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 429908
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 13th Jun 2010 03:51 UTC 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

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 13th Jun 2010 08:39 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I'll just say that while I completely get your point, your examples were just not very good. I agree with your argument that it's kind of ironic when someone says they "never" do something or use whatever (especially when they may in fact do so without realizing it), but to be fair, it should have been pretty clear that the person was specifically referring to general-purpose computers. If the OP owns a car and drives, I highly doubt he/she ever considered the car a computer or wanted to use (or program) it as such.

Why not just interpret what the OP said as something like:

"...I don't use *any* proprietary software [on my computers] just to make sure my rights are satisfied."

A little more to the point and descriptive and most likely what he meant. Let's just leave appliances out of it and it makes perfect sense. It should be clear this person is not talking about his VCR, microwave, washing machine, dryer, car or whatever else... he's referring to his personal computers; desktop PCs, laptops, netbooks, etc. The things that are built to be re-programmable. I'm sure the OP did NOT mean what you interpreted it as.

Basically, what I'm saying is, you're probably just getting upset over a misinterpretation of what the OP originally said. Don't take it like he's trying to be a hypocrite just for the hell of it to spread lies or something. ;)

Anyway... I'm outta here. Why the hell am I here wasting my time clearing up a miscommunication between two random people on the Internet anyway? LOL. Man, I must be bored.

Edited 2010-06-13 08:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2