There is a difference between not liking MS and physically attacking them.
And why should one not point out that MS is greedy? I see no problem with that. If you find yourself having an illegal monopoly, you just have to handle it. If Microsoft had stopped backstabbing their partners and using dirty business practices after this, maybe people would give them more slack, but what do you know? Didn't MS recently stab a Smartphone partner in the back by getting access to their technology, and then breaking the agreement, pulling out, and leaving the other company bankrupt while using their technology? It was all covered here on Slashdot, and I am sure you read it yourself.
I am a Windows user, but I recognize the fact that different people have different needs. I do play around with Linux every now and then, but Windows works well for me, and since I am used to it and don't have a lot of time to start afresh with all my programs, or configure another OS to my liking, I will stick to it as my primary OS for now.
However, I find that these people you speak of who are critical of open-source or Linux, are often ignorant and confrontational, rather than being level-headed and understanding how different people may like different things.
Let's take Slashdot as an example. If you post a well thought-out post about Windows' strengths and it is on-topic for the debate, you will see very few flames, if any. However, most of the pro-Windows posts here are exactly that: Pro-Windows to an extreme, and they attract attention.
Not only are the pro-Windows, but they are also anti-open-source or anti-Linux, often stating that Linux is unnecessary, doesn't work well, is crap, etc. And they pull out the inevitable comparisons that are usually a result of Microsoft's FUD.
When a new security hole in a Microsoft product is posted on Slashdot, these people will start talking about how holes are only discovered "because Windows is more popular than Linux" or similar, which of course is an old and tired claim, especially considering the fact that open-source product Apache, which is more widely used than any other web server, has had far fewer security holes than Microsoft's IIS.
This will naturally attract negative attention, simply because they are posting flamebait. They may not know it, but that's what it is. It is an unsubstantiated claim based on nothing but Microsoft FUD.
So you see, these attacks you speak of against criticism of open-source or Linux are often ignited by ignorant rants by Microsoft apologists who post flamebait, either unknowingly, or fully aware of what they are doing.
Post valid criticism, and I am sure you will find that you will not be attacked.
And regarding the SCO matter, SCO is behaving more like a terrorist organization than any open-source group I know of.
Finally, why should this article be thrown in the trash? Have you read other articles by Rob Enderle? A short while ago, another article of his was posted on Slashdot, and I was amazed and left speechless in disgust at this man's incredible disregard for facts and common decency. Again, I am a relatively happy Windows user (although I recognize a huge number of problems in Windows as well), but Mr. Enderle is simply an ignorant, foolish troll.
So that is why he is attacked. Rob Enderle is an eternal FUD and garbage machine, spewing out nonsense and flamebait. Don't take his word for anything, but rather ignore him, or if you must read his drivel, check every single claim of his carefully.
I wouldn't exactly say that people are "programmed" in the same way as computers, no.
No matter how close to a human a computer seems to be, it is still not human. If nothing else, a human being is a human being simply because it is born as one.
So you can find examples of anything if you really want to. But there is no point in fitting a computer with a nuclear reactor just to prove that it's "life". Maybe life has to be biological and created by natural processes, maybe a computer is still a computer even if it uses biological components, and even if it can mimic life.
When I bought Windows XP they included MSN messenger with it, and nagged me to sign up and connect. Fine, apparently I gained access to an IM network by purchasing Windows XP. And therefore I should be able to choose which client I wish to use when I access it.
Microsoft says that "our development investments are driven by our customer requirements and not necessarily by standards". So why are they calling Internet Explorer a web browser? Judging by that remark, it is not inteded to be used on the web, but with some kind of proprietary solution, and Internet Explorer should never have been made available to the masses anyway, since it covers very specific needs that are not compatible with the web.
Microsoft is a market leader at what? At abusing its monopoly? At integrating proprietary solutions and open standards, only to proceed to destroy the open standards and push their own technologies on everyone, not just their customers?
What if I happen to be a Microsoft customer but not an Internet Explorer user? Why should I be forced to use Internet Explorer if I don't want to use their proprietary solutions, but the World Wide Web?
A web browser is intended to be used on the web. Internet Explorer apparently isn't.
Big words, but when you try to redefine the English language, you are going too far. "Spy" is already defined in English, and spyware has to spy - it has to secretly gather data.
Unfortunately, you also get a buggy and insecure rendering engine - MSIE. I would recommend Opera or Mozilla over any MSIE based browser/shell any day.
I mostly agree with you, but I also have to break it to you: Firebird and especially Thunderbird are not to be considered as "production" software. This might sound like a troll, but the response you will get if you visit the MozillaZine forums for example, and complain about the lack of an installer, certain issues with extensions and so on, is that you should consider using another browser. Also, a lot of Firebird enthusiasts are actually hesitant to spread the word too much, or to convince people to use Firebird if they are not aware of the state it is in (such as posting glowing reviews on download.com). I am not saying that it is a bad browser, but it is still at 0.x, and needs some work before Joe Blow can use it without problems.
And Thunderbird is so far from completed I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is not willing to put in a lot of effort to actually test and report bugs for the program.
I think the Mozilla suite/SeaMonkey might be more down most people's alley.
It is spyware as long as it does not inform the user about the gathering of data. It is still secretly gathering data because it is does not inform you about it.
And you are redefining words as you see fit, which is very dangerous. It is people like you who confuse the issue, and that can only benefit spyware authors. I have defined spyware. Not "surveillance spyware", but spyware. Spyware is spyware, whether it is "surveillance spyware" or "advertising spyware". I don't care if you have managed to think up a new buzzword, because it simply does not negate the fact that spyware spies on the user, and spying on something means that the one being spied on is not aware of it.
Is a spy still a spy if the one being spied on is aware of it? Yes, because the spy is still trying to spy, which means secretly gathering information about someone. The purpose of the spy is to spy on someone. Do you understand? Try to keep irrelevant anologies away from the discussion please.
And also, you are trying to redefine the term "spyware", and that is simply not acceptable. As someone who runs an anti-spyware site you should have more sense than trying to water the term down with useless nonsense.
Then again, if you are making money from the site, I guess that fear mongering and confusion only benefits you...
The definition of spyware is "software which secretly gathers information from a user and passes it on to an interested party". Notice the word secretly. If I participate in a survey and submit a list of URLs I have visited through a program, is this program spyware? Of course not. If the program gathered these URLs without my knowledge, it would be spyware.
It's the same thing with Google. You know that enabling certain features will require the toolbar to send the URL back to Google.
If you look at the definition of "spy" in this context, it is:
Please, for the sake of your site and reputation, don't water down the term "spyware" any more. It is abused enough as it is. If you allow someone to follow you throughout the day to see what you are doing, that person is not spying on you. If the person is following you without your knowledge, that person is spying on you.
Oh give me a break. Quit whining and realize how it feels to be on the receiving end, if you have indeed been done injustice by Salon. You have created a site dedicated to misleading people about what Google is, and you have several blatant lies listed on your site. Your nine points against Google are mostly desperate strawman arguments thrown together randomly to try to form a coherent argument. You failed.
I see no problem with keeping an eye on powerful and influential corporations, as long as one tries to stick to the facts. But you are a liar, and your lies have been picked apart so many times that by now, one would have thought that you would run away, crying in shame. However, your blatant lies and groundless accusations are still there, and show that you are a man without shame. You will do anything it takes to get what you want.
Your site is a result of a personal vendetta against Google because the search engine works as expected, and the media has given you far more coverage than you deserve. And considering your poor ethical and moral standards, I actually choose to believe Salon's version of the story.
You have no credibility what so ever on this issue, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry when you write this:
"I pointed out to Mr. Beasley that the piece he was quoting on his site was biased and inaccurate. He ignored me, and keeps quoting from the piece."
Is that supposed to justify your lies and deception?
It's ironic, isn't it, when you get a taste of your own medicine?
As for what Chris Beasley says, I have no problem with that. At least he is up front about his motives. And guess what, I am writing this because I, too, find Google to be a great service. However, Google is not forcing me to use their search engine, and should they ever behave in a manner that makes me want to stop using it, I am free to do so.
The bottom line is, you are a hypocrite and a liar, and you are trying to cloud the issue by attacking those who expose you for what you are - a hypocritical liar and a fraud.
The toolbar is neither technically nor by definition spyware, because the user knows exactly what is going on. It is not spying on the user, because spying means that you do it without the user's knowledge. Spyware doesn't have to hijack anything. It simply has to spy on the user. The Google toolbar does not spy on the user as long as the user is aware of what is going on.
I am sorry for responding twice to your inane drivel, but I had forgotten about Google Watch Watch.
From Google Watch Watch:
When you type "NameBase" into Google, Brandt's site comes up first, but Brandt is not satisfied with that. "My problem has been to get Google to go deep enough into my site," he says. In other words, Brandt wants Google to index the 100,000 names he has in his database, so that a Google search for "Donald Rumsfeld" will bring up NameBase's page for the secretary of defense. For some reason, though, all of NameBase's deep pages -- its pages with specific names and citations -- have a low Google page rank, which causes them to show up low in the search results. Search for "Donald Rumsfeld" in Google and in the first five pages you get a lot of.mil and.gov sites, some news stories, and some activist sites. Namebase's entry on Rumsfeld doesn't come up. (It is in Google's database, but to find it somebody would have to first wade through hundreds of results.)
Brandt sees this as Google's major flaw. "I'm not saying there aren't some sites that are more important that others, but in Google the sites that do well are the spammy sites, sites which have Google psyched out, and a lot of big sites, corporate headquarters' sites -- they show up before sites that criticize those companies."
In other words, Brandt recognizes that there has to be some order to Google's results, and that some sites might deserve to come up before others. He just disagrees with the way Google does it. In Brandt's ideal world, if you searched for "United Airlines," you would see untied.com -- a site critical of United -- before you see United's page. And if you searched for Rumsfeld, you'd see NameBase's dossier on him before the Defense Department's site on the "The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld."
Google Watch exists because of someone who wants PageRank to value his opinion more than the majority. Go figure.
How is Google a "central tracking point for ALL sorts of Internet" activity? Does it log me when I read my mail? Does it log me when I browse Usenet groups using my favorite newsreader? If I am worried about Google "tracking" me when searching, then I won't use it. It's that simple.
And then there's your comment about innovation. Perhaps you should remove the blindfolds from your eyes and have a look at Google Labs. They have all kinds of cool things going on there.
And the final straw is when you mention Google Watch as a source of information. Google Watch is so full of misinformation and lies that it is disgusting. It was started because some guy didn't get his page ranked highly enough, and he decided to attack Google. Just look at the text called "PageRank: Google's original sin". He is basically bashing Google for one of its greatest features. Why? Because he wasn't highly ranked. Also look at the yellow box at the top of the page, saying that Google unfairly pushed down its "competitor" SearchKing on the search results.
The fact is that SearchKing is not a competitor. SearchKing is, in fact, a company which tries to artificially increase a page's PageRank. When Google updated its engine and SearchKing was defeated, SearchKing tried to sue. Funny, that. Some of the worst scum of the Internet is suing someone for doing what's best for everyone...
Scroll further down on the page to see an picture of Bill Gates and the Google founders, seemingly comparing Microsoft's dirty tactics in taking over the browser market by adding MSIE to their operating system, to Google's growth based purely on its usefulness as a service.
Further, look at the "Google as Big Brother", text, where more lies are spread. The nine points are mostly strawman arguments. It is obviously that the disgruntled site owner tried to come up with something - anything - to get more contents on his anti-Google page. I could post the list of points and explain exactly why they are nonsense, but it has been done so many times before.
One point that stands out is "Google's toolbar is spyware". This is a huge lie. It is pure deception. In fact, Google should sue this foolish man. Google clearly explains how the toolbar works when you install it, and there's even a huge warning about it before you enable the PageRank bar. Not only that, but he brings up the Alexa search bar nonsense, which clearly shows his true intent: Lying and deceiving.
Then there's this nice argument: "Google's cache is illegal because, uh, because it must be illegal!" Yes, he's basically saying that Google Cache is illegal because it is illegal. But he is not saying why it is supposedly illegal.
He then proceeds to talk about how Google is not "your" friend, although he really means that Google is not the friend of people who try to artificially increase their PageRank. You see, he is just repeating his rabid nonsense about how Google is terrible because it deals with abuse.
Bottom line: Here we have an individual with an agenda. His obscure site wasn't ranked highly enough so he set out on a quest of personal vendetta. With lies, deception and FUD he tries to ruin Google but ends up looking the fool that he is.
I am not defending Google at all costs here, but you are clearly paranoid and delusional, and need a dose of reality. How exactly is Google being huge because it is the best alternative to a huge number of users a bad thing? Google is able to exist purely on its own technical merit, and does not have to resort to anti-competitive practice.
You don't quite seem to understand. The only time the Google toolbar in MSIE reports URLs back to Google is when you have enabled the PageRank indicator, which is not available for Firebird. You can be a Firebird zealot all you want, but stop spreading FUD about other browsers. Please.
Artists can get money by doing concerts, appearances, and so on. Free distribution of their music could actually contribute to more fans, and as a result, more people come to their concerts.
If the era of paying for music is over, then music will continue to exist, but the record labels will of course try anything to stop what seems to be inevitable.
I am sure horse carriage makers were more than a little peeved off when cars took over. Too bad for them. Change your business model or go out of business.
As long as they already have a non-GPL license, GPL or not GPL is irrelevant. id Software can release their code under any license they please, even different licenses to different people.
Who says that the code has to be compiled? Maybe it's just there because it was used at earlier stages of development or something. Speculating like this is silly. It's there and Valve owns a license from id to use it. So stop worrying about it.
Counterstrike is free, but you have already paid for Half-Life to be able to use HL mods. Now you automatically become a Steam subscriber if you have Half-Life. The reason is that Steam will take over the authentication from WON, so everyone's old license will be converted to Steam.
Half-Life multiplayer is huge. Half-Life 2 might become a huge multiplayer hit too. It is obviously wrong to claim that people won't pay to play.
You have to pay to play online with HL. Same with HL2. (And Valve won't be charging extra for online play once you have bought the game. They may charge you for official mods, but that's it.)
Slashdot Mirror
And why should one not point out that MS is greedy? I see no problem with that. If you find yourself having an illegal monopoly, you just have to handle it. If Microsoft had stopped backstabbing their partners and using dirty business practices after this, maybe people would give them more slack, but what do you know? Didn't MS recently stab a Smartphone partner in the back by getting access to their technology, and then breaking the agreement, pulling out, and leaving the other company bankrupt while using their technology? It was all covered here on Slashdot, and I am sure you read it yourself.
However, I find that these people you speak of who are critical of open-source or Linux, are often ignorant and confrontational, rather than being level-headed and understanding how different people may like different things.
Let's take Slashdot as an example. If you post a well thought-out post about Windows' strengths and it is on-topic for the debate, you will see very few flames, if any. However, most of the pro-Windows posts here are exactly that: Pro-Windows to an extreme, and they attract attention.
Not only are the pro-Windows, but they are also anti-open-source or anti-Linux, often stating that Linux is unnecessary, doesn't work well, is crap, etc. And they pull out the inevitable comparisons that are usually a result of Microsoft's FUD.
When a new security hole in a Microsoft product is posted on Slashdot, these people will start talking about how holes are only discovered "because Windows is more popular than Linux" or similar, which of course is an old and tired claim, especially considering the fact that open-source product Apache, which is more widely used than any other web server, has had far fewer security holes than Microsoft's IIS.
This will naturally attract negative attention, simply because they are posting flamebait. They may not know it, but that's what it is. It is an unsubstantiated claim based on nothing but Microsoft FUD.
So you see, these attacks you speak of against criticism of open-source or Linux are often ignited by ignorant rants by Microsoft apologists who post flamebait, either unknowingly, or fully aware of what they are doing.
Post valid criticism, and I am sure you will find that you will not be attacked.
And regarding the SCO matter, SCO is behaving more like a terrorist organization than any open-source group I know of.
Finally, why should this article be thrown in the trash? Have you read other articles by Rob Enderle? A short while ago, another article of his was posted on Slashdot, and I was amazed and left speechless in disgust at this man's incredible disregard for facts and common decency. Again, I am a relatively happy Windows user (although I recognize a huge number of problems in Windows as well), but Mr. Enderle is simply an ignorant, foolish troll.
So that is why he is attacked. Rob Enderle is an eternal FUD and garbage machine, spewing out nonsense and flamebait. Don't take his word for anything, but rather ignore him, or if you must read his drivel, check every single claim of his carefully.
No matter how close to a human a computer seems to be, it is still not human. If nothing else, a human being is a human being simply because it is born as one.
If it's programmed it's a computer, isn't it?
Maybe you should calm down and get a clue about Europe too. Europe is more than France. There's the UK which entered Iraq along with the US troops.
But just because not every single European country wants to let the US do as it pleases, that doesn't mean that all Europeans are out to "get" the US.
Get over your paranoia fit, open your eyes and try not to come across as an ignorant fool.
Right?
Microsoft is a market leader at what? At abusing its monopoly? At integrating proprietary solutions and open standards, only to proceed to destroy the open standards and push their own technologies on everyone, not just their customers?
What if I happen to be a Microsoft customer but not an Internet Explorer user? Why should I be forced to use Internet Explorer if I don't want to use their proprietary solutions, but the World Wide Web?
A web browser is intended to be used on the web. Internet Explorer apparently isn't.
Big words, but when you try to redefine the English language, you are going too far. "Spy" is already defined in English, and spyware has to spy - it has to secretly gather data.
Unfortunately, you also get a buggy and insecure rendering engine - MSIE. I would recommend Opera or Mozilla over any MSIE based browser/shell any day.
And Thunderbird is so far from completed I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is not willing to put in a lot of effort to actually test and report bugs for the program.
I think the Mozilla suite/SeaMonkey might be more down most people's alley.
And you are redefining words as you see fit, which is very dangerous. It is people like you who confuse the issue, and that can only benefit spyware authors. I have defined spyware. Not "surveillance spyware", but spyware. Spyware is spyware, whether it is "surveillance spyware" or "advertising spyware". I don't care if you have managed to think up a new buzzword, because it simply does not negate the fact that spyware spies on the user, and spying on something means that the one being spied on is not aware of it.
Is a spy still a spy if the one being spied on is aware of it? Yes, because the spy is still trying to spy, which means secretly gathering information about someone. The purpose of the spy is to spy on someone. Do you understand? Try to keep irrelevant anologies away from the discussion please.
And also, you are trying to redefine the term "spyware", and that is simply not acceptable. As someone who runs an anti-spyware site you should have more sense than trying to water the term down with useless nonsense.
Then again, if you are making money from the site, I guess that fear mongering and confusion only benefits you...
The definition of spyware is "software which secretly gathers information from a user and passes it on to an interested party". Notice the word secretly. If I participate in a survey and submit a list of URLs I have visited through a program, is this program spyware? Of course not. If the program gathered these URLs without my knowledge, it would be spyware.
It's the same thing with Google. You know that enabling certain features will require the toolbar to send the URL back to Google.
If you look at the definition of "spy" in this context, it is:
Please, for the sake of your site and reputation, don't water down the term "spyware" any more. It is abused enough as it is. If you allow someone to follow you throughout the day to see what you are doing, that person is not spying on you. If the person is following you without your knowledge, that person is spying on you.I see no problem with keeping an eye on powerful and influential corporations, as long as one tries to stick to the facts. But you are a liar, and your lies have been picked apart so many times that by now, one would have thought that you would run away, crying in shame. However, your blatant lies and groundless accusations are still there, and show that you are a man without shame. You will do anything it takes to get what you want.
Your site is a result of a personal vendetta against Google because the search engine works as expected, and the media has given you far more coverage than you deserve. And considering your poor ethical and moral standards, I actually choose to believe Salon's version of the story.
You have no credibility what so ever on this issue, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry when you write this:
"I pointed out to Mr. Beasley that the piece he was quoting on his site was biased and inaccurate. He ignored me, and keeps quoting from the piece."
Is that supposed to justify your lies and deception?
It's ironic, isn't it, when you get a taste of your own medicine?
As for what Chris Beasley says, I have no problem with that. At least he is up front about his motives. And guess what, I am writing this because I, too, find Google to be a great service. However, Google is not forcing me to use their search engine, and should they ever behave in a manner that makes me want to stop using it, I am free to do so.
The bottom line is, you are a hypocrite and a liar, and you are trying to cloud the issue by attacking those who expose you for what you are - a hypocritical liar and a fraud.
The toolbar is neither technically nor by definition spyware, because the user knows exactly what is going on. It is not spying on the user, because spying means that you do it without the user's knowledge. Spyware doesn't have to hijack anything. It simply has to spy on the user. The Google toolbar does not spy on the user as long as the user is aware of what is going on.
Direct Connect?
From Google Watch Watch:
Google Watch exists because of someone who wants PageRank to value his opinion more than the majority. Go figure.And then there's your comment about innovation. Perhaps you should remove the blindfolds from your eyes and have a look at Google Labs. They have all kinds of cool things going on there.
And the final straw is when you mention Google Watch as a source of information. Google Watch is so full of misinformation and lies that it is disgusting. It was started because some guy didn't get his page ranked highly enough, and he decided to attack Google. Just look at the text called "PageRank: Google's original sin". He is basically bashing Google for one of its greatest features. Why? Because he wasn't highly ranked. Also look at the yellow box at the top of the page, saying that Google unfairly pushed down its "competitor" SearchKing on the search results.
The fact is that SearchKing is not a competitor. SearchKing is, in fact, a company which tries to artificially increase a page's PageRank. When Google updated its engine and SearchKing was defeated, SearchKing tried to sue. Funny, that. Some of the worst scum of the Internet is suing someone for doing what's best for everyone...
Scroll further down on the page to see an picture of Bill Gates and the Google founders, seemingly comparing Microsoft's dirty tactics in taking over the browser market by adding MSIE to their operating system, to Google's growth based purely on its usefulness as a service.
Further, look at the "Google as Big Brother", text, where more lies are spread. The nine points are mostly strawman arguments. It is obviously that the disgruntled site owner tried to come up with something - anything - to get more contents on his anti-Google page. I could post the list of points and explain exactly why they are nonsense, but it has been done so many times before.
One point that stands out is "Google's toolbar is spyware". This is a huge lie. It is pure deception. In fact, Google should sue this foolish man. Google clearly explains how the toolbar works when you install it, and there's even a huge warning about it before you enable the PageRank bar. Not only that, but he brings up the Alexa search bar nonsense, which clearly shows his true intent: Lying and deceiving.
Then there's this nice argument: "Google's cache is illegal because, uh, because it must be illegal!" Yes, he's basically saying that Google Cache is illegal because it is illegal. But he is not saying why it is supposedly illegal.
He then proceeds to talk about how Google is not "your" friend, although he really means that Google is not the friend of people who try to artificially increase their PageRank. You see, he is just repeating his rabid nonsense about how Google is terrible because it deals with abuse.
Bottom line: Here we have an individual with an agenda. His obscure site wasn't ranked highly enough so he set out on a quest of personal vendetta. With lies, deception and FUD he tries to ruin Google but ends up looking the fool that he is.
I am not defending Google at all costs here, but you are clearly paranoid and delusional, and need a dose of reality. How exactly is Google being huge because it is the best alternative to a huge number of users a bad thing? Google is able to exist purely on its own technical merit, and does not have to resort to anti-competitive practice.
You don't quite seem to understand. The only time the Google toolbar in MSIE reports URLs back to Google is when you have enabled the PageRank indicator, which is not available for Firebird. You can be a Firebird zealot all you want, but stop spreading FUD about other browsers. Please.
If the era of paying for music is over, then music will continue to exist, but the record labels will of course try anything to stop what seems to be inevitable.
I am sure horse carriage makers were more than a little peeved off when cars took over. Too bad for them. Change your business model or go out of business.
As long as they already have a non-GPL license, GPL or not GPL is irrelevant. id Software can release their code under any license they please, even different licenses to different people.
Who says that the code has to be compiled? Maybe it's just there because it was used at earlier stages of development or something. Speculating like this is silly. It's there and Valve owns a license from id to use it. So stop worrying about it.
Valve has a license to use id Software's code, so there is no problem at all here.
And Valve has actually licensed id Software's engines for Quake and Quake 2, so there is no problem here.
Half-Life multiplayer is huge. Half-Life 2 might become a huge multiplayer hit too. It is obviously wrong to claim that people won't pay to play.
You have to pay to play online with HL. Same with HL2. (And Valve won't be charging extra for online play once you have bought the game. They may charge you for official mods, but that's it.)