community. The community is always open to new members. But if one member wishes to behave in a way that goes against the community's standards, they will find themselves eventually ostracized. And they have only themselves to blame.
The ISP shouldn't have to stop using this service. You're putting effort in the wrong direction. The direction to go is YOUR ISP. Government or not, your challenge is to collect some references and explain the situation. Get them to understand that their actions are effectively cutting themselves off from the Internet.
You are the one with the sociopath in your family and its your problem to deal with. Not the community's.
Proof that "trolling" involves less bridges and more hook-line-and-sinker.
The problem as I see it is that these same points apply to the arguments organizations like the RIAA are making. Whats worse, they are using these questionable arguments to push for equally questionable laws that will require considerable time and effort as well as an expesive court process or an act of congress to repeal. If that ever happens.
Sure, these arguments are flawed. But the industry is acting now and forces those who wish to counteract their actions to also act. There is no time for truely accurate analysis (as screwy as that may be).
One final comment - the music industry is happy with the current status quo. They have spent the past handfull of decades developing the system that is their current business model. They also realize that they are being presented with a possible disruptive technology. And while it is possible that technology may present new opportunity some time in the future, it is the safer bet to limit the effectiveness of that technology now even at the risk of outright killing it. The worse that can happen is they'll be forced to deal with the current status quo.
Hello, Capt. Obvious.
Slashdot HAS, in fact, posted articles that mention just such a study (heck - THIS article mentions it even if it leaves out a link). And yes, they noted that the study was from the RIAA.
To be fair, this article admits that studies tend to favor the views of those who are paying for them.
You're a smart reader. Follow the links. Read the studies. Note who is paying for the study. Make up your own mind.
Maybe I'm missing the point... but I don't see how this makes that much of a difference. With the earlier products, SonicBlue included firmware (I'm assuming its "firmware") that allowed them to collect data. They saw Tivo get burned over this practice and promptly stopped doing so themselves. Later product lines didn't include software/firmware to perform a function SonicBlue had deemed a PR risk and wouldn't use.
BUT.. they did continue to leave the clause in their EULA and had already proven that it was possible to do with earlier products.
Sure - its outlandish for a court to demand that they develop code to reimplement this invasion of privacy (rather than turn over any existing records from previous data collection). But at the same time, SonicBlue DID collect data in the past.
I've noticed more and more flash ads these days. Sometimes its obvious why - animations and interactive productions. But I've also seen very simple ads that would normaly be handled with either a still or animated GIF. So... why Flash?
With the various shenanigans marketing types seem compelled to do these days, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a more nefarious reason Flash is becoming popular.
With that in mind, how do YOU control Flash? I've been looking at junkbuster. I prefer to show banner ads where possible. But when an ad campaign uses technology I find offensive (tracking cookies, stupid java tricks, Flash) I will block it. Let the acceptable banners generate the stats.
Actually, I like Home Movies. And while Sealab 2021 is amusing, I couldn't see it managing to hold on a larger time slot. But then, humor is a very subjective thing. To each their own.
Actually, the RIAA (and likely MPAA) both want and don't want government regulations depending on the situation.
Hilary Rosen of the RIAA has received awards for her fight against censorship and Government intervention / control over what her member companies can sell. Obviously, this interferes with the revenue stream and can not be allowed.
At the same time, Rosen is a champion of new law and court intervention concerning content found on the Internet. If it circumvents the revenue stream then it can not be allowed.
Sure, its not shocking. But I still find it an interesting observation.
From the article:
SonicBlue (and Tivo) laid the foundation for this sort of action with their EULA and origional policy of collecting user data ("anonymous" or not). They removed this functionality when, suprise, there was a public backlash. But by then, the damage is done. They have demonstrated the ability for those who would abuse it.
Enter the entertainment industry. Sure, I'm dismayed that a court would force this kind of action. But I'm sad to say I'm not shocked - we've all seen this kind of attitude from the entertainment industry and the legal and political system that seems to favor it, and these kinds of tactics.
But let us not forget that it is the current PVR industry (SonicBlue AND Tivo) who have created the industry standard that allows invasion of consumer rights. It is their short-sightedness that gave the entertainment industry this option to push for in court.
They created the slippery slope and despite their attempts to get off of it, they will now be forced to continue their slide.
I would prefer to not pay for the client and foot the monthly bill to support continued development of the client, content, and server upkeep.
Free servers would fall back to an environment familiar MUD and Quake players - fan-supported infrastructure. Individuals either pay for, or find donated space and bandwidth to run their servers. Its worked well for Quake. You can STILL find QWTF servers (although the game has fewer and fewer players... which is still amazing considering its age).
Of course, there is a difference between Quake and a MUD. First, Quake does not involve developing characters so one server is pretty much as good as another. Secondly, Quake does not involve developing content - there are no campaigns in Quake. Although, there ARE a number of excellent free MUDs available and chock-full of origional code and content.
It is possible we'll see this happen soon. As Quake launched a series of very popular and successful mods, Neverwinter Nights may provide a platform for a new breed of fan-ran graphical MUDs.
Yea. I've seen that joke before.
By definition, anything that hurts Microsoft will help their competitors. How does hurting Microsoft help the consumer?
The consumer is supposed to be served by a free market. A free market requires competitors. Yet, Microsoft has been rather skillfull in dismantling that free market - abusing their position to remove competition.
The remedy phase is designed to help consumers by restoring competition. Let's not obscure the truth with anti-market Microsoft cheering.
Certainly. It was an anonymous responce to your post. But its still amusing. KDE is not an OS, but then IE isn't either.
At first I thought "KDE is NOT an operating system". But then it dawned on me... in light of the current conversation... that's a pretty darned funny statement. Its either amazingly uninformed or a great grasp of the situation at hand.
I agree with a "wait and see" attitude and not having blind trust. But I don't see these events as solid indications. Yet.
First, charging for StarOffice is mostly a non-issue. Sun supports OpenOffice and bases their StarOffice offering on it. Unless you need the business-directed (and other value-added tidbits) functionality of StarOffice, your free download is OpenOffice. And OO tends to be more on the cutting edge than SO anyway.
Secondly, its a bit early to tell what this departure means. Was it a personal? Was it internal company politics? Or is it signaling a major move in strategy in the area that this executive oversaw? That's the speculation right now. And as of yet, the public does not know.
It might not look good. But its still too early to tell. Keep watching.
There ya go. You've done gone hurt my feelings with your anonymous barb and command of the English language. Sniff.
I follow what you're saying here. And I generally agree. But in this case, the author is being imprisoned for not just writing code but using it.
This is a really important distinction. In most cases, potentially destructive tools are generally legal as long as they are not used for illegally destructive acts (your local laws my varry). Some examples include firearms, knives, hammers... and exploit code.
But, unless I am mistaken, Smith did not simply post the code on a site warning the world of the vulnerability he found. He released it. He used it. He put in motion the events that lead to infamy.
Because of this act, I can understand the conviction. Although, I don't find myself as thrilled as some here seem to be.
Virus writers seem to be, for the most part, an annoying messanger. A vandalistic Paul Revere. Damages accredited to these outbreaks seem to be mostly the man hours billed in detecting, stopping, and removing the malicious code. Yet these worms and virii ("viruses" my be correct, but its clumsy) could very well have done MUCH more damage if their writers were so inclined. Instead, they propogate and (again - for the most part) leave their host systems' valuable data intact.
Yea, its a pain in the butt to deal with these things. Especially when an outbreak blossoms within a client's or employer's environment. But the ugly truth is that these malicious agents take advantage of completely insecure environments organizations insist on using. And I have come to realize that many managers and IT reps will not pay attention to infosec issues unless they directly experience the consequences to these issues.
That's right. Virus writers are doing us a favor. Sofar. Its when an individual or organization with a much more malicious intent (damage, espionage, etc) begins to employ these methods that we should REALLY be worried.