Re: Firefox gone crazy - now upgrades in general (and crossposted)

| I can't help wondering if they _are_
| trying to reach version number parity with IE,

I don't think so. I think that Mozilla (and Google with
Chrome) have just jumped on the cloud bandwagon.
Their rate of versioning is quickly serving to make
versioning irrelevant. I saw a quote from some
spokesperson to that effect, in fact: They were
considering dropping versions altogether, with auto-
update assumed, so that everyonme using Firefox would
then be using the latest version and the number would be
only a technical detail for debuggers to be concerned with.
Google's EULA for Chrome already says that by using it
you agree to allow them to update/change the installed
software at will.

There are some obvious advantages to that, like getting
bug fixes quick. There are also disadvantages: It's very
unstable to have a PC full of software that's all in a
constant state of semi-beta, with drip-feed updates.
I would never allow anything to update itself. And I'd
have to question the quality control of any company that
wants to do that.

Unfortunately, there's also a more insidious motive going
on: The cloud fad is partly about convenience for people
who want mobile access to specific software, but it's also
about finding a way to make more money from software.
Auto-updating has become a backdoor method to acclimate
people to the idea that their software is a rented service
and not a purchased product. If all of your software calls
home and updates itself then what you've got is closer to
interactive TV than it is to a computer.... which is exactly
where many of the big tech. companies want things to go.
If Microsoft can sell you software AND rent it to you... If
Apple can turn their products into shopping and service
devices, where they charge you for the "app" as well as for
the sale... If Google can hook you on a browser that's really
a remote controlled tracking device, redefining the Internet
as a dynamic billboard... then they can all make a lot more
money. But first they have to get you used to the idea that
it's not really your PC and that you don't really have a right
to do what you want with the software you install.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:56:35 -0500, "Mayayana"
<> wrote:

> Unfortunately, there's also a more insidious motive going
>on: The cloud fad is partly about convenience for people
>who want mobile access to specific software, but it's also
>about finding a way to make more money from software.
>Auto-updating has become a backdoor method to acclimate
>people to the idea that their software is a rented service
>and not a purchased product.

Was there ever a time when software was a purchased product? I only
entered the world of computers in 1982 so I don't know the history
before that. For me, it has always been the case that "purchasing"
software only gives you certain limited rights to use it. Ownership
stays with the organization that created it and does not transfer to
the end user. You're essentially just buying a license.

>If Microsoft can sell you software AND rent it to you... If
>Apple can turn their products into shopping and service
>devices, where they charge you for the "app" as well as for
>the sale... If Google can hook you on a browser that's really
>a remote controlled tracking device, redefining the Internet
>as a dynamic billboard... then they can all make a lot more
>money. But first they have to get you used to the idea that
>it's not really your PC and that you don't really have a right
>to do what you want with the software you install.

It's your hardware, but it's their software. They just let you use it.

--

Char Jackson

"Mayayana" <> wrote in news:j8joiv$mao$1@dont-
email.me:

> There are some obvious advantages to that, like getting
> bug fixes quick. There are also disadvantages: It's very
> unstable to have a PC full of software that's all in a
> constant state of semi-beta, with drip-feed updates.
> I would never allow anything to update itself. And I'd
> have to question the quality control of any company that
> wants to do that.
>

I wouldn't tolerate it. Running a computer is like running a ship. Refits,
stowing new food, all things things have to happen at times, but a person
can't prepare to sail if they are never allowed to leave port! A ship should
be fitted with stuff that will last till the next time things have to be
changed. it has to ba adaptable, and it has to be within proper reach and
control of the people sailing it.

I remember learning ona ship, having tied off a line about 12 feet up, from
the starboard rigging. It held a small crane boom safely out of the way. The
skipper berated me, made it totally clear that all controls of a ship must
ALWAYS be safely in reach of ALL people at all times. If software coders
cannot learn from this, I want to give them some of the words I heard said to
me that day. On my machine, I am captain, I don't catre whjat they made. If
thwey won't let me have proper control, it doesn't come aboard.

Char Jackson <> wrote in
news::

> It's your hardware, but it's their software. They just let you use it.
>

Yes, but where incosnatcy threatens the state of your hardware and ability to
control it, they cross the line. If they blether about their 'rights' it
doesn't matter. I can choose to let them in, or not, and if they behave as if
my control of my machine is less important than their control of my machine,
then I don't let them in. A very large number of coders agree with this, can
you imagine how hard it is to code for a consistent base if this is not so?
For every corde that forces their will on us, there will be many with far
more respect, and a better grasp of reality.

In message <>, Char Jackson
<> writes:
[]
>Was there ever a time when software was a purchased product? I only
>entered the world of computers in 1982 so I don't know the history
>before that. For me, it has always been the case that "purchasing"
>software only gives you certain limited rights to use it. Ownership
>stays with the organization that created it and does not transfer to
>the end user. You're essentially just buying a license.

Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a licence to _use_ it
indefinitely. There is now a movement towards the limitation of duration
of right to use.
[]
>It's your hardware, but it's their software. They just let you use it.
>
But for how long?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
(), 1998

| > Unfortunately, there's also a more insidious motive going
| >on: The cloud fad is partly about convenience for people
| >who want mobile access to specific software, but it's also
| >about finding a way to make more money from software.
| >Auto-updating has become a backdoor method to acclimate
| >people to the idea that their software is a rented service
| >and not a purchased product.
|
| Was there ever a time when software was a purchased product? I only
| entered the world of computers in 1982 so I don't know the history
| before that. For me, it has always been the case that "purchasing"
| software only gives you certain limited rights to use it. Ownership
| stays with the organization that created it and does not transfer to
| the end user. You're essentially just buying a license.
|

If you've been around since 1982 then perhaps you remember
the uproar in 1999 when Microsoft was caught rummaging around
for registration info. on the PCs of people who visited Windows Update.
They promised to stop. ... How things have changed!

The position you enunciate simply a scam; a claim that only
dishonest software developers could stand by. You buy the
software. You have a right to a copy of the software. Period.
Since software is easy to copy it opened up new issues. Customers
copy it illegally while authors make unreasonable, illegal licensing
claims. Neither one is defensible.

For the most part those licensing claims haven't been tested.
But even Microsoft claims their software is intellectual property.
That makes it like a book. You have a right to do anything
you like with a book you buy *except* distribute copies.
You have a license *to that copy of the book*, not
just a license "to use the book at the discretion of the
author". That would be absurd. You can sell the book, destroy the
book, loan it, give it away... you just can't make another copy to
give to someone else.

Software companies have gotten away with unfair claims
because it's a new type of product. And because enforcement
is often passive. Microsoft doesn't go around forcing people
not to install Windows on 2 PCs serially. That would make a lot
of enemies. And it's probably illegal. Those people paid for the
license and have a right to use the software on any machine
they like, so long as they only use 1 copy at a time. But rather
than confront that issue head-on, MS just makes it nearly impossible
to do so by crippling the software. And people who have paid for
a Windows license have to pay again if their PC malfunctions.
MS claim to license their software to a piece of fiberglass (the
motherboard). How can a piece of fiberglass enter into a licensing
deal?

It's an interesting issue in light of the Amazon Kindle and
other similar products. In that case Amazon presents the
situation as one of buying the book, just as Microsoft sells
you a copy of Windows. You buy the book and
have it in your "library". But actually you don't. You only have
access to stream the book's content from their website.
That became obvious awhile back when Amazon (I think it
was Amazon) was dealing with legal issues around the rights
to books by George Orwell (of all people!). They removed
Orwell's books from the e-readers of people who had bought
them. They could do that because the books weren't actually
on the e-readers in the first place. And they can get away with
it because their customers don't actually understand what
they're losing.

All of these people think they're buying books, but they
only have access to stream those books to their e-readers. They
paid for a copy, which they should be free to read, store,
sell, or give away. (That right was established in a court case
with Macy's dept. store vs book publishers in 1909.) What
you're saying is that if Amazon issues a mickey mouse EULA
stating that the books are only leased, then that overrides
US law.

On 31 Oct 2011, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>>Was there ever a time when software was a purchased
>>product? I only entered the world of computers in 1982 so I
>>don't know the history before that. For me, it has always
>>been the case that "purchasing" software only gives you
>>certain limited rights to use it. Ownership stays with the
>>organization that created it and does not transfer to the
>>end user. You're essentially just buying a license.
>
> Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a
> licence to _use_ it indefinitely. There is now a movement
> towards the limitation of duration of right to use.

What!
Where did you hear that? I better keep my eyes open if that
sort of thing is coming in.

One wonders how far these companies can go before they start
to drive away the big business these schemes are designed to
trap, unfortunately it's probably a long way.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 10/30/2011 9:25 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2011, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>> Was there ever a time when software was a purchased
>>> product? I only entered the world of computers in 1982 so I
>>> don't know the history before that. For me, it has always
>>> been the case that "purchasing" software only gives you
>>> certain limited rights to use it. Ownership stays with the
>>> organization that created it and does not transfer to the
>>> end user. You're essentially just buying a license.
>>
>> Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a
>> licence to _use_ it indefinitely. There is now a movement
>> towards the limitation of duration of right to use.
>
> What!
> Where did you hear that? I better keep my eyes open if that
> sort of thing is coming in.
>
> One wonders how far these companies can go before they start
> to drive away the big business these schemes are designed to
> trap, unfortunately it's probably a long way.

It is referred to as the "subscription model". Companies periodically
float a trial balloon. A big one was Microsoft Office a few years back.

Computer Nerd Kev <> wrote in
news:Xns9F8F88DB24DBBCSKJHNMW985780A@94.75.214.90:

>> Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a
>> licence to _use_ it indefinitely. There is now a movement
>> towards the limitation of duration of right to use.
>
> What!
> Where did you hear that? I better keep my eyes open if that
> sort of thing is coming in.
>
> One wonders how far these companies can go before they start
> to drive away the big business these schemes are designed to
> trap, unfortunately it's probably a long way.
>

You got it right. I think some who answered would consider your post to have
a more childlike grasp than most but it's correct. Licenses have always meen
very varied in their demands and conditions, and while interpretations can
bake the noodles of judges and lawyers for weeks, we're all better off if we
just pay attention to them. As in, actually read the damn things. It's
usually easier to sense the kind of approach, the main intent, that way. The
result is an interpretation that favours the spirit of law rather than the
letter, but in any contest this is still admissible, if the interpretation is
honest.

Some licenses are totally generous, they basically say here it it, it's yours
now, do as you want. Look for anything that aims toward that end of the
spectrum, as we can ALL do this, it;s easy to tell apart from the other end
of the spectrum which is basically this: We own YOU, your machine(s), your
time, the instant you downloaded the software, which we know you have already
done because you could not be reading this if you hadn't. In otherwords, a
trap designed to future-proof their hold on you. The question is brutally
simple: Who is transferring power to who?

The better licenses all aim to protect the source from harm, whether they aim
to get something back from the deal or not. One of the best is the BSD or MIT
type which in various forms aims to grant total license to copy, distribute,
and change, so long as ANY change is noted, and responsibility for it not
passed back to the people you got the code from. It preserves 'intellectual
property' while granting you the right to some intelectual property of your
own. It's generous because unlike the patent system it does not force you to
totally reinvent the wheel all the time in order to make a living if you're
good enough to code for money.

So my advice to all is to avoid licenses written by firms who act likwe they
do not know that the world can and DOES work like this for many. If you
accept their software, all you do is confirm their view of the world, you
give them YOUR power, and you only have yourself to blame for that.

| So my advice to all is to avoid licenses written by firms who act likwe
they
| do not know that the world can and DOES work like this for many. If you
| accept their software, all you do is confirm their view of the world, you
| give them YOUR power, and you only have yourself to blame for that.

Easier said than done. There's an article here:

https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-ter...rs-guide-eulas

If it weren't so maddening it would be very funny. McAfee claims
the right to renew your subscription unilaterally. Adware claims
the right to ban you from uninstalling their software. Apple claims
that by agreeing to their EULA you automatically agree to any
other EULA they come up with in the future. (That absurd claim
is actually quite common.) There are EULA's that ban the publishing
of benchmark results (Microsoft's notably slow .Net) and EULAs
for disk software that claims you can only use the software on
1 disk....

Imagine walking into Home Depot to buy a drill with a license
that says you can only use that drill with non-metric bits, for
"hobby" purposes. The "professional" drill might then be $500
more expensive, and you'd have to buy two in order to use any
drill bits you might want to use. By the time you got through your
attempt to drill a hole could cost more than...well... Microsoft
Office or Adobe Photoshop! And you still wouldn't be free to
tell your friends if you think it's a crummy drill.