Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

What the hell is OpenCandy?

<< < (76/99) > >>

wraith808:
Besides, like Renegade pointed out, end users are clueless and stupid. So why bother trying to explain all the magical and complex logic behind how OC discovered an ad is no longer an ad? And how there's no way anybody could possibly consider OC as some form of adware. Some of OC's proponents have even cited an authority as absolute and unassailable as Wikipedia to back them up with a definition of 'adware' that works well for them.
-40hz (April 04, 2011, 02:13 PM)
--- End quote ---

Methinks that a bit too much sarcasm got in your reply that it went from sarcasm to twisting words and veers towards that slippery slope that leads to flaming and feelings getting hurt...   :huh:

If we keep names out of it and quote what people say instead of substituting meanings (I'm guilty of it too...) then we can keep off that slippery slope.  There's ways to debate, and then there are ways to argue.  I'd prefer to keep on the debate side of things.

After all, we're a pretty good group here, right?  And we're just discussing, as our own views don't require that everyone else view things the same way, right?

(Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...)

And as far as the bygones... I say that old chestnut from Ronald Reagan... Trust, but Verify.  We can't truly know the ins and outs of *anyone's* motivations.  Actions speak louder than words, especially over time.  And if someone does make mistakes (for whatever reasons), does that disallow the possibility that course corrections can't be genuine?  That mistakes can't be mistakes?

Keep vigilant, but that doesn't mean that tinfoil hats should be the desired attire while doing so.

Renegade:
@40Hz

You've got some very good points there.

Playing the definition game is really a bad way to go.

And I have avoided the use of the word "ad". But not because I'm worried about "ads"; rather, I'm concerned about the perception of "adware" as it originally evolved. Which is why I prefer "ad supported".

Adware, when it first appeared, was malware. OC isn't malware. I don't write malware. I don't want to be associated with malware.

A lot of media coverage has done a lot of damage to the industry as well. The scareware industry and media seem to be only interested in hyping stories and creating scandal, even where none exists.



Besides, like Renegade pointed out, end users are clueless and stupid. So why bother trying to explain all the magical and complex logic behind how OC discovered an ad is no longer an ad? And how there's no way anybody could possibly consider OC as some form of adware. Some of OC's proponents have even cited an authority as absolute and unassailable as Wikipedia to back them up with a definition of 'adware' that works well for them.
-40hz (April 04, 2011, 02:13 PM)
--- End quote ---


I think I said that people don't have much of an attention span. Others have also pointed it out with the "quick click-through the installer" thing going on with a lot of users. We just are busy and don't pay attention to details. Ok ok ok ok, ya ya ya, click click click. Everyone does it.

As for clueless, yes. Some are. A lot of people just don't understand what's going on in their computer. And why would they? Computers are complex things. It's not a source of shame to be clueless about certain things. I'm pretty clueless on a lot of topics. I can't fix my car. I'm pretty clueless there. There's no shame in not being an expert on everything.


But using language that isn't clear doesn't help anyone. The media have muddied the waters so badly with jargon and badly misused jargon that I don't think there's any redemption for some terminology.

e.g. Take the word "gentleman" from it's original meaning and what it means now. Originally it meant "land owner". It was associated with chivalry and politeness, good breeding and manners. People would say, "oh, he is so gentlemanly". Eventually the term lost its meaning.

I was reading a news article about the .xxx TLD, and it referred to it as a "domain". Well, yes and no. It's a TLD, so yes, but the term is pretty much never used that was. TLDs are referred to as TLDs and not domains. "Domain" has other uses, but that's not generally one of them. (Or not that I've ever seen.)

It's important for word usage to properly and accurately describe what is being talked about. Muddying the waters and diluting meaning isn't helpful.

I don't take issue with "ad" at all. I do take issue with "malware", which is strongly associated to "adware". Virtually no discussion of the topic (adware) excludes the dark-side of the Internet. It's unfortunate.

When it comes to privacy and security issues, I think it's important to be clear about what is meant. With the term "adware", it is not clear.

It doesn't serve anyone's best interests to confuse issues.

Anyways, that's just my take on it.

40hz:
Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...
-wraith808 (April 04, 2011, 03:57 PM)
--- End quote ---


I think if you reread what I wrote, you will discover that I have not, at any point, 'attacked' (your word) either OC or the developers that use it - either here at DoCo - or out in the 'wild.'

If you look at any of my previous comments, at no point will you ever see me say (or imply) that a developer doesn't have the right to get into bed with OC. Or that doing so proves they are a bad person. Or that people shouldn't trust them, or use their software, because they incorporated OC's DLL in their installer.

I did suggest that it might not turn out be quite what it appeared in the long run. But I also extended a very sincere wish to Renegade that it would work out well for him and his customers. So if I am 'attacking' anybody for using OC, I'd appreciate being shown exactly where I did. Because I looked and I can't find it.

I also openly acknowledged my initial lack of understanding of the product, and asked a number of fairly direct and specific questions about it. Many of which went unanswered in any real sense.

I have challenged OC's refusal to consider their software as a type of adware. But despite that, I edited one of my comments - and acknowledged within it a complaint from Renegade that it contained erroneous terminology - after which I gave him the floor to clarify things for us.

I have questioned OC's business practices for what I consider less than forthright behavior. I have questioned their bone fides. And I have repeatedly stated that my primary problem with the software isn't what it does but how it goes about doing it. And that it represented an attempt to change our ideas of what should be considered acceptable behavior on the part of a software installer by OC's refusal to have it display a splash screen and ask for the customer's ok before it runs.

I even went so far as to offer what I thought was the business motivation for doing it that way ($$$ - what else?), and to date, have not had anybody from OC challenge my assessment. Which leads me to conclude I was spot on. Especially since they have at least one person in their organization actively monitoring web discussions of their product - and that person has been a participant in this thread. So it's not like they don't know what's being said here.

I responded to the challenge that OC does not install anything by offering for consideration the definition I learned (before PCs ruled the world) to clarify where I was coming from when I said it did. The definition of "install" was not presented as gospel truth, but rather for the purposes of discussion. And for which I received a sarcastic and rather insulting reply.

But I still don't see anyplace in my previous comment, or any of the earlier ones in this thread, where I'm attacking anybody.

If I have been "vitriolic" and "sarcastic" (I prefer to think of it more as being "passionate" and "pithy" BTW :mrgreen:) it was largely directed towards the 'on air' advertising practices of the cable television industry. And for that I offer no apologies whatsoever.

Perhaps I did indulge in some excess here in my attempt to sound a cautionary note:
OC is gonna be totally different.

Really.

They have given us their word.

Forget they have serious venture funding - and are actively trying to get as many developers as possible into the fold without drawing too much attention to it.

And forget about some of its developer's past track records.

We all make mistakes.

Like getting caught.  tongue

So let's just let bygones be bygones - and "put it behind us" as the saying goes.
--- End quote ---

But I thought it might be a little less offensive than coming right out and saying what I initially wrote right after: OC is gonna be totally different. I originally just said Bullshit and ended it there.

And I will agree that that following comment would have been better left unsaid:

That's the perfect place to stick it anyway.

--- End quote ---

It's already sounding less funny to me than it originally did.

Where I did err, however was in implying Renegade said, at some point, that end users were both "stupid" and "clueless." He did not say that, even though I sensed that was what he thought from some other comments, both in this thread, and a few others.

Needless to say, my intuiting doesn't justify my creating a "composite" comment that could be confused with a direct quote.

So for that, I do apologize.

 :)

Renegade:
Where I did err, however was in implying Renegade said, at some point, that end users were both "stupid" and "clueless." He did not say that, even though I sensed that was what he thought from some other comments, both in this thread, and a few others.
-40hz (April 04, 2011, 10:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

No, from a lot of my comments, I can see how I could be interpreted like that. A lot of users are stupid. Ask any developer and they'll give you horror stories. I had one guy complaining about my software not working. After numerous emails back and forth, I finally figured out that he hadn't even installed it  or even downloaded it yet! So, yeah, some people are clueless to the point of stupidity. I don't mean to imply that all people are idiots, except when I'm drunk and spewing nonsense, which only goes to prove that I can be an idiot as well~! :D :P 

wraith808:
Attacking the software/developers that use it fall under the same aegis - especially if they are coders on the site.  A little vitriol can really hurt a developer's livelihood for our own personal bias...
-wraith808 (April 04, 2011, 03:57 PM)
--- End quote ---


I think if you reread what I wrote, you will discover that I have not, at any point, 'attacked' (your word) either OC or the developers that use it - either here at DoCo - or out in the 'wild.'
<snip />

So for that, I do apologize.

 :)


-40hz (April 04, 2011, 10:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

I guess I misspoke (mistyped...?) with the attack word... that's a bit more inflammatory than I meant it.  I did mean the misquote, since the new quote seemed a lot more negative than the impression I got from Renegade's original post... and I meant it more in a cautionary manner.  As things like this go on, many people do it (I know I've been guilty of it).  I just didn't want to go down that road- DC is quite the civil environment, and this thread has been degenerating for a while.

In the end, I don't think anyone is going to be persuaded by a few words, but by their own thoughts, if at all.  And if your own thoughts are towards one end of the spectrum or the other, it is less likely that introspection is to happen.  So I look at threads like this more for information sharing and debate.  And I just wanted to keep it that way. :)

Sorry for any confusion I may have injected into the conversation.  :-[

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page