The Pirated Software Discussion Thread!

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by PsYkHoTiK

They've been charged with it for pete's sake.
http://www.swlearning.com/economics/...microsoft.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9803/03/gates.full/
I hope you can manage to "learn" something new.

Well CNN doesn't seem to think so. Otherwise the word "monopoly" wouldn't be in quotes. Also read the final judgment http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm --

"this Final Judgment does not constitute _any_ admission by _any_ party regarding _any_ issue of fact or law."

Just because you're charged with something doesn't mean you're automatically guilty.

[Papercut]

Originally Posted by wodenus

Plain email isn't executable.. it's just text. You don't actually GET trojans and viruses from email (except maybe with that dorky client) -- you get it from running attachments attached to the email. Email itself is pretty harmless.

And you don't actually get viruses/trojans just by running a P2P client, you (might) get one by downloading a file and opening it.

[Papercut]

Originally Posted by wodenus

Okay. But I wish people would stop using the word "monopoly" -- MS is not really a monopoly. They are dominating the market, yes, but they are not monopolizing it.

A lot depends on how you define a monopoly. What you've said there is true, but one can also look at it this way: if a company controls so much of the market share that it is able to change the situation single-handedly (eg. raise the prices), then that can also be considered a monopoly.

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Papercut

And you don't actually get viruses/trojans just by running a P2P client, you (might) get one by downloading a file and opening it.

No argument there. But why would you run a P2P client if you're not gonna download anything ? just for uploading stuff ?

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Papercut

A lot depends on how you define a monopoly. What you've said there is true, but one can also look at it this way: if a company controls so much of the market share that it is able to change the situation single-handedly (eg. raise the prices), then that can also be considered a monopoly.

Well, I tend to go by dictionary defintions. Personally, I think a lot of people are indebted to MS, otherwise they'd have to use (until recently frighteningly expensive) Macs or open source OSes. MS has done for x86 what no one else has done -- humanize the PC. That is the reason why they're so popular.. because they're the best at what they do. That they are able to change the situation single-handedly is not exactly their fault. I don't think you can say they're a monopoly any more than you can say Ferrari monopolizes Formula 1. Or that Schumacher monopolizes all the other drivers. They have competitors.. but their competitors are simply not good enough. So I have to say I don't agree with their being called a 'monopoly'. But I can see why it happens.. "monopoly" is a sexy word.. like "crony". Publications use these words a lot, because they sound dynamic and make for interesting reading. In these modern times, flash and dynamism sells more than accuracy or substance. So to sell publications, writers sacrifice some accuracy to titillation and excitement. Which is why MS is called a "monopoly" a lot. Sounds a lot sexier than "de-facto standard." But I'm still old-school.. I believe in accuracy above all. So I can't agree with that definition at all. But you know, the future is Dan Brown -- all flash and no substance, never mind accuracy. Ten-minute sexy soundbites are what people want these days. News is entertainment now. I read that stuff a lot. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[Falcone]

Originally Posted by wodenus

No argument there. But why would you run a P2P client if you're not gonna download anything ? just for uploading stuff ?

That's what we called seeding.........for u to say this proves u have no idea how P2P is run. More to the point is if you are willing to download an executable file which u have no idea of and running it without a proper antivirus or anti-spyware programs running in background, u are no difference from people who open unsolicited email attachment, u deserved to be infected.

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Falcone

That's what we called seeding.........for u to say this proves u have no idea how P2P is run. More to the point is if you are willing to download an executable file which u have no idea of and running it without a proper antivirus or anti-spyware programs running in background, u are no difference from people who open unsolicited email attachment, u deserved to be infected.

Hmm.. some people on this forum have done exactly that. I'm not sure they agree with your assertion that they "deserved to be infected".

[Papercut]

Haha I'll just shut up and agree, actually. At that time I couldn't be bothered to use any firewalls or anti-virus software (I was going to re-format in a few weeks), so yes I DID deserve it...

[Chai]

Originally Posted by wodenus

Well, I tend to go by dictionary defintions. Personally, I think a lot of people are indebted to MS, otherwise they'd have to use (until recently frighteningly expensive) Macs or open source OSes. MS has done for x86 what no one else has done -- humanize the PC. That is the reason why they're so popular.. because they're the best at what they do. That they are able to change the situation single-handedly is not exactly their fault. I don't think you can say they're a monopoly any more than you can say Ferrari monopolizes Formula 1. Or that Schumacher monopolizes all the other drivers. They have competitors.. but their competitors are simply not good enough. So I have to say I don't agree with their being called a 'monopoly'. But I can see why it happens.. "monopoly" is a sexy word.. like "crony". Publications use these words a lot, because they sound dynamic and make for interesting reading. In these modern times, flash and dynamism sells more than accuracy or substance. So to sell publications, writers sacrifice some accuracy to titillation and excitement. Which is why MS is called a "monopoly" a lot. Sounds a lot sexier than "de-facto standard." But I'm still old-school.. I believe in accuracy above all. So I can't agree with that definition at all. But you know, the future is Dan Brown -- all flash and no substance, never mind accuracy. Ten-minute sexy soundbites are what people want these days. News is entertainment now. I read that stuff a lot. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I don't think you should compare Ferrari with MS. Ferrari doesn't monopoly the sport. FIA does, they are the one making the rules, charging the competition entry fees etc! Ferrari is merely a competitor and they are extremely strong, at the moment that is. There are 9 other teams on the grid, and that's far from 'monopoly'. So you are right.

On the other hand, MS is the only one making OS for the masses, and please do not include open source OSes or any server grade OSes. It's like comparing Ferrari in F1, and Citroen in World Rally, there are completely 2 completely different sports. Please name me an OS that would run any DX games.

[wodenus]

Originally Posted by Chai

I don't think you should compare Ferrari with MS. Ferrari doesn't monopoly the sport. FIA does, they are the one making the rules, charging the competition entry fees etc! Ferrari is merely a competitor and they are extremely strong, at the moment that is. There are 9 other teams on the grid, and that's far from 'monopoly'. So you are right.

On the other hand, MS is the only one making OS for the masses, and please do not include open source OSes or any server grade OSes. It's like comparing Ferrari in F1, and Citroen in World Rally, there are completely 2 completely different sports. Please name me an OS that would run any DX games.

I don't see where you're coming from. MS is not the only one making an OS "for the masses". "the masses" can learn any OS they want. I don't see how something like RH (or Mac OS X) is that different from Windows. What do DX games have to do with anything ? they have a "monopoly" on DX, sure. They also have a "monopoly" on Windows. But they do not have a monopoly on the software or OS industry. As long as you have a choice (any choice) then there is no longer a monopoly.