It doesn't make all of this irrelevant. The issue is still very relavent[sic], and if linux or OSX marketshare continues to grow, we will be facing it again someday.
Linux is a UNIX variant. When MS Windows was still a gnat on virus-infected flea's butt, there was the Morris worm which crippled the UNIX-based 'net (for a day or two). It was quickly contained and disabled. MS cannot easily contain any of the malware that feeds off of it. It is a matter of architecture and the massive kludge that is Windows. Yes, there will always be people trying to create malware for any OS, but trying to absolve MS because they're a big target is just denial of the real problem.
Don't put this on MS in any way. Autorun is a feature that the users want to see.
Is "Autorun" in any way supposed to be equivalent to autoinstall? You can pop in a music CD in a Linux system using KDE, and it will pop an application to play it. It won't install new software - certainly not root-level (administrator) software. It seems like yet another MS problem to me. Sony is certainly at fault, but why give them 100% blame for using a Windows "feature" that invites exploitation?
If I thought a brick through your window, is it the home builders fault for putting windows in your home?
Unless you're Kreskin, I doubt you could think a brick through my window. A more apt analogy is a home builder who installs windows that can't be closed or locked. In that case, it is the builder's fault.
This means that I am no longer comfortable recommending AV software solutions without providing some fairly in-depth warnings about this little episode.
How about recommending a different OS that makes it all irrelevant instead?
Context menus and drag & drop are concepts with notoriously poor discoverability. Not that double-clicking is easy, but once that skill is learned, the "select, then manipulate" model of the desktop metaphor is consistent with it.
How so? Dragging is standard mouse usage. Right-click context menus are standard behavior for Windows and Linux desktops. As you point out yourself, double-clicking is hardly intuitive - it is simply the Windows way.
Quicklaunch buttons and the like are the exception - the inconsistency - not the rule.
That seems to support my argument more than yours.
This is about as valid as me saying you're wrong.
I have used Windows since version 1.0. If anyone should be resistant to change, it should be me. However, I liked KDE's single-click activation. For icons, it makes more sense. It is not a matter of right or wrong - it's the way it is.
I assume you mean "earlier" - and given the KDE project only started in late 1996, it couldn't have been much earlier than 1997 (KDE 1.0 was released 1998).
No, I said later, and I meant later. You were the one saying how all this had been proven by '97. It was only a few years ago that KDE still had single-click activation. Apparently, the KDE developers (and I) still thought it was the better method.
The fact that Apple has never tried it would also suggest their UI research indicated it was poorly received as well.
That would more likely be a result of Apple's belief that mouse users have only one finger and that Apple systems ship with a one-button mouse. Okay, your whole argument seems to be that MS received some negative feedback from beta testers. Well, some people just hate change. To me, single-click activation for icons (whether they are on the desktop or in the tray) seems more intuitive, and it's certainly more efficient. There is rarely a reason to "select" an icon, and I've yet to see one that couldn't be accomplished in another fashion.
Just think how many clicks could be saved world-wide if single-clicking icons became the standard. All those saved fractional seconds could easily result in man-years of increased productivity. And then there's the reduction in repetitive stress injuries.:)
Sorry if I misread you, but I get annoyed when someone claims that 'nerds', 'socially implaired' or 'isolated people' are objectively inferior to them, and/or that sexual activity is the only way to measure one's achivement. That's complete an utter nonsense.
I said nothing about sexual activity or any related inferiority. A sense of humor is vital in social interaction, and as distasteful as it may be to some (I lean that way myself), that interaction is necessary to get most things done.
Fuck, I am the only one who can give a meaning and a goal to my life . ..
I hear you, but you're wrong. I once felt the same, but there is someone else out there in the world who can give a new meaning and a new goal to your life. It will happen. It doesn't change your direction - it only adds new dimensions. A ready sense of humor is your best ally in finding that person.
You don't always want to open something when you click on it. Sometimes (mostly, I'd wager) you just want to select it for further manipulation.
Nonsense. Most often, when you click on an icon, you want to start or open whatever it represents. What possible manipulation is not available while using a two-button mouse and a right-click context menu or drag?
I'd be interested to see if you can cite any sources for "single-click" to be "better UI" (or even just a well-reasoned argument).
Sure, I can cite a source - me. As a former (and sometimes still) Windows user, I thought the KDE single-click way was better, and KDE's usage was a lot later than '97. Cite a reputable source that says it's worse (other than your "Memphis" claim which I never heard of).
Wrong. Your distro is obviously screwing with the defaults. Install KDE from scratch, and you get the single-click to run by default.
I will take your word for it. I have tried to update KDE in the past and completely hosed everything. There tends to be Qt and/or gcc/glibc dependencies that affect everything.
d. does anyone aside from people trying to inflate their ego actually consider the number of parties to which a person is invited to be in anyway connected to one's merit? (N/n)
Yes. It's considered a measure of social interaction, and while not an indicator of one's intelligence or male genital organ length, it does tend to indicate one's education and sense of humor if nothing else.
If you want to make yorsef[sic] feel proud, superior, and righteous, at least do it by actually contributing to society.
Well, I don't know if my two kids could be considered a contribution to society, but they did manage to grow up without any of us killing each other or anyone else. Then there are my published articles, including the ones that were anthologized, as well as all the work I've done during my career. Pride, superiority, and righteousness have nothing to do with my comment. It was a joke.
K Menu -> Control Center -> Peripherals -> Mouse -> Single Click to open Files and folders.
Thanks, following that lead, on my distro, it's more like Start Menu -> System -> Configuration -> KDE -> Peripherals -> Mouse -> Single Click to open Files and folders. That doesn't seem intuitive to me, since I expected that control to be under window (not mouse) behavior, since you can select icons using a mouse or keyboard. In any case, I still think KDE should use default controls that make the most sense, not the ones that mimic Windows.
I dont know why people accuse KDE of having no original ideas, and for cloning windows.
It's not that they don't have original and good ideas, it's that they hide those ideas under layers of menus and accept the Windows way by default. I can understand they are trying to be familiar for Windows users that are making the transition, but that is just hiding the innovative parts from most of us regular users. I think it's time for KDE to concentrate on KDE and do it right by default. Provide options for people who like the MS interface if they want to select it (or give Linux users an easy one- or two-click way to a cleaner interface). Let Microsoft play catch-up.
ObPedant: Uh, factoring primes is trivial: p = 1*p...
a) Who was it that said that factoring large primes would be a computing breakthrough?
b) Were you ever invited to a party? (N/y)
c) If you answered "yes" to (b), were you ever invited to another party? (N/n)
It seems the two are equivalent- double click this icon to start a program. . ..
At one point the KDE GUI seemed to be superior - you (the user) only needed to single-left-click an icon to start a program. Really, why would you wish to single-click an icon and have no reaction? Itchy trigger finger, and you're clicking randomly on the desktop? You use a one-button mouse? I was disappointed when the startup command became a double-click. Why settle for a poor interface just because it's the Windows way? (No doubt there's a way to change KDE's default behavior, and perhaps someone will explain it.)
Indeed. If the govenment had known how it was going to turn out, there would have been far more regulation. Why give a whole bunch of governments a second chance at screwing it up?
I think the easier explanation is that unintentionally crappy software doesn't concern them, but intentionally invasive software does.;p
Or perhaps it's because Microsoft is untouchable, but the DHS wants to be perceived as *doing something*, so it attacks Sony. The DHS is a joke. A massively expensive and useless joke.
Maybe if these companies wouldn't be so evil they'd improve their image. And I don't mean trying to do some high-profile good to spin-balance their must-profit-evil acts.
Image? These companies don't have an image, they have a shadowy visage that cannot be seen in a mirror. A mallet, a wooden stake, and a shaft of daylight would help. Caution: more than a few US Representatives and Senators might be subjected to spontaneous combustion if the above suggestion were implemented.
That's because their shirt can't instantly become six billion more shirts, which you can give away for free (or sell for next to nothing, like AllofMP3.com does) and take away any reason for anybody else to buy one from them.
Selling recorded music is a multi-million dollar industry, the owners of which surely don't want to just give up, just because technology has made it fantastically easy to rip them off.
Every time the subject of IT employment and job loss comes up, there is a Slashdot contingent chanting that nobody is entitled to a job, and people will have to deal with the new reality. So why is it that individuals have to deal with it, but companies have a right to continue making a profit despite their growing irrelevance just because they made millions in the past?
At one time, the recording companies provided a service: they provided recorded media for far less than an individual could produce it, and people willingly paid for it. That is a typical business case. That is no longer the case. Now, they produce a product that is more expensive than an individual could produce on her own, but the industry believes she should still be forced to buy from them.
If you don't like DRM, suggest another way for them to sell music.
That's a red herring. How did they get a God-given right to control and sell all the music? It really is the buggy-whip analogy: the so-called music industry has outlived its usefulness as distributors, but now they have so much money that they can buy legislation to enforce their artificial middle-man position. DRM removes the few and limited rights that buyers still have under the law, so it is an abomination. If you're serious about how the industry could sell music, they should become VARs. The cost of a stamped CD, jewel case, insert, and shrink wrap is about twenty cents or less. Their product (which includes 30-year-old music that should be public domain) should reflect their costs. If you can get an album for $2, there is little incentive to download and burn it. The only P2P I do is downloading Linux distros - to me this argument is strictly about what's right and wrong, and obscene profits, purchased legislation, suing 12-year-old kids, and crippled products are wrong.
Hell, I'm quoting Howard Stern word-4-word so it must be true. OK ALREADY I will DRINK COFFEE before I post on shashdot ever again!!!
Ahem, you expect us to know that you're quoting Howard Stern while bashing the French? That is like so wrong on so many levels that I can't explain it to someone who would listen to Howard Stern. I can't even defend you as an American because of your admitted bad taste. *drops keyboard and runs from the inevitable French onslaught that will happen in several hours* You're on your own, kid. Stop hanging around with bad crowds.
1. Microsoft decided they want to name a product Windows Defender.
2. They discover that someone else is using the name.
3. They inform this guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
4. He decides not to challenge them.
5. He signs over all rights to the name.
6. Microsoft announces Windows Defender.
Microsoft discovers that some kid named Mike Rowe has a website.
They wrongly inform the guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
He decides not to challenge them.
He signs over all rights to the name.
The press gets wind of the ripoff, and MS showers worthless MS products on the kid.
Microsoft announces a new MikeRoweSoft product . . . oh, wait, it didn't.
If the French only had a little more backbone, maybe they would have stood up and actually fought a little more in WW2!
If memory serves, I believe the French (and Polish) lost quite a few soldiers and civilians during both world wars. People in both countries were betrayed by their governments, and that is not a crime - witness our current situation. The fact that the French left Vietnam when we were entering indicates they were smarter than we were. I shouldn't need to point out the French assistance (as in troops) during the Revolutionary War - I would think that any American got that during history class. A little friendly French-bashing, when done humorously, is one thing, but let's do away with the gratuitous questioning of honor and bravery. It's historically false, and we don't have any international friends anymore, so why be even more obnoxious?
As we have seen in the past, if MS decided to launch the product with that name, guys like Adam can take them to court and domain damages that are exponentially higher than the total value of his entire company. MS just got smart and started playing the game.
Oh, sure. Microsoft was severely threatened by a kid and his eponymous MikeRoweSoft website, so they sent in the heavy guns to take him out. It seems MS suffers from institutional homophonobia even in a text-based medium. Get real. They have the pit bulls off leash, they have the goverment's blessing, and they don't care about much else. It's a great time to be Microsoft.
Anyone with half a brain cell would have at least talked it over with a lawyer.
Lawyers don't accept brain cells as payment, although some would take a pound of flesh.
Heck "Windows" is NOT trademarked. Micro$oft was unable to get a registered trademark for it. It was ruled that Micro$oft could only trademark things like Windows Blaugh, but not Windows.
You should tell MS about that. I have a copy of Windows XP OEM Home Edition here, and the "Windows" is followed by a registered mark. Perhaps they didn't understand, and you could sue them. Also, they put enough pressure on Lindows, which isn't even close, to change their name.
This guy was a complete moron. Micro$oft would have paid him at least $100K for the name because that would have been cheaper than a lawsuit.
In order to discuss it, the guy would have to have a lawyer. That requires a retainer (lots of bucks for most people). Lawyers good enough to take on MS seriously require very large retainers. The shyster who advertises about personal injury at 2 AM on your local community channel is not going to work. If this gets more publicity, MS will probably give the guy a few bucks or a free copy of MS Studio for PR, as they did with Mike Rowe, to make the reporters and bad publicity go away. No matter how many times they get caught bullying people or other companies, it makes no real difference in their behavior. So just sit back and learn to enjoy it, and welcome to our brave, new world.
Business can be DIRTY sometimes. BFD, get a lawyer.
No, business is supposed to be about real products and honest competition, not who has the biggest pack of attack weasels. They went after a kid who used his own name on his website, now this guy, and who knows how many else that didn't get reported. The only people who believe this is normal business behavior are those who have succumbed to the brainwashing by big business. If you think business is about stealing, subterfuge, threats, and coercion, then you must be an MBA. *sprays keyboard with Lysol(TM) and washes hands with Dial Antibacterial Wash(TM)*
saying that the reason malware exists because of the "poorly architected Windows environment" is like saying Cavendish is responsible for the H-Bomb. I doubt Billy had the foresight to see a business model being built upon a poorly designed system.
First, I agree with much of your comment. Second (not your usage, I know), I really dislike "architected" because architect is not supposed to be a verb, and it just sounds dweebish. But to the point, foresight or not, Bill decided to make money on an inexpensively produced OS that was not designed with security as a goal. Even in the days of DOS 3, all kinds of MS malware abounded, and there weren't all that many PC users.
Even as MS became large and rich, the focus was never on the security of the product or the user. The company was never committed enough to break with old, bad practices, and they continued to provide backward compatibility with old software and all the holes that entails. The 'net turned all those somewhat isolated MS petri dishes into a connected septic system that endagers everyone. Only in the last couple of years has MS paid more than lip service to security. Lack of foresight does not excuse the lack of hindsight, especially considering the cumulative grief imposed upon millions and millions of paying customers (sorry, I mean consumers of course).
While I dont doubt that somewhere MS has some type of revenue-generation card up their sleeve (and should not be allowed to play)
They've already played that card - it's called subscription licensing, and it will be seen a lot more in the future (by Microsoft users). The rest of us will pay in the freedoms lost as more laws are passed to restrict what we are allowed to do with our equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't make all of this irrelevant. The issue is still very relavent[sic], and if linux or OSX marketshare continues to grow, we will be facing it again someday.
Linux is a UNIX variant. When MS Windows was still a gnat on virus-infected flea's butt, there was the Morris worm which crippled the UNIX-based 'net (for a day or two). It was quickly contained and disabled. MS cannot easily contain any of the malware that feeds off of it. It is a matter of architecture and the massive kludge that is Windows. Yes, there will always be people trying to create malware for any OS, but trying to absolve MS because they're a big target is just denial of the real problem.
Don't put this on MS in any way. Autorun is a feature that the users want to see.
Is "Autorun" in any way supposed to be equivalent to autoinstall? You can pop in a music CD in a Linux system using KDE, and it will pop an application to play it. It won't install new software - certainly not root-level (administrator) software. It seems like yet another MS problem to me. Sony is certainly at fault, but why give them 100% blame for using a Windows "feature" that invites exploitation?
If I thought a brick through your window, is it the home builders fault for putting windows in your home?
Unless you're Kreskin, I doubt you could think a brick through my window. A more apt analogy is a home builder who installs windows that can't be closed or locked. In that case, it is the builder's fault.
This means that I am no longer comfortable recommending AV software solutions without providing some fairly in-depth warnings about this little episode.
How about recommending a different OS that makes it all irrelevant instead?
Don't move the goalposts.
Context menus and drag & drop are concepts with notoriously poor discoverability. Not that double-clicking is easy, but once that skill is learned, the "select, then manipulate" model of the desktop metaphor is consistent with it.
How so? Dragging is standard mouse usage. Right-click context menus are standard behavior for Windows and Linux desktops. As you point out yourself, double-clicking is hardly intuitive - it is simply the Windows way.
Quicklaunch buttons and the like are the exception - the inconsistency - not the rule.
That seems to support my argument more than yours.
This is about as valid as me saying you're wrong.
I have used Windows since version 1.0. If anyone should be resistant to change, it should be me. However, I liked KDE's single-click activation. For icons, it makes more sense. It is not a matter of right or wrong - it's the way it is.
I assume you mean "earlier" - and given the KDE project only started in late 1996, it couldn't have been much earlier than 1997 (KDE 1.0 was released 1998).
No, I said later, and I meant later. You were the one saying how all this had been proven by '97. It was only a few years ago that KDE still had single-click activation. Apparently, the KDE developers (and I) still thought it was the better method.
The fact that Apple has never tried it would also suggest their UI research indicated it was poorly received as well.
That would more likely be a result of Apple's belief that mouse users have only one finger and that Apple systems ship with a one-button mouse. Okay, your whole argument seems to be that MS received some negative feedback from beta testers. Well, some people just hate change. To me, single-click activation for icons (whether they are on the desktop or in the tray) seems more intuitive, and it's certainly more efficient. There is rarely a reason to "select" an icon, and I've yet to see one that couldn't be accomplished in another fashion.
Just think how many clicks could be saved world-wide if single-clicking icons became the standard. All those saved fractional seconds could easily result in man-years of increased productivity. And then there's the reduction in repetitive stress injuries. :)
Why not let your package manager resolve them for you automatically?
When there are no blessed packages that cover all the dependencies for the latest KDE release? What are you smoking?
Now you're all hot and bothered... sweaty, shining a little in some places... fogging up windows, you get my drift.
Hmm. . . That sounds like a quote that I should be able to remember. You taunt me.
Sorry if I misread you, but I get annoyed when someone claims that 'nerds', 'socially implaired' or 'isolated people' are objectively inferior to them, and/or that sexual activity is the only way to measure one's achivement. That's complete an utter nonsense.
I said nothing about sexual activity or any related inferiority. A sense of humor is vital in social interaction, and as distasteful as it may be to some (I lean that way myself), that interaction is necessary to get most things done.
Fuck, I am the only one who can give a meaning and a goal to my life . . .
I hear you, but you're wrong. I once felt the same, but there is someone else out there in the world who can give a new meaning and a new goal to your life. It will happen. It doesn't change your direction - it only adds new dimensions. A ready sense of humor is your best ally in finding that person.
You don't always want to open something when you click on it. Sometimes (mostly, I'd wager) you just want to select it for further manipulation.
Nonsense. Most often, when you click on an icon, you want to start or open whatever it represents. What possible manipulation is not available while using a two-button mouse and a right-click context menu or drag?
I'd be interested to see if you can cite any sources for "single-click" to be "better UI" (or even just a well-reasoned argument).
Sure, I can cite a source - me. As a former (and sometimes still) Windows user, I thought the KDE single-click way was better, and KDE's usage was a lot later than '97. Cite a reputable source that says it's worse (other than your "Memphis" claim which I never heard of).
Wrong. Your distro is obviously screwing with the defaults. Install KDE from scratch, and you get the single-click to run by default.
I will take your word for it. I have tried to update KDE in the past and completely hosed everything. There tends to be Qt and/or gcc/glibc dependencies that affect everything.
d. does anyone aside from people trying to inflate their ego actually consider the number of parties to which a person is invited to be in anyway connected to one's merit? (N/n)
Yes. It's considered a measure of social interaction, and while not an indicator of one's intelligence or male genital organ length, it does tend to indicate one's education and sense of humor if nothing else.
If you want to make yorsef[sic] feel proud, superior, and righteous, at least do it by actually contributing to society.
Well, I don't know if my two kids could be considered a contribution to society, but they did manage to grow up without any of us killing each other or anyone else. Then there are my published articles, including the ones that were anthologized, as well as all the work I've done during my career. Pride, superiority, and righteousness have nothing to do with my comment. It was a joke.
K Menu -> Control Center -> Peripherals -> Mouse -> Single Click to open Files and folders.
Thanks, following that lead, on my distro, it's more like Start Menu -> System -> Configuration -> KDE -> Peripherals -> Mouse -> Single Click to open Files and folders. That doesn't seem intuitive to me, since I expected that control to be under window (not mouse) behavior, since you can select icons using a mouse or keyboard. In any case, I still think KDE should use default controls that make the most sense, not the ones that mimic Windows.
I dont know why people accuse KDE of having no original ideas, and for cloning windows.
It's not that they don't have original and good ideas, it's that they hide those ideas under layers of menus and accept the Windows way by default. I can understand they are trying to be familiar for Windows users that are making the transition, but that is just hiding the innovative parts from most of us regular users. I think it's time for KDE to concentrate on KDE and do it right by default. Provide options for people who like the MS interface if they want to select it (or give Linux users an easy one- or two-click way to a cleaner interface). Let Microsoft play catch-up.
ObPedant: Uh, factoring primes is trivial: p = 1*p...
a) Who was it that said that factoring large primes would be a computing breakthrough?
b) Were you ever invited to a party? (N/y)
c) If you answered "yes" to (b), were you ever invited to another party? (N/n)
Thanks for stepping on the joke.
It seems the two are equivalent- double click this icon to start a program. . . .
At one point the KDE GUI seemed to be superior - you (the user) only needed to single-left-click an icon to start a program. Really, why would you wish to single-click an icon and have no reaction? Itchy trigger finger, and you're clicking randomly on the desktop? You use a one-button mouse? I was disappointed when the startup command became a double-click. Why settle for a poor interface just because it's the Windows way? (No doubt there's a way to change KDE's default behavior, and perhaps someone will explain it.)
It's kind of like the way the GUI opened up computing to a lot of people who found a command line interface daunting, to say the least.
Superclippy: It seems you're trying to factor large prime numbers. Would you like to engage the Microsoft Compute Cluster interface?
Better the devil you know?
Indeed. If the govenment had known how it was going to turn out, there would have been far more regulation. Why give a whole bunch of governments a second chance at screwing it up?
I think the easier explanation is that unintentionally crappy software doesn't concern them, but intentionally invasive software does. ;p
Or perhaps it's because Microsoft is untouchable, but the DHS wants to be perceived as *doing something*, so it attacks Sony. The DHS is a joke. A massively expensive and useless joke.
Maybe if these companies wouldn't be so evil they'd improve their image. And I don't mean trying to do some high-profile good to spin-balance their must-profit-evil acts.
Image? These companies don't have an image, they have a shadowy visage that cannot be seen in a mirror. A mallet, a wooden stake, and a shaft of daylight would help. Caution: more than a few US Representatives and Senators might be subjected to spontaneous combustion if the above suggestion were implemented.
That's because their shirt can't instantly become six billion more shirts, which you can give away for free (or sell for next to nothing, like AllofMP3.com does) and take away any reason for anybody else to buy one from them.
Selling recorded music is a multi-million dollar industry, the owners of which surely don't want to just give up, just because technology has made it fantastically easy to rip them off.
Every time the subject of IT employment and job loss comes up, there is a Slashdot contingent chanting that nobody is entitled to a job, and people will have to deal with the new reality. So why is it that individuals have to deal with it, but companies have a right to continue making a profit despite their growing irrelevance just because they made millions in the past?
At one time, the recording companies provided a service: they provided recorded media for far less than an individual could produce it, and people willingly paid for it. That is a typical business case. That is no longer the case. Now, they produce a product that is more expensive than an individual could produce on her own, but the industry believes she should still be forced to buy from them.
If you don't like DRM, suggest another way for them to sell music.
That's a red herring. How did they get a God-given right to control and sell all the music? It really is the buggy-whip analogy: the so-called music industry has outlived its usefulness as distributors, but now they have so much money that they can buy legislation to enforce their artificial middle-man position. DRM removes the few and limited rights that buyers still have under the law, so it is an abomination. If you're serious about how the industry could sell music, they should become VARs. The cost of a stamped CD, jewel case, insert, and shrink wrap is about twenty cents or less. Their product (which includes 30-year-old music that should be public domain) should reflect their costs. If you can get an album for $2, there is little incentive to download and burn it. The only P2P I do is downloading Linux distros - to me this argument is strictly about what's right and wrong, and obscene profits, purchased legislation, suing 12-year-old kids, and crippled products are wrong.
Hell, I'm quoting Howard Stern word-4-word so it must be true. OK ALREADY I will DRINK COFFEE before I post on shashdot ever again!!!
Ahem, you expect us to know that you're quoting Howard Stern while bashing the French? That is like so wrong on so many levels that I can't explain it to someone who would listen to Howard Stern. I can't even defend you as an American because of your admitted bad taste. *drops keyboard and runs from the inevitable French onslaught that will happen in several hours* You're on your own, kid. Stop hanging around with bad crowds.
1. Microsoft decided they want to name a product Windows Defender.
2. They discover that someone else is using the name.
3. They inform this guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
4. He decides not to challenge them.
5. He signs over all rights to the name.
6. Microsoft announces Windows Defender.
Microsoft discovers that some kid named Mike Rowe has a website.
They wrongly inform the guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
He decides not to challenge them.
He signs over all rights to the name.
The press gets wind of the ripoff, and MS showers worthless MS products on the kid.
Microsoft announces a new MikeRoweSoft product . . . oh, wait, it didn't.
Some people just have no class.
This is true.
If the French only had a little more backbone, maybe they would have stood up and actually fought a little more in WW2!
If memory serves, I believe the French (and Polish) lost quite a few soldiers and civilians during both world wars. People in both countries were betrayed by their governments, and that is not a crime - witness our current situation. The fact that the French left Vietnam when we were entering indicates they were smarter than we were. I shouldn't need to point out the French assistance (as in troops) during the Revolutionary War - I would think that any American got that during history class. A little friendly French-bashing, when done humorously, is one thing, but let's do away with the gratuitous questioning of honor and bravery. It's historically false, and we don't have any international friends anymore, so why be even more obnoxious?
As we have seen in the past, if MS decided to launch the product with that name, guys like Adam can take them to court and domain damages that are exponentially higher than the total value of his entire company. MS just got smart and started playing the game.
Oh, sure. Microsoft was severely threatened by a kid and his eponymous MikeRoweSoft website, so they sent in the heavy guns to take him out. It seems MS suffers from institutional homophonobia even in a text-based medium. Get real. They have the pit bulls off leash, they have the goverment's blessing, and they don't care about much else. It's a great time to be Microsoft.
Anyone with half a brain cell would have at least talked it over with a lawyer.
Lawyers don't accept brain cells as payment, although some would take a pound of flesh.
Heck "Windows" is NOT trademarked. Micro$oft was unable to get a registered trademark for it. It was ruled that Micro$oft could only trademark things like Windows Blaugh, but not Windows.
You should tell MS about that. I have a copy of Windows XP OEM Home Edition here, and the "Windows" is followed by a registered mark. Perhaps they didn't understand, and you could sue them. Also, they put enough pressure on Lindows, which isn't even close, to change their name.
This guy was a complete moron. Micro$oft would have paid him at least $100K for the name because that would have been cheaper than a lawsuit.
In order to discuss it, the guy would have to have a lawyer. That requires a retainer (lots of bucks for most people). Lawyers good enough to take on MS seriously require very large retainers. The shyster who advertises about personal injury at 2 AM on your local community channel is not going to work. If this gets more publicity, MS will probably give the guy a few bucks or a free copy of MS Studio for PR, as they did with Mike Rowe, to make the reporters and bad publicity go away. No matter how many times they get caught bullying people or other companies, it makes no real difference in their behavior. So just sit back and learn to enjoy it, and welcome to our brave, new world.
Business can be DIRTY sometimes. BFD, get a lawyer.
No, business is supposed to be about real products and honest competition, not who has the biggest pack of attack weasels. They went after a kid who used his own name on his website, now this guy, and who knows how many else that didn't get reported. The only people who believe this is normal business behavior are those who have succumbed to the brainwashing by big business. If you think business is about stealing, subterfuge, threats, and coercion, then you must be an MBA. *sprays keyboard with Lysol(TM) and washes hands with Dial Antibacterial Wash(TM)*
saying that the reason malware exists because of the "poorly architected Windows environment" is like saying Cavendish is responsible for the H-Bomb. I doubt Billy had the foresight to see a business model being built upon a poorly designed system.
First, I agree with much of your comment. Second (not your usage, I know), I really dislike "architected" because architect is not supposed to be a verb, and it just sounds dweebish. But to the point, foresight or not, Bill decided to make money on an inexpensively produced OS that was not designed with security as a goal. Even in the days of DOS 3, all kinds of MS malware abounded, and there weren't all that many PC users.
Even as MS became large and rich, the focus was never on the security of the product or the user. The company was never committed enough to break with old, bad practices, and they continued to provide backward compatibility with old software and all the holes that entails. The 'net turned all those somewhat isolated MS petri dishes into a connected septic system that endagers everyone. Only in the last couple of years has MS paid more than lip service to security. Lack of foresight does not excuse the lack of hindsight, especially considering the cumulative grief imposed upon millions and millions of paying customers (sorry, I mean consumers of course).
While I dont doubt that somewhere MS has some type of revenue-generation card up their sleeve (and should not be allowed to play)
They've already played that card - it's called subscription licensing, and it will be seen a lot more in the future (by Microsoft users). The rest of us will pay in the freedoms lost as more laws are passed to restrict what we are allowed to do with our equipment.