If you install it you are giving the software the consent it needs to do this. It doesn't seem to be a hidden "feature" but a function as any other inside the application
The features clearly states that it blocks adds in its personal firewall application.
NEW! A Web assistant lets you block ads and access other program options from Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer.
Disable it and watch ads as I do! I even click on banners and browse around on the sites the ads link to.
Ok, I disable popups whenever I can, those are annoying....;)
This one should be more easy to read. (there is a bug in slashcode:))
or I might just be drunk. I think he makes the point that SCO is in the right to sue IBM if they consider themselves to have proof that IBM has put SCO code in linux.
It makes sense to me that SCO does not intend to make this IP infringement known to anyone without signing a NDA. I don't think it would be any damage to SCO if they did, if they say that this is our IP and point it out doesn't mean they can sue the next company putting the same code in any other free or commercial product.
Consider that the people that are switching from unix to linux are potential revenue loss for SCO, like those who are switching from MS Windows to linux are loss for MS. The end users (think companies here, not 3l337 haxx0r) that has never been using SCO Unix and uses linux now are not a loss to SCO.
It is difficult for SCO to compete with operating systems that might have their code in them. I hope SCO wants to compete and be the choice of operating system because of it's features and services available.
I think the linux community should ask IBM what code they have contributed that might be in violation of any contracts they may have with SCO.
After all, you have to consider, SCO is a commercial company that seem to have lost revenue because of linux. If that revenue is lost because IBM has contributed SCO code to linux it is the executives right towards their shareholders to sue IBM, and anyone else that causes loss to them by stealing their IP.
However it is damaging to linux, but who is responsible for the damage? If SCO is right, IBM is at fault and "could" be held responsible. Maybe they even should be held responsible.
If I was a drugdealer and gave away alot of money for charity to look good, I would still be a drugdealer.
I feel redundant, or just drunk. I should put this in my.sig, but hey, I am drunk... I'll do it tomorrow...
...or I might just be drunk.
I think he makes the point that SCO is in the right to sue IBM if they consider themselves to have proof that IBM has put SCO code in linux.
It makes sense to me that SCO does not intend to make this IP infringement known to anyone without signing a NDA. I don't think it would be any damage to SCO if they did, if they say that this is our IP and point it out doesn't mean they can sue the next company putting the same code in any other free or commercial product.
Consider that the people that are switching from unix to linux are potential revenue loss for SCO, like those who are switching from MS Windows to linux are loss for MS. The end users (think companies here, not 3l337 haxx0r) that has never been using SCO Unix and uses linux now are not a loss to SCO.
It is difficult for SCO to compete with operating systems that might have their code in them. I hope SCO wants to compete and be the choice of operating system because of it's features and services available.
I think the linux community should ask IBM what code they have contributed that might be in violation of any contracts they may have with SCO.
After all, you have to consider, SCO is a commercial company that seem to have lost revenue because of linux. If that revenue is lost because IBM has contributed SCO code to linux it is the executives right towards their shareholders to sue IBM, and anyone else that causes loss to them by stealing their IP.
However it is damaging to linux, but who is responsible for the damage? If SCO is right, IBM is at fault and "could" be held responsible. Maybe they even should be held responsible.
If I was a drugdealer and gave away alot of money for charity to look good, I would still be a drugdealer.
I feel redundant, or just drunk. I should put this in my.sig, but hey, I am drunk... I'll do it tomorrow...
No, you need the original license to use the software or be granted the rights to use the software. What is on the harddrive is a copy of the software for usage, it is not meant for distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I saw that too. But I guess I should have downloaded WinXPPro+SP2+CRACK instead of WinXPPro+SP2+CRACK+SPYWARE+ADWARE+MALWARE+GOATSE_T HEME
Stupid me!
http://www.kraftfoods.com/main.aspx?s=product&m=pr oduct/product_display&Product=4300025072&U3=****** 4300025072***
The features clearly states that it blocks adds in its personal firewall application.
NEW! A Web assistant lets you block ads and access other program options from Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer.
Disable it and watch ads as I do! I even click on banners and browse around on the sites the ads link to.
Ok, I disable popups whenever I can, those are annoying.... ;)
Maybe you sit on it? Happens to me all the time after I have laughed mine off...
This one should be more easy to read. (there is a bug in slashcode :))
.sig, but hey, I am drunk... I'll do it tomorrow...
or I might just be drunk. I think he makes the point that SCO is in the right to sue IBM if they consider themselves to have proof that IBM has put SCO code in linux.
It makes sense to me that SCO does not intend to make this IP infringement known to anyone without signing a NDA. I don't think it would be any damage to SCO if they did, if they say that this is our IP and point it out doesn't mean they can sue the next company putting the same code in any other free or commercial product.
Consider that the people that are switching from unix to linux are potential revenue loss for SCO, like those who are switching from MS Windows to linux are loss for MS. The end users (think companies here, not 3l337 haxx0r) that has never been using SCO Unix and uses linux now are not a loss to SCO.
It is difficult for SCO to compete with operating systems that might have their code in them. I hope SCO wants to compete and be the choice of operating system because of it's features and services available.
I think the linux community should ask IBM what code they have contributed that might be in violation of any contracts they may have with SCO.
After all, you have to consider, SCO is a commercial company that seem to have lost revenue because of linux. If that revenue is lost because IBM has contributed SCO code to linux it is the executives right towards their shareholders to sue IBM, and anyone else that causes loss to them by stealing their IP.
However it is damaging to linux, but who is responsible for the damage? If SCO is right, IBM is at fault and "could" be held responsible. Maybe they even should be held responsible.
If I was a drugdealer and gave away alot of money for charity to look good, I would still be a drugdealer.
I feel redundant, or just drunk. I should put this in my
...or I might just be drunk. I think he makes the point that SCO is in the right to sue IBM if they consider themselves to have proof that IBM has put SCO code in linux. It makes sense to me that SCO does not intend to make this IP infringement known to anyone without signing a NDA. I don't think it would be any damage to SCO if they did, if they say that this is our IP and point it out doesn't mean they can sue the next company putting the same code in any other free or commercial product. Consider that the people that are switching from unix to linux are potential revenue loss for SCO, like those who are switching from MS Windows to linux are loss for MS. The end users (think companies here, not 3l337 haxx0r) that has never been using SCO Unix and uses linux now are not a loss to SCO. It is difficult for SCO to compete with operating systems that might have their code in them. I hope SCO wants to compete and be the choice of operating system because of it's features and services available. I think the linux community should ask IBM what code they have contributed that might be in violation of any contracts they may have with SCO. After all, you have to consider, SCO is a commercial company that seem to have lost revenue because of linux. If that revenue is lost because IBM has contributed SCO code to linux it is the executives right towards their shareholders to sue IBM, and anyone else that causes loss to them by stealing their IP. However it is damaging to linux, but who is responsible for the damage? If SCO is right, IBM is at fault and "could" be held responsible. Maybe they even should be held responsible. If I was a drugdealer and gave away alot of money for charity to look good, I would still be a drugdealer. I feel redundant, or just drunk. I should put this in my .sig, but hey, I am drunk... I'll do it tomorrow...
No, you need the original license to use the software or be granted the rights to use the software. What is on the harddrive is a copy of the software for usage, it is not meant for distribution.
...and then they have to pay license fees to both microsoft and SCO?