Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Jun 2010 21:27 UTC
Microsoft "Microsoft has fixed the distribution scope of a toolbar update that, without the user's knowledge, installed an add-on in Internet Explorer and an extension in Firefox called Search Helper Extension. Microsoft told us that the new update is actually the same as the old one; the only difference is the distribution settings. In other words, the update will no longer be distributed to toolbars that it shouldn't be added to. End users won't see the tweak, Microsoft told Ars, and also offered an explanation on what the mystery add-on actually does."
Thread beginning with comment 429899
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by darknexus on Sun 13th Jun 2010 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Hmm, that's a good point. Should I mention I don't use *any* proprietary software just to make sure my rights are satisfied. And by *any* I mean *none*, because I always try to choose from the liberal licenses, like ISC, BSD. GPL, etc.


Interesting. Does that mean you've never used an ATM machine? How about gone to the doctor? Or flown on an airplane? I take it you don't drive a car either, or ride on any other type of motor vehicle for transport?
I really hate when people say they *only* ever use one certain type of product or license, because in reality that's not true. Just about everything is powered by software these days, and a good majority of it will never be free as it takes time and paid experts in the respective fields to develop. Sort of a bigger picture when looked at that way, eh?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 13th Jun 2010 03:51 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"Does that mean you've never used an ATM machine?"
Well, if someone really didn't want to use an ATM because it's closed, they could always go inside and talk to someone personally and have them do it for them.

"How about gone to the doctor?"
What the hell are you talking about? Since when was anyone allowed to get on their doctor's computer and goof around? Last I checked those were off-limits to patients and typically run by the secretary.

"Or flown on an airplane?"
If you bought an airplane personally and literally fly it yourself, I can somewhat see what you're saying. Kind of, but not really. But if someone is simply going on a plane trip, they're passengers, just on the thing to get from point A to point B; the plane is owned by some else, and being completely operated by the pilot(s).

"I take it you don't drive a car either, or ride on any other type of motor vehicle for transport?"
This might be the only example you really have a halfway decent point on. And even then, I can respond by saying two things:

1) Something like a car is something that *must* be safe, and really should have its various components properly debugged. It's not something you want to have a half-ass program running on that needs a Patch Tuesday update every month and be written by a company that places all blame for their own software bugs on the user (*ahem*). Nor should it be modified, which could introduce new bugs or even complete failure. And why would any hacker even care? As long as they step on the gas and it goes, it's working completely as expected. Chances are if it's not taking off as fast as you'd like, it's not the computer or the software... it's probably the engine.

2) A car is NOT a general-purpose computer, and was never meant to be. At best, various components that once used to be as basic as can be are now monitored and controlled by a simple computer. The various systems serve their own specific purposes, which are typically clear, and do their job. What is there that seriously needs to be modified? I don't think anyone cares how the hell their car's software for braking works as long as the action of braking works as it is supposed to and the brake lights come on so they don't get pulled over.

In the end, a potentially dangerous vehicle for transportation should *not* be compared to an open general-purpose computing platform.

Edited 2010-06-13 04:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by darknexus on Sun 13th Jun 2010 07:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I didn't say the OP *needed* to modify anything, but it is an apt comparison. He said he used *only* free software. However, if the OP uses any of the things I asked about, that is demonstrably not true. My point is that principals are put aside for convenience, even by these supposed users of 100% free and only free software. Thus, I hate when people say stupid things like that, things that can be demonstrably proven false. Yet people like that look down on computer users of any proprietary software, when there's no real difference between them and the people they seem to hate. I hate the smug superiority and the false sense of elevation these people give off. So bottom line: No one has the ability to use *only* free software, even if that's all you use on your general purpose computer. So people need to stop telling falsehoods.

Reply Parent Score: 2