Google Watch is an extremely unbalanced site, and there are several direct lies. As has been pointed out, it is put up because Mr. Brandt didn't like his pagerank and thought that his obscure site about Rumsfeld should have ranked higher. But Google didn't rank it higher, so he set out on a personal vendetta. I have written about this before, so I am not going to repeat everything here.
But again, this is my plea to the mods that they consider the facts at hand and spend their mod points wisely. It is well and good to keep an eye on large corporations, but spreading lies about them is unacceptable. Especially when Google is actually a very useful tool and does not seem to be "evil" just yet;)
You don't need a monopoly to have compatibility, familiarity, etc. You just need good standards and guidelines. If Microsoft had spent more time working for or at least with universal (and open) standards and guidelines, rather than against them, then plugging your USB cam into Linux might have been as easy as plugging it into Windows. Then there would be a common platform where everyone had equal opportunity to compete, and since there are strict standards and also guidelines on how things should be handled, compatibility would not be an issue.
But that is in the ideal world of course.
Instead, we have a monopoly today which actively works towards an even tighter grip on the market.
But you don't need a monopoly to dictate standards. Microsoft has been introducing their own solutions and standards, and we see where this led us, with viruses and worms creating zombie DDoS drones ready to serve their masters...
I think you are making a complex issue out to be simple and a non-issue, when the fact is that there are more sides to this.
One could say that if you don't want to be bombarded with ads, just don't go to sites that do that. It is really that simple.
But then there's the other way around: I decide what gets downloaded on my system, and it is in my rights to block content I do not want.
Both of these arguments have merit. But what we don't need are blanket statements and black/white solutions. Without ads, a lot of content simply wouldn't be available today. It is a way to publish content on the web and cover the cost, or even make money. If everyone blocks all ads, what happens to sites that rely on ad revenue to survive?
But then again, Windows hasn't exactly been easy when it comes to digital cameras either. The Olympus Stylus Digital works flawlessly and creates a "removable drive", but when I tried to get pictures from my Canon Ixus, I had a somewhat hard time working out what to do to access my pics. I guess a lot of how easy it is to install hardware has to do with how the hardware manufacturer decides to do things. Canon has decided to make it difficult it seems:)
Hardware is a fair point, but I've yet to see Mandrake fail to detect any of the existing hardware on the few systems I've installed it on.
But Joe Dummy would hardly risk installing hardware himself, would he? I know my mother would never touch any hardware. I would have to install it for her, and it is easy in Windows of course - as long as Windows is able to detect the hardware. Funnily enough the last two systems I installed Windows on, XP failed to find my sound card, and 2000 didn't find the sound card or graphics card.
If we go on to discuss more advanced users, they will find whatever they are used to to be the easiest. I am used to Windows and the way things are done there, so Windows is easier for me to use. But if someone had set me up with Linux when I was a novice I am sure I would find it easier to install hardware in Linux now.
Windows has the upper hand when it comes to compatibility, but isn't how easy it is to install the hardware dependent on what you are used to? Joe Dummy isn't used to anything and doesn't have a clue. He probably wouldn't touch the new hardware!
This is an honest question, and something I've always wondered when people make statements like this. I am primarily a Windows user myself, but I am wondering:
What is it that makes Linux more difficult to use for Joe Dummy? Having recently installed Mandrake, I actually found it as easy as, if not easier to install than Windows 2000 or XP (which I've recently installed as well). When I say "Linux" I am referring to Mandrake, SuSE and other such distributions, and not Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, etc. They are clearly more advanced.
But Joe Dummy wouldn't install Windows would he? He would get it preinstalled. And then he would need someone to tell him what icons to click to do whatever he wants to do. But how is this more difficult when using Linux?
The only thing I can think of is that there are more Windows users out there, so it might be easier to find one if you need help. But that doesn't make Windows itself easier to use than Linux, does it?
The problem is that the patent madness is a hindrance to the development of software. Rather than focus on making good software, companies that want to try to make a living in the software industry has to hire an army of lawyers to make sure they aren't infringing on anyone's patents, or they can ignore it and hope that they aren't, and that no one will find anything and sue them.
Maybe these ridiculous patent applications weaken the patent system, but real companies are having real problems with this today. Maybe a lot of people in the/. crowd work in the software industry, and are therefore concerned about their jobs.
Humor impaired, are we? Well, if you are going to be serious in analyzing that post, he probably means that if he was getting laid he wouldn't have to do porn. So his credibility on this subject is questioned. If he got some, why use porn, etc.
Actually, the users you are describing are users that might as well use MacOS X or just Linux with KDE. They just need to know where to click to get what, so whether it is Windows, Linux, Mac, or whatever is, as you point out, irrelevant. As such, what really matters is what you get used to. However, it is easy to make KDE behave much like Windows, and all you need to know is "click that icon to start word processing".
When it comes to browsers, the same users are actually thrilled to get away from MSIE's very basic user interface once they get to know it - in my experience. The user doesn't just care about web sites. You see, the user experiences a number of annoyances on the web, and finding out that other browsers can get rid of these annoyances is a huge plus! What good is a web page which works as it should if you get bombarded with ActiveX installation requests, popup ads and similar?
In the Real World, it does not matter which system you set the newbie to use, as he or she can use anything. You just need to tell them what to click to get what they want.
The problem with Linux vs. Windows is basically the intermediate user which is, say, used to Windows and expect Linux to behave the same. This intermediate user doesn't just click an icon to run a program - he installs new programs and knows a little about how the system works. And so, he's stuck with one system because other operating systems are so different from what he's used to.
I'm one of the people who are used to Windows and stick with it because it gets the job done. And it gets the job done because I'm used to it.
On the other hand, I've found superior alternatives to Microsoft's offerings when it comes to browsing, e-mail, newsgroups, and so on. The OS is just used to organize my files and launch the software I use every day, as you say. I have lots of minor and not so minor problems with Windows, such as problems with Explorer.exe crashing in Windows XP (something I've heard is not exactly uncommon, judging by other people's comments).
I'm a Linux user as well, but it's more because of curiosity than anything else. I use Windows as my primary OS. It's been like this for a few years now.
Would I switch to Linux full time if I got my favorite apps working under Linux? Probably not. I'm just so used to how Windows handles things, and I simply do not have the time to "master" a new OS (Mac is out of the question for me). For one, Linux is developing rapidly, and I am worried that I would be spending a lot of time configuring things again and again. Also, I am a gamer, and as a gamer, Windows is really the only choice for now.
But I don't go around posting trollish comments like the one by Sir Haxalot here...
You are obviously not one of the people who are waiting to ditch Windows, so I don't understand why you posted this comment. If you expect some other operating system to magically run Windows apps and behave just like Windows "and then some", you might as well go with Windows itself and maybe add some extensions/enhancements. There are plenty of tools out there that add new capabilities, both integrated into Explorer and other parts of Windows, and as separate applications.
If you, on the other hand, are having problems with Windows, or find that it "kind of works", but would love to find something better, you should be more open-minded and realize that you probably won't be able to use all your apps on the new OS. And why should you? It is good for you to try out alternatives to the applications you are currently using if they do not suit your needs. But if they do, feel free to stick with them. Whatever suits your need.
CrossOver tries to run Windows software under Linux, which is probably useful for those who really want Linux but also would like to run certain Windows applications. Nothing wrong about that of course, as the Linux environment is quite different from Windows.
But in the end, is it really necessary to post trollish remarks like yours? I cannot see how it could possibly be useful. Then again, looking at your posting history, the comment does not surprise me:)
My personal interest is that I hate seeing someone's good reputation tainted by lies. It is perfectly all right to "monitor" Google and other powerful companies and people, but this should done by someone who is impartial, or at least doesn't do it just because he is angry with Google for not ranking him higher.
I don't know why I make myself so involved in this matter, but it doesn't take me long to give people the other side of the story, and it's worth it to me. Google has helped me immensely through the last couple of years, and I don't want to see it go down because of lies and deception.
Brandt has received too much coverage, and now he's trying to spread his FUD and lies on Slashdot too. I just don't think it is right.
Since no one else said anything, I thought I might as well do it.
To sum up: My personal interest is to expose lies. In this case, I expose lies about Google. In other cases, I expose lies about others. I'm not a saint and I don't give all my money to starving children in poor countries. I'm a geeky kind of guy and therefore I care about geeky things. If I can make a difference for something I care about, find useful, or am interested in, then I am happy.
(I know I may burn some karma on this, but it is worth it if I can contribute to putting an end to Everyman's lies about Google.)
Warning: Before modding the parent post, you should know that "Everyman" is the Slashdot alias of Mr. Daniel Brandt, who owns google-watch.org.
I have pointed out many times that google-watch.org is a site full of lies and deception. The reason the site was set up in the first place was that Mr. Brandt didn't think that he got a high enough PageRank, and that his obscure pages about various subjects should rank above other, more informative and popular sources of information on the same subjects. When his obscure site with a page about Donald Rumsfeld did not get a high rank on Google for obvious reasons, he set out on a personal vendetta against the search engine.
In other words, he is not making that site for the good of us all, but to spread FUD about Google. It is a good thing to keep an eye on powerful companies, but this is over the top - it is ridiculous.
Before falling for Brandt's lies and deceptions, please visit Google-watch-watch.org, which exposes his misleading site for what it is.
What is a "trolling zealot"? What am I a zealot for?
Your comment about KDE and patching was torn apart, and you were exposed as spreading FUD and lies. You claimed that it was not fixed quickly, but it was, and people proved that. Your comment about Apache was misplaced and was also torn apart, but you responded by continuing your ridiculous attacks against those who dare speak against you. You are Enderle's account on Slashdot, aren't you?
Please don't embarrass yourself any further. It is perfectly clear who the zealot is here. As I pointed out, this is not the first time you've been exposed as a FUD troll.
Aaargh, I know you are right, but I really want these people who buy stuff from spammers to be stupid, so stupid that they run out in heavy traffic without looking left and right first...
Spyware secretly gathers information about the user (and passes it on to interested parties).
Adware is not necessarily spyware, since it is possible to display ads without spying. For example, a generic set of ads which is not based on the user or the user's surfing habits.
As long as the adware does not gather information behind the user's back, it is not spyware, and we should make this distincion very clear, because it doesn't benefit anyone to lump adware and spyware in the same pile.
Spyware is software which secretly gathers information about the user (and passes it on of course).
Adware serves ads, but does not spy on the user.
While it is possible for adware to be spyware, we should keep these definitions separate and agree that something which spies on the user is not adware, it is simply spyware.
Adware which serves ads and does not spy on the user does exist, so it would be a bad thing to mix these.
I see this misconception a lot. But as I posted earlier, adware is not necessarily spyware. If the program serves ads without spying (secretly gathering information) on a user, it is just adware, and normal adware is not a privacy intrusion.
There is. Adware can serve ads without spying on you. If it just downloads and displays ads without (secretly) gathering information about your system and passing it on to interested parties, it is not spyware.
Adware can be spyware, but then I wouldn't call it adware either, because these terms should be kept separate. There is no reason why people who rely on ads served without compromising your security or privacy should suffer because of overly broad definitions.
But just like "racism" to many is no longer about race, but also about culture, and can therefore be used effectively to shut someone up in a debate, it can be easy to label something "spyware" because one does not understand what it really does, or perhaps because one benefits from paranoia (such as running an "anti-spyware" site which one makes money from).
Another example is Google Watch, which is a site set up to spread lies about Google because another site belonging to the Google Watch owner was too obscure and unpopular to get a good PageRank.
Since I have already talked about the lies and deception of Google Watch in another lengthy post, I shall not repeat myself too much here, but the deceptive site lies about the Google bar and calls it spyware, which is an outright lie, since it is impossible to miss the text saying that for the PageRank indicator to work, it must send URLs back to Google.
So as you can see, it is not only important that we watch for software vendors that want to compromise our privacy. We must also watch the watchers to make sure that they cannot cash in on other people's fear by exaggerating, lying and deceiving. Therefore, the definitions must be strict, and we cannot allow people like Mike at spywareinfo.com or David at google-watch.com to fill our heads with lies until we believe them and let them cash in on our problems.
(For the record, Mike does a lot of good things, but he clearly needs to be corrected, as his overly broad definitions do nothing but making the fight against spyware more difficult, simply because we are not just fighting real spyware anymore apparently, but also lots of other programs that do not fit the real definition at all.)
And finally, it is my firm belief that Gator is indeed spyware, in case my stance on this issue was unclear. The way Gator tries to sneak its way into our systems, it cannot be defined as anything but spyware.
No one has said that all bundling is bad. Popup blocking should belong in a browser, and there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't add more features to their browser. If they hadn't already secured a monopoly in the browser market and couldn't care less about innovation...
But the kind of bundling which kills off competition, with products of lesser quality bundled with the operating system just to push dangerous competitors out of the market, that is the bad kind of bundling.
Microsoft should never have been allowed to secure a monopoly in the browser market anyway, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have made it a separate download with lots of useful features (rather than a basic browser which doesn't do much and which is very vulnerable to pages that want to exploit security holes, flood you with popups, and so on).
By the way, Opera is a closed-source/commercial browser with a popup blocker (and countless other features that make your everyday browsing faster and more convenient) built in. And actually, Mozilla/Firebird has borrowed a lot of features from Opera. built in popup blocking was first seen in Opera, for example.
Also, bundling applications is far from "the Microsoft way". You are giving Microsoft more credit than they deserve. It is not like they were the first to bundle applications!
What "facts" might you be referring to? The fact that the author of the article is a FUD machine whose claims are both unreasonale and sometimes outrageous? The fact that you made claims about Apache that are untrue, and were corrected, but also modded up to 5 despite your attempt at FUD?
So what kind of zealot am I? You still haven't answered the question, but instead you try to cloud the issue with ridiculous outbursts that are totally irrelevant to tis discussion. Just like someone who is out of arguments and grasping for straws.
I talked about people who post flamebait and who are MS apologists - who help to spread FUD and deception on behalf of MS. I also said that SCO was acting more like a terrorist organization than any open-source group I know of, not that they are terrorists. And I did indeed say that you should ignore Enderle's articles, and I explained why: He is a giant troll and FUD machine, and is not to be taken seriously. But I also said that you don't have to take my word for it, but read his articles with a critical mind to see through his bullshit. Anyone who does read his articles and who is not already an anti-everything-non-MS troll, will see his articles for what they are.
The whole point is that yes, you can get modded up and get support if you are constructive and post informative stuff. The MS trolls don't do this. They post to bash Slashdot, open-source, Linux and related things.
So what kind of zealot am I?
You are calling me on what? I am not spreading FUD nor am I spreading bullshit. You, on the other hand, seem to react like this because I struck a nerve, am I right? You actually did get modded up, despite the deceptive and misleading text you wrote. People called you on your bullshit and FUD, but you still didn't get modded down.
I think the moderation of the post linked to above proved that it is indeed possible to be critical of open-source software, and even the flagship open-source browser, Firebird, and get modded up, as long as you try to stay away from stupid comments that are nothing but flamebait.
So what kind of zealot am I? Anti-FUD and anti-bullshit zealot?
Slashdot Mirror
Google Watch Watch
Google Watch is an extremely unbalanced site, and there are several direct lies. As has been pointed out, it is put up because Mr. Brandt didn't like his pagerank and thought that his obscure site about Rumsfeld should have ranked higher. But Google didn't rank it higher, so he set out on a personal vendetta. I have written about this before, so I am not going to repeat everything here.
But again, this is my plea to the mods that they consider the facts at hand and spend their mod points wisely. It is well and good to keep an eye on large corporations, but spreading lies about them is unacceptable. Especially when Google is actually a very useful tool and does not seem to be "evil" just yet ;)
Free? Google (I think they are paying?) are giving out nearly $20.000 to the five winners. Not exactly free coding if you ask me...
But that is in the ideal world of course.
Instead, we have a monopoly today which actively works towards an even tighter grip on the market.
But you don't need a monopoly to dictate standards. Microsoft has been introducing their own solutions and standards, and we see where this led us, with viruses and worms creating zombie DDoS drones ready to serve their masters...
One could say that if you don't want to be bombarded with ads, just don't go to sites that do that. It is really that simple.
But then there's the other way around: I decide what gets downloaded on my system, and it is in my rights to block content I do not want.
Both of these arguments have merit. But what we don't need are blanket statements and black/white solutions. Without ads, a lot of content simply wouldn't be available today. It is a way to publish content on the web and cover the cost, or even make money. If everyone blocks all ads, what happens to sites that rely on ad revenue to survive?
But then again, Windows hasn't exactly been easy when it comes to digital cameras either. The Olympus Stylus Digital works flawlessly and creates a "removable drive", but when I tried to get pictures from my Canon Ixus, I had a somewhat hard time working out what to do to access my pics. I guess a lot of how easy it is to install hardware has to do with how the hardware manufacturer decides to do things. Canon has decided to make it difficult it seems :)
But Joe Dummy would hardly risk installing hardware himself, would he? I know my mother would never touch any hardware. I would have to install it for her, and it is easy in Windows of course - as long as Windows is able to detect the hardware. Funnily enough the last two systems I installed Windows on, XP failed to find my sound card, and 2000 didn't find the sound card or graphics card.
If we go on to discuss more advanced users, they will find whatever they are used to to be the easiest. I am used to Windows and the way things are done there, so Windows is easier for me to use. But if someone had set me up with Linux when I was a novice I am sure I would find it easier to install hardware in Linux now.
Windows has the upper hand when it comes to compatibility, but isn't how easy it is to install the hardware dependent on what you are used to? Joe Dummy isn't used to anything and doesn't have a clue. He probably wouldn't touch the new hardware!
What is it that makes Linux more difficult to use for Joe Dummy? Having recently installed Mandrake, I actually found it as easy as, if not easier to install than Windows 2000 or XP (which I've recently installed as well). When I say "Linux" I am referring to Mandrake, SuSE and other such distributions, and not Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, etc. They are clearly more advanced.
But Joe Dummy wouldn't install Windows would he? He would get it preinstalled. And then he would need someone to tell him what icons to click to do whatever he wants to do. But how is this more difficult when using Linux?
The only thing I can think of is that there are more Windows users out there, so it might be easier to find one if you need help. But that doesn't make Windows itself easier to use than Linux, does it?
Maybe these ridiculous patent applications weaken the patent system, but real companies are having real problems with this today. Maybe a lot of people in the /. crowd work in the software industry, and are therefore concerned about their jobs.
Good for you! But shouldn't this be up to you rather than the government? Maybe you would prefer to die, but not everyone thinks alike.
So he should have been executed for his own good? Wow, that is certainly a fresh look at capital punishment...
Geddit?
When it comes to browsers, the same users are actually thrilled to get away from MSIE's very basic user interface once they get to know it - in my experience. The user doesn't just care about web sites. You see, the user experiences a number of annoyances on the web, and finding out that other browsers can get rid of these annoyances is a huge plus! What good is a web page which works as it should if you get bombarded with ActiveX installation requests, popup ads and similar?
In the Real World, it does not matter which system you set the newbie to use, as he or she can use anything. You just need to tell them what to click to get what they want.
The problem with Linux vs. Windows is basically the intermediate user which is, say, used to Windows and expect Linux to behave the same. This intermediate user doesn't just click an icon to run a program - he installs new programs and knows a little about how the system works. And so, he's stuck with one system because other operating systems are so different from what he's used to.
I'm one of the people who are used to Windows and stick with it because it gets the job done. And it gets the job done because I'm used to it.
On the other hand, I've found superior alternatives to Microsoft's offerings when it comes to browsing, e-mail, newsgroups, and so on. The OS is just used to organize my files and launch the software I use every day, as you say. I have lots of minor and not so minor problems with Windows, such as problems with Explorer.exe crashing in Windows XP (something I've heard is not exactly uncommon, judging by other people's comments).
I'm a Linux user as well, but it's more because of curiosity than anything else. I use Windows as my primary OS. It's been like this for a few years now.
Would I switch to Linux full time if I got my favorite apps working under Linux? Probably not. I'm just so used to how Windows handles things, and I simply do not have the time to "master" a new OS (Mac is out of the question for me). For one, Linux is developing rapidly, and I am worried that I would be spending a lot of time configuring things again and again. Also, I am a gamer, and as a gamer, Windows is really the only choice for now.
But I don't go around posting trollish comments like the one by Sir Haxalot here...
If you, on the other hand, are having problems with Windows, or find that it "kind of works", but would love to find something better, you should be more open-minded and realize that you probably won't be able to use all your apps on the new OS. And why should you? It is good for you to try out alternatives to the applications you are currently using if they do not suit your needs. But if they do, feel free to stick with them. Whatever suits your need.
CrossOver tries to run Windows software under Linux, which is probably useful for those who really want Linux but also would like to run certain Windows applications. Nothing wrong about that of course, as the Linux environment is quite different from Windows.
But in the end, is it really necessary to post trollish remarks like yours? I cannot see how it could possibly be useful. Then again, looking at your posting history, the comment does not surprise me :)
I don't know why I make myself so involved in this matter, but it doesn't take me long to give people the other side of the story, and it's worth it to me. Google has helped me immensely through the last couple of years, and I don't want to see it go down because of lies and deception.
Brandt has received too much coverage, and now he's trying to spread his FUD and lies on Slashdot too. I just don't think it is right.
Since no one else said anything, I thought I might as well do it.
To sum up: My personal interest is to expose lies. In this case, I expose lies about Google. In other cases, I expose lies about others. I'm not a saint and I don't give all my money to starving children in poor countries. I'm a geeky kind of guy and therefore I care about geeky things. If I can make a difference for something I care about, find useful, or am interested in, then I am happy.
(I know I may burn some karma on this, but it is worth it if I can contribute to putting an end to Everyman's lies about Google.)
Warning: Before modding the parent post, you should know that "Everyman" is the Slashdot alias of Mr. Daniel Brandt, who owns google-watch.org.
I have pointed out many times that google-watch.org is a site full of lies and deception. The reason the site was set up in the first place was that Mr. Brandt didn't think that he got a high enough PageRank, and that his obscure pages about various subjects should rank above other, more informative and popular sources of information on the same subjects. When his obscure site with a page about Donald Rumsfeld did not get a high rank on Google for obvious reasons, he set out on a personal vendetta against the search engine.
In other words, he is not making that site for the good of us all, but to spread FUD about Google. It is a good thing to keep an eye on powerful companies, but this is over the top - it is ridiculous.
Before falling for Brandt's lies and deceptions, please visit Google-watch-watch.org, which exposes his misleading site for what it is.
This latest post on Slashdot is just the latest post in the series of strawman arguments Mr. Brandt is using to try to destroy Google. Also, he still hasn't answered my last reply to him, where I pointed out his hypocrisy, when he complains about how Salon writes a misleading article about him (yeah, right...).
Your comment about KDE and patching was torn apart, and you were exposed as spreading FUD and lies. You claimed that it was not fixed quickly, but it was, and people proved that. Your comment about Apache was misplaced and was also torn apart, but you responded by continuing your ridiculous attacks against those who dare speak against you. You are Enderle's account on Slashdot, aren't you?
Please don't embarrass yourself any further. It is perfectly clear who the zealot is here. As I pointed out, this is not the first time you've been exposed as a FUD troll.
Aaargh, I know you are right, but I really want these people who buy stuff from spammers to be stupid, so stupid that they run out in heavy traffic without looking left and right first...
Spyware secretly gathers information about the user (and passes it on to interested parties).
Adware is not necessarily spyware, since it is possible to display ads without spying. For example, a generic set of ads which is not based on the user or the user's surfing habits.
As long as the adware does not gather information behind the user's back, it is not spyware, and we should make this distincion very clear, because it doesn't benefit anyone to lump adware and spyware in the same pile.
Adware serves ads, but does not spy on the user.
While it is possible for adware to be spyware, we should keep these definitions separate and agree that something which spies on the user is not adware, it is simply spyware.
Adware which serves ads and does not spy on the user does exist, so it would be a bad thing to mix these.
I see this misconception a lot. But as I posted earlier, adware is not necessarily spyware. If the program serves ads without spying (secretly gathering information) on a user, it is just adware, and normal adware is not a privacy intrusion.
Adware can be spyware, but then I wouldn't call it adware either, because these terms should be kept separate. There is no reason why people who rely on ads served without compromising your security or privacy should suffer because of overly broad definitions.
But just like "racism" to many is no longer about race, but also about culture, and can therefore be used effectively to shut someone up in a debate, it can be easy to label something "spyware" because one does not understand what it really does, or perhaps because one benefits from paranoia (such as running an "anti-spyware" site which one makes money from).
One example is Spywareinfo.com, which is a site run by a guy who claims that a program can be spyware even though it doesn't actually spy on the user (follow the comment thread, and also parent and grandparent). This is ridiculous, and only contributes to confusing the issue and making it harder to spot the real spyware.
Another example is Google Watch, which is a site set up to spread lies about Google because another site belonging to the Google Watch owner was too obscure and unpopular to get a good PageRank.
Since I have already talked about the lies and deception of Google Watch in another lengthy post, I shall not repeat myself too much here, but the deceptive site lies about the Google bar and calls it spyware, which is an outright lie, since it is impossible to miss the text saying that for the PageRank indicator to work, it must send URLs back to Google.
So as you can see, it is not only important that we watch for software vendors that want to compromise our privacy. We must also watch the watchers to make sure that they cannot cash in on other people's fear by exaggerating, lying and deceiving. Therefore, the definitions must be strict, and we cannot allow people like Mike at spywareinfo.com or David at google-watch.com to fill our heads with lies until we believe them and let them cash in on our problems.
(For the record, Mike does a lot of good things, but he clearly needs to be corrected, as his overly broad definitions do nothing but making the fight against spyware more difficult, simply because we are not just fighting real spyware anymore apparently, but also lots of other programs that do not fit the real definition at all.)
And finally, it is my firm belief that Gator is indeed spyware, in case my stance on this issue was unclear. The way Gator tries to sneak its way into our systems, it cannot be defined as anything but spyware.
No one has said that all bundling is bad. Popup blocking should belong in a browser, and there is no reason why Microsoft couldn't add more features to their browser. If they hadn't already secured a monopoly in the browser market and couldn't care less about innovation...
But the kind of bundling which kills off competition, with products of lesser quality bundled with the operating system just to push dangerous competitors out of the market, that is the bad kind of bundling.
Microsoft should never have been allowed to secure a monopoly in the browser market anyway, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have made it a separate download with lots of useful features (rather than a basic browser which doesn't do much and which is very vulnerable to pages that want to exploit security holes, flood you with popups, and so on).
By the way, Opera is a closed-source/commercial browser with a popup blocker (and countless other features that make your everyday browsing faster and more convenient) built in. And actually, Mozilla/Firebird has borrowed a lot of features from Opera. built in popup blocking was first seen in Opera, for example.
Also, bundling applications is far from "the Microsoft way". You are giving Microsoft more credit than they deserve. It is not like they were the first to bundle applications!
What was Enderle right about? I am a Windows user, and it is not like I haven't defended and promoted closed-source software on Slashdot.
So what kind of zealot am I? You still haven't answered the question, but instead you try to cloud the issue with ridiculous outbursts that are totally irrelevant to tis discussion. Just like someone who is out of arguments and grasping for straws.
The whole point is that yes, you can get modded up and get support if you are constructive and post informative stuff. The MS trolls don't do this. They post to bash Slashdot, open-source, Linux and related things.
So what kind of zealot am I?
You are calling me on what? I am not spreading FUD nor am I spreading bullshit. You, on the other hand, seem to react like this because I struck a nerve, am I right? You actually did get modded up, despite the deceptive and misleading text you wrote. People called you on your bullshit and FUD, but you still didn't get modded down.
So exactly why are you so angry?
I think the moderation of the post linked to above proved that it is indeed possible to be critical of open-source software, and even the flagship open-source browser, Firebird, and get modded up, as long as you try to stay away from stupid comments that are nothing but flamebait.
So what kind of zealot am I? Anti-FUD and anti-bullshit zealot?