"This doesn't make Mohammed right in any sense, but IF (and apologies if I misunderstand) Nigel is tied to the wonderous world of SPAM, it seems a little hypocritical to be high and mighty about taking somebody down this way...."
Yes, God forbid the FSF complaining about spam. They deserve it, considering that they create software for spammers. Right?
"I can't say I feel too sorry about a bunch of Pakistani punks giving the developer of spammer software a hard time."
How about reading the many comments on this that have been posted already? Other have posted this kind of drivel before you, and they have been put in their place. Is there any reason why you repeat this crap?
Also, how do you explain the fact that most companies with an online presence seem to offer people to sign up for newsletters or mailing lists for news on their products? They all use mailing list software.
And why on earth would a spammer develop mainly software completely unrelated to spam, and then a single piece of software which could be abused by spammers?
By your logic, anyone who develops something which can be abused deserve to be ripped off. I find that to be a rather stupid and ignorant attitude, to be honest.
By the way, the guy still uses the text from your site, and seems to still be distributing the program. He just changed the name.
This would be a great time to get the entire site offline. Wouldn't it be cool if you went to the police and got this scamming spammer arrested or something?
"Yeah, this will be used by small mom-n-pop spammers... the ones that send 100k emails from their Cox/Comcast business connections. This kind of software is not used by serious spammers, but it's still spam, and it's still wrong, and I still have the fact that I have to dedicate and my ISP has to dedicate so many resources to try to reduce the problem."
You sound like a robot. You repeat the same crap over and over again. Why don't you at least stop to think for a moment?
This guy has one piece of mailing list software, in addition to several other software packages that have got nothing to do with spam. He probably wrote the mailing list software to use it for his own customers at first, and then figured that he might as well sell it to others too.
Most companies today use mailing lists to send out newsletters to customers. It's completely legitimate. When the MailList King product page even talks about "double opt-in confirmations", then that should tell you something.
"If you read my comment below you will see that MailList King is not spamming software"
Yeah, that is obvious to anyone who actually bothers to pay attention. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't, as you have noticed...
Maybe the Slashdot editors could post an update explaining that the screenshot on your site is of the scammer's site, and that mailing lists are actually used a lot by non-spammers? Even the Free Software Foundation has its Mailman mailing list software.
I feel sorry for you, in a way... You've become another "victim" of Slashdot, or at least some of its readers, that don't bother to pay attention before commenting on things.
"it's hard to feel sorry for a guy that tailors to this kind of market. I'm sure this MailingList King software could be used for real legit mailing lists, but the fact that it was listed on a site that sold spam lists and other spam software and has some spam features, leads me to believe this is mainly intended for small time spammers."
Oh please! This is completely and utterly ridiculous. Just because his software could be used for spamming, and just because someone else uses it on a scamming site which promotes spam doesn't mean that the author himself is guilty of spam or has got anything to do with spam.
Can't you see how silly your own comments sound? I hate spam as much as anyone else. I have flamed people on Slashdot who defend spammers on numerous occasions! But your comments are just completely ridiculous.
"I've been asked to do some contracting for a ticket broker that used one of these programs along with a program to find email addresses from different searches on google. There are literarly hundreds of pieces of software that do this exact thing with exactly one thing in mind... spamming."
Yes, so that must mean that anyone who creates mailing list software is a spammer or promotes spam, right? Even the Free Software Foundation!
Sigh. I am at a loss for words here. How can I explain to you how silly you sound? I can't, and I'm having problems not flaming you like I would flame people who defend spam.
First of all, why all the comments about Xequte selling spamming software? Did you all even take the time to visit the site and actually look at the software available? Most of these have to do with image manipulation, and not a single word about bulk e-mail or selling e-mail addresses.
MailList King is a piece of mailing list software, you know, the kind where you can set up a mailing list for discussion, or use it to send information to your customers. He explains it clearly on his site! Sure, you can probably use it for spam, but that's not the author's fault is it? If MailList King is spamming software, then GNU Mailman from GNU.ORG is too. Can you all see how ridiculous all this spam talk sounds?
If you people had actually bothered to visit the page and read the text, you would have known that the screenshot is of the scammer's site. Yes, those bulk e-mail programs, e-mail addresses for sale, and so on, are all completely unrelated to the author of MailList King software, apart from his program and the content of his site being ripped off by a spammer/scammer (it seems that the scammer has just renamed the software, but he still has the text from the actuall MailList King page on his site).
As far as I can tell, all the evidence so far clearly shows that the MailList King author is not a spammer or involved in such activities. Until someone posts evidence to the contrary, I suggest that you all stop shouting about spammers when the only spammer here is the guy who ripped off Xecute's software. Seriously, people.
One thing I'm disappointed about, though, is that he didn't follow up on this. The site clearly belongs to a spammer, and he rips off other people's sites and software, making money from spamming and scamming. As mentioned above, he simply renamed the mailing list software, but the product page on the scammer's site still shows text taken directly from the original page.
I would have hoped that this spammer/scammer could have been nailed down and kicked off the 'net. Perhaps someone else can pick it up from here and track down the scammer to put an end to his online adventure?
Flash seems to be used "everywhere", but I haven't seen many Shockwave sites around.
I don't think Flash is bundled with Firefox. If it was, Firefox would be a nearly 6 MB download instead! That would be a major defeat, seeing as Firefox is already much bigger than Opera:)
I haven't played WoW, but I don't think Half-Life 2 deserves an award. The physics thing was a nice idea, but in reality, you are bound to a single path. You can't use the physics to proceed down different paths depending on how you choose to solve a puzzle.
Next is the fact that it requires online activation for offline play. That really killed it for me. If you don't have an Internet connection, you can't install the game. I know a couple of guys who got burned. They returned the game, and chose to get someone to burn them a pirated version instead. No Internet connection needed.
"err...that is factually incorrect. The new beta is 17 megs vs. firefox 1.0 at 5 megs.err...that is factually incorrect. The new beta is 17 megs vs. firefox 1.0 at 5 megs."
You are completely wrong. The new beta is actually a smaller download than the previous version, 7.54. Anyone can verify that you are talking nonsense by going to Opera's FTP server and looking at the file size for themselves:
ow32enen800b1.exe 3 564 KB (that's 3.5 MB, not 17)
"Like what exactly?"
What is included by default in Opera, but not in Firefox? My God, you really haven't even tried Opera, have you? Why are you making statements about Opera then? Opera has a built in e-mail client, newsreader, chat client, it has mouse gestures, proper MDI, fast forward, rewind, continuing where you left off, Wand, and so on. Do I really need to continue?
The fact is that Opera is not just a browser, while Firefox is. I stated this in the post you replied to.
Instead of writing a knee-jerk response just because I happen to like Opera more than I like Firefox, how about actually reading and comprehending, and most important of all, don't make statements when you don't actually know what you are talking about.
You claimed that Opera, or its equivalent, was available for free. I showed you, with factually correct information, that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
"The rest of your post is just statements of opinion so there is no use commenting."
It is a fact that Opera is a smaller download than Firefox, but with a lot more functionality without having to install extensions. You cannot ignore this fact.
Now, that I happen to prefer Opera's smooth, polished and integrated approach is indeed an opinion. But you cannot ignore the fact that Opera is a unique product.
"This may be a stupid question, but it's something I've always wondered... what does the Java add to the install? Do I have to have it if I want to try Opera?"
Java is only needed if you plan to view Java applets. Other than that, Opera doesn't need Java at all.
By the way, Firefox, too, needs Java to view Java applets, so the added download size isn't part of Opera, but something all browsers using Java needs. So if you install Opera with Java, Firefox can make use of that Java install too.
Opera with Java just has the plain Sun JRE installer, and if you choose to install Java when installing Opera, it runs the Java installer separately.
But Opera 8 doesn't come with Java. It justs asks you if you want to download it, if you open a page that requires Java support.
"It's simply that [open source] software is better."
Opera is smaller, faster, yet more functional than Firefox. In my opinion, Opera is better than Firefox. You may have a different opinion, but it is still just an opinion.
"And this evolves into the belief that all code should be open. Many sets of eyes and many people collaberating can make software better."
Opera has nearly 200 people working on it, the majority being programmers. Do you really think most people even bother to read the Firefox source code? Do you think they know how?
"Plus not enough people are using it to justify serious security audits, and since it's closed, who knows what's wrong with it."
In case you haven't noticed, security experts like Secunia are actively looking for flaws in Opera.
"Firefox is open and has millions of users, so people are constantly looking at it's code and finding / fixing problems."
Give me a break. Millions of users are looking at the code? Please.
Also, how do you think most security problems in Firefox have been found? That's right, not by looking at the code. People like Secunia, who also test Opera, find it by testing the compiled program.
"IE at least has 86% of the internet's users using it, so the holes in it eventually come out by sheer dumb luck. But, I wonder how many holes go unpatched in Opera?"
You are blinded by zealotry, it seems. The holes discovered in Firefox have not been found by inspecting the source code, but by security analysts who have run the compiled program through tests.
"The time for paying for browsers has come and past. Oh, wait. That time was never. From gopher to lynx to mosaic to netscape to IE to mozilla to firefox, web browsers have always been free."
You are wrong. Opera has been a commercial browser for ten years. There's even a browser for Mac, OmniWeb, which costs money. And Netscape wasn't free to begin with either.
Better learn your browser history before making such remarks.
"There's your answer on Opera."
And a typical misleading and grasping for straws one at that:|
"it is hard to justify $40 (or ads) for something that is availible elsewhere for free."
Is Opera available elsewhere for free? Ah yes, if you use the ad version.
Oh, you meant completely free, without ads? Is there an Opera version which is free and without ads? News to me.
Oh, I get it! You think anything else can compare? Like Firefox? Sorry, Firefox doesn't cut it. It's a bigger download with far less functionality. To get more functionality, you have to wade through buggy and untested extensions, and it takes forever to even remotely resemble Opera functionality. I'll gladly play money for the convenience of a tiny download with smooth integration between everything, in a well tested package, rather than a basic browser which is tested well, and then a bunch of hobbyist extensions that break every time I upgrade.
And the Mozilla suite? Please. It's slow and bloated, and isn't even half as elegant as Opera. Sorry, it simply can't compare.
So the bottom line is that you can't get the equivalent of Opera for free. Opera is a unique product. Remember, Firefox is a stripped down browser, while Opera is a full Internet suite, with mail and all that. And Opera offers everything fine-tuned and smoothly integrated, and that is very convenient.
I don't want to build my own browser. I just want something that works. Opera works out of the box. Firefox requires hours of tinkering to even approach Opera's level of integration, functionality and polish.
"Its (Opera) download size is in the teens (13.7?) when you download java as well."
That is irrelevant, seeing as Firefox can't show Java applets without JRE installed either, so to get Java support, you still need JRE for Firefox. In other words, if you add Java to Opera to it's 13 MB, then you must add Java to Firefox too.
Don't forget that Opera comes with the Flash plugin, though, which is nearly 1 MB in size!
"It takes more time to render pages than 3 other browsers I use. You might call that faster, but most of us don't try to justify paying for crap software by redefining words."
I don't know why it is so important to you to spam this Opera story with trolling. Then again, I have noticed that Firefox fanboys get rather defensive when someone suggests that it might not be as innovative as they thought.
But you are a Firefox fanboiii troll who is too afraid to even log in at Slashdot to post comments! How lame is that? I've seen several of your posts in this story, and in all of them you spread FUD and lies with no evidence to back up any of your nonsense.
Pure trolling. Unfortunately, I took the baid, but what the heck, I have plenty of time to spare during the holidays.
"Your statement is misleading because it is false for each of the examples you give. When David Hyatt added tabs to Mozilla, Opera had MDI with a switchbar, not tabs."
Sorry, but you are the one making the misleading statement here. The "MDI switchbar" is the same as tabbed browsing. Just because they don't look like tabs doesn't mean that they don't do the same thing.
"Firefox blocked pop-ups by default long before Opera did."
Look, you can try to twist this in as many ways as you like. Opera had popup blocking built in before anyone else. That it was enabled by default in Firefox before Opera doesn't mean that this is innovation on Firefox's part.
"Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. When Longhorn comes out and it's just a battle of XUL and XAML, ActiveX/.Net and Firefox extensions, you'll see your poor web browser be left behind. Opera fanboys need to understand it's a Micro$oft versus open source (Mozilla, Linux, etc.) battle on the web. Opera is absolutely inconsequential."
I don't see what your references to XUL and XAML have to do with past or present. The fact is that the features Firefox and Minimo are bragging about were mostly invented by Opera. Opera has defined what a modern browser is.
Now, no one knows what the future holds. Longhorn is ages away, and who's to say that Opera isn't working on something of their own? You are assuming that Opera is not aware of what goes on in the world. You are, of course, wrong.
"Opera is absolutely inconsequential"... Yeah, I guess that's why everyone else is copying Opera.
"Because they don't need to, they already have people's money. The disadvantage with commercial software is you pay your money, and all incentive to improve a product for the developers goes out the window."
Well gee, guess Opera being around for ten years as a commercial product just proves your point, now doesn't it? Nope, there have been no updates what so ever for ten years. That's right! Nothing! It's still at version 1.0! Yep.
You hit the nail on the head there, FOSS/FF zealot!
"I notice this version of Opera is once again a little slower than the last. How long can this keep up?"
A little slower? It's faster actually. And it's a lot faster than Firefox, that's for sure.
"Except you forgot the 11Mb Java download that is mandatory when you install Opera. Firefox just works."
Wrong. Firefox uses the exact same Java environment as Opera does. Opera just offered a download with Java as a convenience. Without Java installed, neither Firefox nor Opera will be able to show Java applets.
Opera 8.0 doesn't offer Java anyway, since it's installed only when needed.
"You also forgot to award points to Firefox for having fewer rendering problems than Opera. Sneaky. Is this typical of advocates of closed source software?"
Your FUD and lies are typical of certain Firefox zealots, and that is why I am more and more hesitant to use Firefox. I simply can't stand many of the users that keep trying to shove Firefox down people's throats with misleading statements, FUD and lies.
Rendering problems - Firefox can't even render Slashdot correctly. How's that for "rendering problems"?
Slashdot Mirror
From the product page: "Discussion Groups: Optionally allow your group members to send to your mailing list"
Sigh.
According to you, the Free Software Foundation develops spammer software.
Also, how do you explain the fact that most companies with an online presence seem to offer people to sign up for newsletters or mailing lists for news on their products? They all use mailing list software.
And why on earth would a spammer develop mainly software completely unrelated to spam, and then a single piece of software which could be abused by spammers?
By your logic, anyone who develops something which can be abused deserve to be ripped off. I find that to be a rather stupid and ignorant attitude, to be honest.
Also read my longer comment on the stupidity in accusing him of being a spammer or having anything to do with spam.
And yes, the fake site has been spotted and pointed out in numerous comments.
This would be a great time to get the entire site offline. Wouldn't it be cool if you went to the police and got this scamming spammer arrested or something?
Why would small time spammers pay for mailing list software, when they can get it for free from the Free Software Foundation?
This guy has one piece of mailing list software, in addition to several other software packages that have got nothing to do with spam. He probably wrote the mailing list software to use it for his own customers at first, and then figured that he might as well sell it to others too.
Most companies today use mailing lists to send out newsletters to customers. It's completely legitimate. When the MailList King product page even talks about "double opt-in confirmations", then that should tell you something.
Stop it now, OK? Just stop it.
Maybe the Slashdot editors could post an update explaining that the screenshot on your site is of the scammer's site, and that mailing lists are actually used a lot by non-spammers? Even the Free Software Foundation has its Mailman mailing list software.
I feel sorry for you, in a way... You've become another "victim" of Slashdot, or at least some of its readers, that don't bother to pay attention before commenting on things.
Or are you saying that the Free Software Foundation thrives on spam?
Can't you see how silly your own comments sound? I hate spam as much as anyone else. I have flamed people on Slashdot who defend spammers on numerous occasions! But your comments are just completely ridiculous.
Yes, so that must mean that anyone who creates mailing list software is a spammer or promotes spam, right? Even the Free Software Foundation!Sigh. I am at a loss for words here. How can I explain to you how silly you sound? I can't, and I'm having problems not flaming you like I would flame people who defend spam.
Anyway, This comment says it all, really. This guy is not just a copycat, but a scammer and a spammer. He should have been taken down completely!
Anyone up for the task?
MailList King is a piece of mailing list software, you know, the kind where you can set up a mailing list for discussion, or use it to send information to your customers. He explains it clearly on his site! Sure, you can probably use it for spam, but that's not the author's fault is it? If MailList King is spamming software, then GNU Mailman from GNU.ORG is too. Can you all see how ridiculous all this spam talk sounds?
If you people had actually bothered to visit the page and read the text, you would have known that the screenshot is of the scammer's site. Yes, those bulk e-mail programs, e-mail addresses for sale, and so on, are all completely unrelated to the author of MailList King software, apart from his program and the content of his site being ripped off by a spammer/scammer (it seems that the scammer has just renamed the software, but he still has the text from the actuall MailList King page on his site).
As far as I can tell, all the evidence so far clearly shows that the MailList King author is not a spammer or involved in such activities. Until someone posts evidence to the contrary, I suggest that you all stop shouting about spammers when the only spammer here is the guy who ripped off Xecute's software. Seriously, people.
One thing I'm disappointed about, though, is that he didn't follow up on this. The site clearly belongs to a spammer, and he rips off other people's sites and software, making money from spamming and scamming. As mentioned above, he simply renamed the mailing list software, but the product page on the scammer's site still shows text taken directly from the original page.
I would have hoped that this spammer/scammer could have been nailed down and kicked off the 'net. Perhaps someone else can pick it up from here and track down the scammer to put an end to his online adventure?
I don't think Flash is bundled with Firefox. If it was, Firefox would be a nearly 6 MB download instead! That would be a major defeat, seeing as Firefox is already much bigger than Opera :)
Next is the fact that it requires online activation for offline play. That really killed it for me. If you don't have an Internet connection, you can't install the game. I know a couple of guys who got burned. They returned the game, and chose to get someone to burn them a pirated version instead. No Internet connection needed.
ow32enen800b1.exe 3 564 KB (that's 3.5 MB, not 17)
What is included by default in Opera, but not in Firefox? My God, you really haven't even tried Opera, have you? Why are you making statements about Opera then? Opera has a built in e-mail client, newsreader, chat client, it has mouse gestures, proper MDI, fast forward, rewind, continuing where you left off, Wand, and so on. Do I really need to continue?The fact is that Opera is not just a browser, while Firefox is. I stated this in the post you replied to.
Instead of writing a knee-jerk response just because I happen to like Opera more than I like Firefox, how about actually reading and comprehending, and most important of all, don't make statements when you don't actually know what you are talking about.
You claimed that Opera, or its equivalent, was available for free. I showed you, with factually correct information, that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is a fact that Opera is a smaller download than Firefox, but with a lot more functionality without having to install extensions. You cannot ignore this fact.Now, that I happen to prefer Opera's smooth, polished and integrated approach is indeed an opinion. But you cannot ignore the fact that Opera is a unique product.
By the way, Firefox, too, needs Java to view Java applets, so the added download size isn't part of Opera, but something all browsers using Java needs. So if you install Opera with Java, Firefox can make use of that Java install too.
Opera with Java just has the plain Sun JRE installer, and if you choose to install Java when installing Opera, it runs the Java installer separately.
But Opera 8 doesn't come with Java. It justs asks you if you want to download it, if you open a page that requires Java support.
Also, how do you think most security problems in Firefox have been found? That's right, not by looking at the code. People like Secunia, who also test Opera, find it by testing the compiled program.
You are blinded by zealotry, it seems. The holes discovered in Firefox have not been found by inspecting the source code, but by security analysts who have run the compiled program through tests. You are wrong. Opera has been a commercial browser for ten years. There's even a browser for Mac, OmniWeb, which costs money. And Netscape wasn't free to begin with either.Better learn your browser history before making such remarks.
And a typical misleading and grasping for straws one at thatOh, you meant completely free, without ads? Is there an Opera version which is free and without ads? News to me.
Oh, I get it! You think anything else can compare? Like Firefox? Sorry, Firefox doesn't cut it. It's a bigger download with far less functionality. To get more functionality, you have to wade through buggy and untested extensions, and it takes forever to even remotely resemble Opera functionality. I'll gladly play money for the convenience of a tiny download with smooth integration between everything, in a well tested package, rather than a basic browser which is tested well, and then a bunch of hobbyist extensions that break every time I upgrade.
And the Mozilla suite? Please. It's slow and bloated, and isn't even half as elegant as Opera. Sorry, it simply can't compare.
So the bottom line is that you can't get the equivalent of Opera for free. Opera is a unique product. Remember, Firefox is a stripped down browser, while Opera is a full Internet suite, with mail and all that. And Opera offers everything fine-tuned and smoothly integrated, and that is very convenient.
I don't want to build my own browser. I just want something that works. Opera works out of the box. Firefox requires hours of tinkering to even approach Opera's level of integration, functionality and polish.
Don't forget that Opera comes with the Flash plugin, though, which is nearly 1 MB in size!
But you are a Firefox fanboiii troll who is too afraid to even log in at Slashdot to post comments! How lame is that? I've seen several of your posts in this story, and in all of them you spread FUD and lies with no evidence to back up any of your nonsense.
Pure trolling. Unfortunately, I took the baid, but what the heck, I have plenty of time to spare during the holidays.
We're talking about "innovation" here, remember.
Now, no one knows what the future holds. Longhorn is ages away, and who's to say that Opera isn't working on something of their own? You are assuming that Opera is not aware of what goes on in the world. You are, of course, wrong.
"Opera is absolutely inconsequential"... Yeah, I guess that's why everyone else is copying Opera.
It is interesting to note how Minimo uses Opera inventions and pretends that Mozilla.org came up with them... :(
Now, isn't it about time you stopped trolling these discussions?
You hit the nail on the head there, FOSS/FF zealot!
A little slower? It's faster actually. And it's a lot faster than Firefox, that's for sure.Yeah, they are free to copy features of course. But they shouldn't pretend that they are the innovators, like they usually do.
Opera 8.0 doesn't offer Java anyway, since it's installed only when needed.
Your FUD and lies are typical of certain Firefox zealots, and that is why I am more and more hesitant to use Firefox. I simply can't stand many of the users that keep trying to shove Firefox down people's throats with misleading statements, FUD and lies.Rendering problems - Firefox can't even render Slashdot correctly. How's that for "rendering problems"?