As much as I dislike it, the owners of the copy write do control the distribution of their intellectual property.
Actually, no. They do not. Copyright holders can not control distribution of their content. But they can control production, or copying of their content... to an extent. Even that is limited by fair use.
One can quickly find references to this from other IP industries. Specifically, book publishing and music publishing. Both have complained bitterly over the practice of second-hand resellers of books and CDs. Revenue is generated on the first sale of these products. However, the publisher (and author/artist) does not receive additional revenue on further sales. Even when these sales compete directly with sales of items still in print / production.
But as much as the industry and copyright holders dislike this situation - there is nothing they can do about it. It is legal. They do not have control over distribution of these copyrighted works. And second-hand / used sales continue.
In comparison, these industries are constantly bringing down businesses who produce these works illegally (ie: "pirated" products).
Its rather interesting. I, myself, very very rarely see any incoming virus-laden email. And I tend not to worry about it too much since all my email handling tends to happen on a Linux workstation. Anything that IS infected is usually immediately apparent.
Having said that, I know the problem is common for others. I have worked as an admin/infosec type for a large US Government agency installation and seen email virii (yes, I know its "viruses", but that word is so... ungainly) cause a lot of trouble. And I have seen the same issues hit a major tech company I worked for too. Sure, these organizations are able to control the damage. But there is an initial reaction period that is uncomfortable and a long period where the infected traffic continues to hit the organization (albeit ineffectively).
But this traffic does not just hit large organizations. I have a small business client who seems to be a magnet for MS email virii and trojans. I suspect it has to do with his clientel who in turn tend to be less computer literate and therefore excellent virus vectors with his email addresses / site URLs waiting in their mail boxes and web cache.
Oh! AND The Screen Savers often have guests on for various things. These guests sometimes include names well known to the Open Source crowd (Linus and Illiad are two that come to mind).
TechTV is owned by Vulcan Inc., the Bellevue, Washington-based investment organization of Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen.
Paul Allen seems to have a rather wide interest in technology (and business). This dated article from 1997 may or may not be too accurate now (it mentions him being the 2nd largest holder of Microsoft stock - its often quoted he has a 9% share, so I'm not sure how that works out). But the article does provide an idea of how diversified Allen's interests are.
Hmmm... is TechTV objective? Do they also have Apple and Open Source programming?
It depends on the show and the staff. Chris Pirillo of Lockergnome fame hosts the TechTV show Call for Help and seems very pro-Microsoft/Windows. Though to be fair, I don't watch his show.
The Screen Savers also feature a lot of Microsoft bits. But they throw a lot of other bits in there too. They did a week of shows mostly dedicated to Linux. They do "alteratips" which are tips for mostly MacOS X and Linux (although, like the Windows tips, they're pretty light-weight). They do on-air help calls for Linux and Mac issues on occasion. The show hosts occasionally grumble about Microsoft and its faults (technical and political/marketing). Tux appears in the background often. OSX's strengths are lauded. Linux is often portrayed as an OS people already enjoy, and the viewer might like to try out too. And for their daily tech news, they often quote articles from Slashdot.
Of course, that's not to say all of TechTV is as enlightned. Sometimes TechTV Live and Cyber Crime have articles with viewpoints and/or quotes that make me cringe.
In all, Paul Allen seems to have a fairly wide focus despite his involvement in Microsoft. And TechTV seems to harbor an environment that allows a reflection of a wide degree of the IT industry.
Therefore, if you get a majority of your "tech news" from Slashdot, you're going to most likely (but not always) going to develop an anti-Microsoft attitude. Because, quite frankly, the majority of the Microsoft/Bill Gates/Windows articles on Slashdot either paint their activities in a bad light, are worded to sound bad, or receive so many anti-MS comments that it doesn't matter what they're doing.
Slashdot caters to (generally) an anti-Microsoft attitude. Which is good. That's one of the reasons I like the site. Unabashidly pro-Microsoft "news" seems to frequent many other news outlets. Of course, its good to pay attention to these sources too.
From the above quote, one might assume I developed my dislike for Microsoft by frequenting Slashdot. Hardly. I used to be very firmly in the Microsoft camp. And had I not been introduced to Linux (and Unix) as I was tiring of Microsoft's antics, I may have scoffed at it just as I scoffed at all those MacOS zealots.
Now days I really enjoy using Unix and Linux. I relize why all those Mac guys used to Fight the Good Fight (even if I've not shared their love for MacOS). And I'm comfortable dealing with Microsoft's technology where it works. Of course - I despise Microsoft's marketing.
Slashdot does a generally good job at reflecting that distrust of Microsoft. Even if the occasional post goes a bit over the top.
Radsoft actively chose to bundle in a piece of spyware, the kind which Ad-Aware's sole purpose is to destroy. So how are the two unrelated? This has less to do with functionality and more to do with the politics of software distribution.
I suppose the issue is what one considers "related". The quote from the Lavasoft developer referring to whether one package should remove "unrelated" software is likely to be a technical reference. And technically, Ad-Aware and Radsoft's offering ARE unrelated. But you are very correct in the link politically.
But that's a problem. Just because one has a political dislike for a piece of sotfware, it does not mean one should use one's software as a platform to remove the offending application. We don't have Mozilla removing Internet Explorer (whether that be possible or not)... just to pick an example out of thin air.
One other comment - sure, Radsoft chose to bundle a piece of spyware with their application. But that bundling and installation is often hidden from the user. Even worse, removal of that software is often difficult. Yet the system still belongs to the user. Ad-Aware gives the user the ability to identify and remove undesired software despite spyware's attempt to resist identification and removal.
If Radsoft wishes to ensure all software bundled with their package remains installed, then they should take steps to check that said software has not been removed. Even better yet, perhapse they should level with their users and alert them as to what is being installed and why. They certainly shouldn't be removing software that has not been included with their package.
Ad-Aware may be successful as an unprofitable entity but so far their business model is not one that any sane businessman would follow.
...
So I'm particularly aware of the fact that this guy's advice is completely worthless to anyone who wants to make a living off of their open source software (would you prefer I just not open source it?) and I was a bit offended by the fact that he stated his worthless advice in a somewhat arrogant fashion.
I completely disagree. Jasc Software is a great example of a company who started small with Paintshop. It was a great software package (often called a "poor man's Photoshop") with a strong following. Photoshop was offered as uncrippled shareware without any spy-ware. And even as its author estimated registration as low as 1 in 5 downloads, it soon grew and took over the author's professional life. And as any Quake player knows, id Software has a simular story. And an even more rabid fan base (Remarkably, Quake is still played today).
To be sure, these success stories are dwarfed by the number of shareware and commercial operations who fail in the software business. But then, that's business. Most fail in any industry. Its a tough game.
If a small software developer hopes to survive it, they must have a community. It might be within an Open Source community. It might be created from fans of their commercial offerings. But there must be a support base somewhere.
Lavasoft and Ad-Aware have proven one lesson to any developers willing to pay attention. End users do not like the current methods used by spy-ware. As education spreads, more and more users will take efforts to disable this software. And that is a dire message to anyone who's business model depends on it.
RESPONSE: You may have installed a program that "removes spyware" that has removed that program element. Programs like that are designed to remove advertising software from your computer. You're welcome to do that, but if you don't want to see ads, the free version of [Product] is not for you. You should try [Pay Version of Product] or some other product that is not ad sponsored.
USER: But I don't understand! The program said it would get rid of evil viruses and bad programs! It didn't say it would remove parts of the programs I use. Why doesn't it say your programs might not work any more?
The confused user is your problem. Ad-Aware is, in fact, doing exactly what it advertises: removing spyware. Your application does more than it advertises - it installs spyware that the user is apparently unaware of. How do we know this? Because they actively removed components they had no idea was on their system much less that they were installed by your product.
And please. Who really reads the EULA? You KNOW the end user is not going to read it no matter how plainly you write it and how much verbage you use to explain "ad supported" software.
So how do you educate your user? Make it an active part of the installation process.
The user downloads the WidgetMeister app to view their favorite widgets. During the install of the app, it notifies the user that WidgetMeister is ad supported software and is sponsored by several software packages. List the packages. Explain their use. Give the user a chance to not install specific components, or abort completely.
Of course - I suspect that this would also effectively cut deeply in to WidgetMeister's user base as many users will decide not to use it. And that's the crux of the problem.
This is not about ad-suported software. It is not about confused users. It is about the subterfuge of the spy-ware industry and the battle for control between end users and developers for the user's system.
But how is it an unrelated product? Ad-Aware goes out and specifically prevents programs like those put out by Radsoft from working properly. While I agree it isn't right that Ad-Aware is removed from the user's program without due warning, it is far from unrelated.
Its pretty simple. Radsoft's package can function perfectly well with Ad-Aware also installed. They have nothing directly to do with each other.
Granted, the politics and business of the two clash. I could understand that Radsoft feels threatned by Ad-aware. And it wouldn't be suprising if they took measures to protect their revenue. However, I would expect them to take steps to ensure all installed components remain installed for their application to function.
Of course, Radsoft has done a great job at displaying their attitude towards their users. Not only does their revenue apparently depend on the questionable (and apparently unappreciated by users) practice of spy-ware, but they take the same attitude to underhandedly remove software with which they have a political axe to grind.
One final point. Ad-Aware is considerably different in intent and attitude than any of the software it targets. First, the Ad-Aware user actively selects what components (including applications, libraries, registry entries, and cookies) to remove. Secondly, it is widely supported as it provides even fairly non-technical users the ability to discover hidden software installed on their systems and remove it despite the great lengths that software goes to hide and resist being removed.
If Radsoft and their clients, as well as the apparently growing number of like-minded business and applications developers, dislike the power provided by Ad-Aware then they should seriously re-examine their business plan. There is considerable resistance towards their methods. And simply attempting to remove Ad-Aware does little more than reveal their contempt for their user base.
I was going to entitle this reply "Microsoft is in trouble". But that would have been inflamitory. It is simply not true. But it would be if they continued to look at the market like it has remained the same in the last 5 or 10 years.
The desktop OS (and possibly desktop computer) as we know it is doomed. Or very likely to be doomed. If the desktop computer remains roughly the same as it is today, it is likely to be overran by commodity operating systems (just as the hardware became largely a commodity market). But more likely the desktop computer will change in drastic ways sometime in the future (leaving techheads like us with a niche market of commodity hardware and software).
One way or another, Microsoft's current market will change. To maintain their business, Microsoft must also change. The trouble is, technology rarely broadcasts the next Big Thing. So that leaves Microsoft and every other tech pundit guessing.
But any good pundit knows how to play the odds. The strategy is to figure out what the possibilities are and cover those bases. Hedge the bets. If you can afford it.
Microsoft acts on the their guesses for future markets. Set-top boxes. PVRs. Web-based services. PDAs. Webpads. And in the Xbox... a game console (with considerably more potential than just console gaming).
If these initiatives do not provide great return, or actually loose in the market place... well, that is a luxury Microsoft can afford. They must not allow the next industry boom abandon them to being a footnote in IT industry history. They are hedging their bets.
The closest MMORPG to a MUD will always be Everquest. The entire design spec for EQ was around DikuMUD.
I have to disagree. What was UO? A graphical MUD. Granted, it didn't have the same feel as DikuMUD. But then, I don't believe the definition of a MUD is limited to previous MUD implementations.
Having said that... true, NWN night servers will be limited in the number of players they can handle. But they can be linked. Imagine a network of servers ran by admins who keep tabs with each other to ensure continuity, but manage their own environments. Imagine 12 provinces of a sprawling city. Or perhapse several wilderness servers that link to various servers that are dedicated to a single city each. I'm sure there are plenty of other scenarios to be done.
Given enough inginuity (and assuming the tools provided are stable enough), end users will generate MUD/MMORPG environments.
So I wonder why they are so keen on providing multiplayer abilities for NeverWinterNights.
For me, the multiplayer aspect is THE reason to get this game (assuming it delivers on its promises). Just some of the cool features include DM mode (and the ability to have multiple DMs), a powerfull background scripting language for everyting from NPC interaction to game events (ie: a secret passage that only opens on the full moon if you're an elf), the ability to link servers with portals, etc.
Neverwinter Nights has the potential of being a MMORPG construction kit.
With the various unsavory business and political practices of both EA and Verant/Sony Interactive, its nice to see a possible return to the roots of the MUD culture - servers ran by fans for fans. With graphics.
Granted - this has yet to happen. It will depend on whether NWN delivers. And it will depend on whether campaign developers will put forth the effort to create and run these servers (a bit more complex than a Quake server - but then again, so are a lot of MUDs). Time will tell.
I found Baldur's Gate II fun, challenging, rich in content, and overall engrossing. I was a little nervous about the tutorial, but once I got past that and in to the game itself, I had no problems at all with the interface. The engine rocks. And the content is great (from its odd sense of humor, plot twists, and series of subplots).
Diablo II is kinda fun. Lots of hack-n-slash. And while I enjoyed building up a character's skills and equipment... it eventually got boring. Sure, its fun for a spur-of-the-moment hackfest (kinda like a quick pickup game of QuakeTF). But it lacks the staying power and depth of BGII.
And no, the "pause-order-pause" crap doesn't cut it as turn-based.
I have to disagree. I find the pause feature a nice way to jump between real-time and turn-based systems. Having said that, you can turn the game in to an almost total turn-based system by having it automatically pause on all events (I tend to have it pause on specific events like discovery of a trap).
7 days of pong. Just enough time to build up an audience of people who are used to switching over from Teletubbies as they get baked in front of their TV. Then switch the programing. Hopefully the inertia built up from pure habit will maintain the audience.
People still need and want one place to go, I don't want....who's your linux vendor, what is your office app.
Yes. And the question should not be "what software" but rather "what format". It would bee good to have an answer such as ODF2 (Open Document Format v2.0) or some such. As it is, we really don't have that. There's some kind-of-but-not-really formats like PDF, RTF, and HTML.
Damn people lets be honest here while MS may not have been technically inovated but they have executed much better than the open source communicty and in the end have a better product. ITS NOT CAUSE MS MAKES YOU.
No. Not at all. When I am working with clients, collaberating on an article, or submitting a resume, the most common requested format is MS Word. The last time one of my employers was looking at upgrading their site license for MS Word, it was to keep compatability with the latest release NOT because the new offering included features they wanted / needed.
It becomes a vicious cycle. One must have MS Word to be compatible with others. Others use MS Word because that is what they are given. Others request MS Word because that is what they are familiar with. To mix a methephor - when all you have is MS Office, everything looks like a nail.
Yea - MS Office is a competative product - its just too bad it doesn't gain its market share on its own technical merrits. Instead, the common factor is usually data format compatability.
I am a UNIX admin by trade of over 10 years and I don't see anytime in the next 5 years me putting UNIX on my desktop. It just don't make sense.
Good for you. For me - I've been using Linux as my primary desktop for the past 3 or 4 years. I also use Solaris and Win2k to satisfy various other needs. To each their own.
Lets not forget about the 1000's of company's that feed off the one standard that MS puts forth be it open or not. In the end MS creates more jobs and linux ever will. Plain and simple.
Developers will move to new technologies as the market and their environment dictates. Its not like they haven't done it before (.NET being the newest big MS push). And if they see a market in Linux, they will fill that gap (as many have already done so - though mostly server-related solutions).
Sure, MS does a lot to attract developers to their platform. And its a no-brainer for developers (on pure market share alone). But if MS were to close shop tommorow, developers would scramble to whatever filled the market void.
Its about jobs and money stupid not computing.
Any business who does not realize the value of these concerns to their own operations does so at their own risk.
To bring this whole thread back to the topic at hand - an open data format is important. It ensures that a company's data is not locked in to a proprietary format that may become difficult to recover at a later date. Furthermore, by using an open standard, a company can more focus on a product's feature set (and adherance to that standard) rather than regularly renuing their license just to maintain compatability with business documents from business associates.
Granted - that open standard needs to happen.
Open Source offerings are not always the right tool. But the issues that often surround those projects have considerable value to all users - even Corporate users. It is more than a "I hate MS routine".
It IS about computing. Because computing issues mean money. And jobs.
Sure. But not for everyone. Thus, I still see this claim as a copout.
"Hey! Luke has a green lightsabre! So does Qui Gon! Does that mean that blue lightsabres are for good, red for evil, and green for those who are in between?"
Oh yea. Talk about a fauxpas at the Jedi training academy.
"Say. Phil. I see you finally got that lightsaber kit finnished. Fire that puppy up and let's check it out!"
You were probably ten, or five, or three when you first saw Star Wars. You were a lot easier on the inconsistencies and absurdities at that age than you are now. The Phantom Menace most definitely wasn't a film classic, but neither were the original three.
This is an often-touted theory to explain the backlash over EP1. Even Lucas himself has mentioned it in interviews. The concept is that the first 3 films gained a rabid fan base when those fans were younger, less sophisticated, less critical, and are now prone to fits of nostalgia.
I don't buy it.
I enjoy Star Wars, but I am no fanboi. I don't even own copies of the Star Wars movies. But I have occasionally rented the origional trillogy or kicked back for a day of TV when a Star Wars "marathon" kicks in. And even though I do note aspects of the films that I didn't when I was young, I still enjoy them. Yet I was disappointed in EP1 and noted that it somehow lacked the soul of the first three flicks.
Is it nostalgia? Hardly. I've also watched other things that I found great in my childhood that I now cringe at (though still watch occasionally for nostalgia's sake): The A-Team, Buck Rogers, Hogan's Heros, Dukes of Hazard, etc.
Yea. I'm susceptible to nostalgia. But I also recognize it. And the disparity in the older and newer Star Wars flicks has nothing to do with it.
However, I do sign every message I send -- and this is, in my opinion, a worthwhile activity even if 99 out of 100 times that signature isn't checked. The reason is simply this: If someone forges a message in my name, and it doesn't bear my signature, I'll be able to deny it with a great deal of credibility -- even if the headers are such that it appears to be coming from my ISP, &c.
Actually, I don't sign everything I send just for the same reason.
Most of my email correspondence is of a conversational nature. But it is a conversation in written form. Thus, there is more than ample opportunity for one's words to come back to haunt one - off-hand jokes, out-of-context comments, temporary stupidity, etc. Because of this, email presents a possible risk.
Because of the insecure nature of email, there is a certain degree of deniability to it. However, even this slim margin is lost when one signs the potentially offensive email.
I do include my PGP ID and fingerprint in my signature. And I sign anything official or requiring protection from forgery. Though I have to admit, it is not as much a conversation starter as a PGP signature text added on a regular basis.
The real bomb is going to be dropped on all you zealots in about 1 year. You keep saying "If MS made a decent product, then it'd be ok." Well,:) let's just say they're going to release something that'll take you unshowered hippie geeks the next 10 years of basement time to duplicate.
You haven't been paying close attention to the complaints. It is not a matter of how good Microsoft's technology is. The crux of the complaint is how they market it and the illegal steps they take to force their technology in to the industry.
The quality of Microsoft products is a non-issue in this case. Just as evidence has shown it has been largely a non-issue in the marketplace too. And THAT is why the court case exists.
The problem is that although email may be a much less secure method of transfer than other commonly accepted means, the generally accepted methods are almost as insecure.
A very valid point. But I can't help but think that sending credit card information unencrypted would be like standing out on a street, hailing down someone heading in the direction of McDonald's, handing them your card, and asking them if on their way they wouldn't mind picking up a couple burgers and drop them off on their way back.
I disliked the Lone Gunmen spinoff show. It had taken oddball characters who, while not always full of wisdom, constantly had the answers and the geek knowledge to solve some mystery or save the day. And it turned them in to bungling idiots overly obsessed with conspiracy theories and technology who seem to always need some "normal" character to get anything actually accomplished.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed seeing the trio fumble occasionally. Or trip when confronted with situations that are out of their depth (such as a social setting). And when the show displayed a tounge-in-cheek view of geek culture. But even when these elements came in to play, the X-Files had the Lone Gunmen as valuable purvayers of obscure knowledge.
It was kinda nice in the part where they had to cover up for their lack of equipment, blaming it on upgrades and giving them all away to charity, when for real they had spent it all on finding Yves.
When the group first announced that they were upgrading and cleared out their equipment, I thought the spinoff writers were striking again. Since when do geeks dump a room full of equipment that they personally own? And then it came forward that they had hocked it all to finance their search. Wow. Sacrifice. Nice twist.
So in the end, I was a bit shocked and disappointed in the Lone Gunmen's deaths. They were favored characters (heck - this is the first episode of Xfiles I've watched in a good year, all because of those characters). But in a way, they had already been killed by the spinoff show. It was kind of nice to see them retired as heros and, hopefully, beyond the reach of further character butchery.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no. They do not. Copyright holders can not control distribution of their content. But they can control production, or copying of their content... to an extent. Even that is limited by fair use.
One can quickly find references to this from other IP industries. Specifically, book publishing and music publishing. Both have complained bitterly over the practice of second-hand resellers of books and CDs. Revenue is generated on the first sale of these products. However, the publisher (and author/artist) does not receive additional revenue on further sales. Even when these sales compete directly with sales of items still in print / production.
But as much as the industry and copyright holders dislike this situation - there is nothing they can do about it. It is legal. They do not have control over distribution of these copyrighted works. And second-hand / used sales continue.
In comparison, these industries are constantly bringing down businesses who produce these works illegally (ie: "pirated" products).
There IS a difference between seeking a profit and being greedy.
Having said that, I know the problem is common for others. I have worked as an admin/infosec type for a large US Government agency installation and seen email virii (yes, I know its "viruses", but that word is so... ungainly) cause a lot of trouble. And I have seen the same issues hit a major tech company I worked for too. Sure, these organizations are able to control the damage. But there is an initial reaction period that is uncomfortable and a long period where the infected traffic continues to hit the organization (albeit ineffectively).
But this traffic does not just hit large organizations. I have a small business client who seems to be a magnet for MS email virii and trojans. I suspect it has to do with his clientel who in turn tend to be less computer literate and therefore excellent virus vectors with his email addresses / site URLs waiting in their mail boxes and web cache.
Oh! AND The Screen Savers often have guests on for various things. These guests sometimes include names well known to the Open Source crowd (Linus and Illiad are two that come to mind).
Paul Allen seems to have a rather wide interest in technology (and business). This dated article from 1997 may or may not be too accurate now (it mentions him being the 2nd largest holder of Microsoft stock - its often quoted he has a 9% share, so I'm not sure how that works out). But the article does provide an idea of how diversified Allen's interests are.
It depends on the show and the staff. Chris Pirillo of Lockergnome fame hosts the TechTV show Call for Help and seems very pro-Microsoft/Windows. Though to be fair, I don't watch his show.
The Screen Savers also feature a lot of Microsoft bits. But they throw a lot of other bits in there too. They did a week of shows mostly dedicated to Linux. They do "alteratips" which are tips for mostly MacOS X and Linux (although, like the Windows tips, they're pretty light-weight). They do on-air help calls for Linux and Mac issues on occasion. The show hosts occasionally grumble about Microsoft and its faults (technical and political/marketing). Tux appears in the background often. OSX's strengths are lauded. Linux is often portrayed as an OS people already enjoy, and the viewer might like to try out too. And for their daily tech news, they often quote articles from Slashdot.
Of course, that's not to say all of TechTV is as enlightned. Sometimes TechTV Live and Cyber Crime have articles with viewpoints and/or quotes that make me cringe.
In all, Paul Allen seems to have a fairly wide focus despite his involvement in Microsoft. And TechTV seems to harbor an environment that allows a reflection of a wide degree of the IT industry.
D'oh. I suppose I should have caught that. Instead, I was just feeding off of the origional post and missed the mistake.
I can understand the flame. I'd hate to be associated with RadLight too. Sorry.
Slashdot caters to (generally) an anti-Microsoft attitude. Which is good. That's one of the reasons I like the site. Unabashidly pro-Microsoft "news" seems to frequent many other news outlets. Of course, its good to pay attention to these sources too.
From the above quote, one might assume I developed my dislike for Microsoft by frequenting Slashdot. Hardly. I used to be very firmly in the Microsoft camp. And had I not been introduced to Linux (and Unix) as I was tiring of Microsoft's antics, I may have scoffed at it just as I scoffed at all those MacOS zealots.
Now days I really enjoy using Unix and Linux. I relize why all those Mac guys used to Fight the Good Fight (even if I've not shared their love for MacOS). And I'm comfortable dealing with Microsoft's technology where it works. Of course - I despise Microsoft's marketing.
Slashdot does a generally good job at reflecting that distrust of Microsoft. Even if the occasional post goes a bit over the top.
I suppose the issue is what one considers "related". The quote from the Lavasoft developer referring to whether one package should remove "unrelated" software is likely to be a technical reference. And technically, Ad-Aware and Radsoft's offering ARE unrelated. But you are very correct in the link politically.
But that's a problem. Just because one has a political dislike for a piece of sotfware, it does not mean one should use one's software as a platform to remove the offending application. We don't have Mozilla removing Internet Explorer (whether that be possible or not)... just to pick an example out of thin air.
One other comment - sure, Radsoft chose to bundle a piece of spyware with their application. But that bundling and installation is often hidden from the user. Even worse, removal of that software is often difficult. Yet the system still belongs to the user. Ad-Aware gives the user the ability to identify and remove undesired software despite spyware's attempt to resist identification and removal.
If Radsoft wishes to ensure all software bundled with their package remains installed, then they should take steps to check that said software has not been removed. Even better yet, perhapse they should level with their users and alert them as to what is being installed and why. They certainly shouldn't be removing software that has not been included with their package.
I completely disagree. Jasc Software is a great example of a company who started small with Paintshop. It was a great software package (often called a "poor man's Photoshop") with a strong following. Photoshop was offered as uncrippled shareware without any spy-ware. And even as its author estimated registration as low as 1 in 5 downloads, it soon grew and took over the author's professional life. And as any Quake player knows, id Software has a simular story. And an even more rabid fan base (Remarkably, Quake is still played today).
To be sure, these success stories are dwarfed by the number of shareware and commercial operations who fail in the software business. But then, that's business. Most fail in any industry. Its a tough game.
If a small software developer hopes to survive it, they must have a community. It might be within an Open Source community. It might be created from fans of their commercial offerings. But there must be a support base somewhere.
Lavasoft and Ad-Aware have proven one lesson to any developers willing to pay attention. End users do not like the current methods used by spy-ware. As education spreads, more and more users will take efforts to disable this software. And that is a dire message to anyone who's business model depends on it.
The confused user is your problem. Ad-Aware is, in fact, doing exactly what it advertises: removing spyware. Your application does more than it advertises - it installs spyware that the user is apparently unaware of. How do we know this? Because they actively removed components they had no idea was on their system much less that they were installed by your product.
And please. Who really reads the EULA? You KNOW the end user is not going to read it no matter how plainly you write it and how much verbage you use to explain "ad supported" software.
So how do you educate your user? Make it an active part of the installation process.
The user downloads the WidgetMeister app to view their favorite widgets. During the install of the app, it notifies the user that WidgetMeister is ad supported software and is sponsored by several software packages. List the packages. Explain their use. Give the user a chance to not install specific components, or abort completely.
Of course - I suspect that this would also effectively cut deeply in to WidgetMeister's user base as many users will decide not to use it. And that's the crux of the problem.
This is not about ad-suported software. It is not about confused users. It is about the subterfuge of the spy-ware industry and the battle for control between end users and developers for the user's system.
Its pretty simple. Radsoft's package can function perfectly well with Ad-Aware also installed. They have nothing directly to do with each other.
Granted, the politics and business of the two clash. I could understand that Radsoft feels threatned by Ad-aware. And it wouldn't be suprising if they took measures to protect their revenue. However, I would expect them to take steps to ensure all installed components remain installed for their application to function.
Of course, Radsoft has done a great job at displaying their attitude towards their users. Not only does their revenue apparently depend on the questionable (and apparently unappreciated by users) practice of spy-ware, but they take the same attitude to underhandedly remove software with which they have a political axe to grind.
One final point. Ad-Aware is considerably different in intent and attitude than any of the software it targets. First, the Ad-Aware user actively selects what components (including applications, libraries, registry entries, and cookies) to remove. Secondly, it is widely supported as it provides even fairly non-technical users the ability to discover hidden software installed on their systems and remove it despite the great lengths that software goes to hide and resist being removed.
If Radsoft and their clients, as well as the apparently growing number of like-minded business and applications developers, dislike the power provided by Ad-Aware then they should seriously re-examine their business plan. There is considerable resistance towards their methods. And simply attempting to remove Ad-Aware does little more than reveal their contempt for their user base.
The desktop OS (and possibly desktop computer) as we know it is doomed. Or very likely to be doomed. If the desktop computer remains roughly the same as it is today, it is likely to be overran by commodity operating systems (just as the hardware became largely a commodity market). But more likely the desktop computer will change in drastic ways sometime in the future (leaving techheads like us with a niche market of commodity hardware and software).
One way or another, Microsoft's current market will change. To maintain their business, Microsoft must also change. The trouble is, technology rarely broadcasts the next Big Thing. So that leaves Microsoft and every other tech pundit guessing.
But any good pundit knows how to play the odds. The strategy is to figure out what the possibilities are and cover those bases. Hedge the bets. If you can afford it.
Microsoft acts on the their guesses for future markets. Set-top boxes. PVRs. Web-based services. PDAs. Webpads. And in the Xbox... a game console (with considerably more potential than just console gaming).
If these initiatives do not provide great return, or actually loose in the market place... well, that is a luxury Microsoft can afford. They must not allow the next industry boom abandon them to being a footnote in IT industry history. They are hedging their bets.
I have to disagree. What was UO? A graphical MUD. Granted, it didn't have the same feel as DikuMUD. But then, I don't believe the definition of a MUD is limited to previous MUD implementations.
Having said that... true, NWN night servers will be limited in the number of players they can handle. But they can be linked. Imagine a network of servers ran by admins who keep tabs with each other to ensure continuity, but manage their own environments. Imagine 12 provinces of a sprawling city. Or perhapse several wilderness servers that link to various servers that are dedicated to a single city each. I'm sure there are plenty of other scenarios to be done.
Given enough inginuity (and assuming the tools provided are stable enough), end users will generate MUD/MMORPG environments.
For me, the multiplayer aspect is THE reason to get this game (assuming it delivers on its promises). Just some of the cool features include DM mode (and the ability to have multiple DMs), a powerfull background scripting language for everyting from NPC interaction to game events (ie: a secret passage that only opens on the full moon if you're an elf), the ability to link servers with portals, etc.
Neverwinter Nights has the potential of being a MMORPG construction kit.
With the various unsavory business and political practices of both EA and Verant/Sony Interactive, its nice to see a possible return to the roots of the MUD culture - servers ran by fans for fans. With graphics.
Granted - this has yet to happen. It will depend on whether NWN delivers. And it will depend on whether campaign developers will put forth the effort to create and run these servers (a bit more complex than a Quake server - but then again, so are a lot of MUDs). Time will tell.
Completely. Its all up to the individual.
I found Baldur's Gate II fun, challenging, rich in content, and overall engrossing. I was a little nervous about the tutorial, but once I got past that and in to the game itself, I had no problems at all with the interface. The engine rocks. And the content is great (from its odd sense of humor, plot twists, and series of subplots).
Diablo II is kinda fun. Lots of hack-n-slash. And while I enjoyed building up a character's skills and equipment... it eventually got boring. Sure, its fun for a spur-of-the-moment hackfest (kinda like a quick pickup game of QuakeTF). But it lacks the staying power and depth of BGII.
But like we both agree - to each their own.
I have to disagree. I find the pause feature a nice way to jump between real-time and turn-based systems. Having said that, you can turn the game in to an almost total turn-based system by having it automatically pause on all events (I tend to have it pause on specific events like discovery of a trap).
7 days of pong. Just enough time to build up an audience of people who are used to switching over from Teletubbies as they get baked in front of their TV. Then switch the programing. Hopefully the inertia built up from pure habit will maintain the audience.
Yes. And the question should not be "what software" but rather "what format". It would bee good to have an answer such as ODF2 (Open Document Format v2.0) or some such. As it is, we really don't have that. There's some kind-of-but-not-really formats like PDF, RTF, and HTML.
No. Not at all. When I am working with clients, collaberating on an article, or submitting a resume, the most common requested format is MS Word. The last time one of my employers was looking at upgrading their site license for MS Word, it was to keep compatability with the latest release NOT because the new offering included features they wanted / needed.
It becomes a vicious cycle. One must have MS Word to be compatible with others. Others use MS Word because that is what they are given. Others request MS Word because that is what they are familiar with. To mix a methephor - when all you have is MS Office, everything looks like a nail.
Yea - MS Office is a competative product - its just too bad it doesn't gain its market share on its own technical merrits. Instead, the common factor is usually data format compatability.
Good for you. For me - I've been using Linux as my primary desktop for the past 3 or 4 years. I also use Solaris and Win2k to satisfy various other needs. To each their own.
Developers will move to new technologies as the market and their environment dictates. Its not like they haven't done it before (.NET being the newest big MS push). And if they see a market in Linux, they will fill that gap (as many have already done so - though mostly server-related solutions).
Sure, MS does a lot to attract developers to their platform. And its a no-brainer for developers (on pure market share alone). But if MS were to close shop tommorow, developers would scramble to whatever filled the market void.
Any business who does not realize the value of these concerns to their own operations does so at their own risk.
To bring this whole thread back to the topic at hand - an open data format is important. It ensures that a company's data is not locked in to a proprietary format that may become difficult to recover at a later date. Furthermore, by using an open standard, a company can more focus on a product's feature set (and adherance to that standard) rather than regularly renuing their license just to maintain compatability with business documents from business associates.
Granted - that open standard needs to happen.
Open Source offerings are not always the right tool. But the issues that often surround those projects have considerable value to all users - even Corporate users. It is more than a "I hate MS routine".
It IS about computing. Because computing issues mean money. And jobs.
Sure. But not for everyone. Thus, I still see this claim as a copout.
Oh yea. Talk about a fauxpas at the Jedi training academy.
"Say. Phil. I see you finally got that lightsaber kit finnished. Fire that puppy up and let's check it out!"
"Sure. [shhhzzzzzzrrr]."
"Ummm. Phil. Why is your lightsaber red?"
This is an often-touted theory to explain the backlash over EP1. Even Lucas himself has mentioned it in interviews. The concept is that the first 3 films gained a rabid fan base when those fans were younger, less sophisticated, less critical, and are now prone to fits of nostalgia.
I don't buy it.
I enjoy Star Wars, but I am no fanboi. I don't even own copies of the Star Wars movies. But I have occasionally rented the origional trillogy or kicked back for a day of TV when a Star Wars "marathon" kicks in. And even though I do note aspects of the films that I didn't when I was young, I still enjoy them. Yet I was disappointed in EP1 and noted that it somehow lacked the soul of the first three flicks.
Is it nostalgia? Hardly. I've also watched other things that I found great in my childhood that I now cringe at (though still watch occasionally for nostalgia's sake): The A-Team, Buck Rogers, Hogan's Heros, Dukes of Hazard, etc.
Yea. I'm susceptible to nostalgia. But I also recognize it. And the disparity in the older and newer Star Wars flicks has nothing to do with it.
What is that? Jedi mind trick?
Actually, I don't sign everything I send just for the same reason.
Most of my email correspondence is of a conversational nature. But it is a conversation in written form. Thus, there is more than ample opportunity for one's words to come back to haunt one - off-hand jokes, out-of-context comments, temporary stupidity, etc. Because of this, email presents a possible risk.
Because of the insecure nature of email, there is a certain degree of deniability to it. However, even this slim margin is lost when one signs the potentially offensive email.
I do include my PGP ID and fingerprint in my signature. And I sign anything official or requiring protection from forgery. Though I have to admit, it is not as much a conversation starter as a PGP signature text added on a regular basis.
You haven't been paying close attention to the complaints. It is not a matter of how good Microsoft's technology is. The crux of the complaint is how they market it and the illegal steps they take to force their technology in to the industry.
The quality of Microsoft products is a non-issue in this case. Just as evidence has shown it has been largely a non-issue in the marketplace too. And THAT is why the court case exists.
A very valid point. But I can't help but think that sending credit card information unencrypted would be like standing out on a street, hailing down someone heading in the direction of McDonald's, handing them your card, and asking them if on their way they wouldn't mind picking up a couple burgers and drop them off on their way back.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed seeing the trio fumble occasionally. Or trip when confronted with situations that are out of their depth (such as a social setting). And when the show displayed a tounge-in-cheek view of geek culture. But even when these elements came in to play, the X-Files had the Lone Gunmen as valuable purvayers of obscure knowledge.
When the group first announced that they were upgrading and cleared out their equipment, I thought the spinoff writers were striking again. Since when do geeks dump a room full of equipment that they personally own? And then it came forward that they had hocked it all to finance their search. Wow. Sacrifice. Nice twist.
So in the end, I was a bit shocked and disappointed in the Lone Gunmen's deaths. They were favored characters (heck - this is the first episode of Xfiles I've watched in a good year, all because of those characters). But in a way, they had already been killed by the spinoff show. It was kind of nice to see them retired as heros and, hopefully, beyond the reach of further character butchery.