Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
wraith808:
Yes, indeed it is a functional difference. Several things run on your machine without being installed
-wraith808 (March 31, 2011, 08:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
Just a minor niggle... ;)
I think you might have missed what I was trying to say there.
Based on what I learned from my professors, the fact that a piece of code is capable of being run is proof positive an installation occurred. There is absolutely no "functional difference" between installing to RAM or HD, because in either case it accomplishes the exact same function - getting a piece of binary code into a place where it can be executed by the target system.
To paraphrase so there's no confusion: If it's runnable - it's been installed.
-40hz (March 31, 2011, 11:39 PM)
--- End quote ---
You have a very ... unorthodox view of being installed. :huh:
The act of installation requires some very discreet actions that would seem to put lie to your explanation, and this is coming from someone who did installers for several years many moons ago on many varied OSes. For one thing, installation by any practical definition implies that the software in question can be run again without any need for further installation (leaving out the situation of a software upgrade, since the act of upgrading is changing the delta of the installed software.
Renegade:
And I think the only answer is because it betters the odds the average end-user is more likely go along with it if they don't know about it.
Which makes the practice somewhat questionable.
--- End quote ---
That's kind of what sets me off a bit. It's a double-standard. I really don't care either way as long as people hold standards with some degree of equality.
e.g. I hate all people equally! :P (Just kidding. I hate politicians and lawyers most~! Hahahah~!)
But seriously, let me just tear into the double-standard issue a teeny-little bit...
Hello. Welcome to my web site. I've just placed a tracking cookie on your computer and have already recorded information about your computer. Don't worry though. I'm not tracking you personally, yet. Although I do use other tracking technologies from several different companies, including Google. Since you probably have a Youtube or Gmail account, you are being personally tracked. In fact, we're serving ads up to you right now that use your personal information to specifically target you with ads that you are likely to click on so that I make money and other people make money. Your money. But don't worry. That's not the only stuff. We've also partnered with Facebook and know everything about you and your friends and your family. But don't worry... We're not the bad guys. The ones on the desktop are the bad ones. The web is safe. Downloadable software is evil. They're all trojans and spyware and adware and malware and all manner of nastiness.
Ok, maybe a bit over the top in some places, but still basically accurate.
Now... here's the question...
Who here that is opposed to OC will give up surfing the Internet? Because there basically aren't any sites that don't track you to some degree.
A browser ad-blocker is no different than AV software when it gets down to it. Now what gets blocked may vary, but the principle is the same. And how many ad-blockers flag ads that track you as malware? (Like the NOD32 false positive above.)
I think the measure needs to be whether something is going to be good for you or bad. Malware is obviously bad, and I think that we can agree that OC isn't malware. The question then becomes whether or not an ad is bad for you. That's a tough question as I don't see any harm in low-volume ads, but when they get to the level of propaganda (like most mainstream advertising by companies like Coca-cola or McDonalds), then I think that's an entirely different matter. There's also a difference between consumer education and ads, but again, that's also problematic.
Web sites don't ask permission. But people are used to that now.
f0dder:
The "but OC is being installed without my consent" is silly, as already mentioned - consider the amount of 3rd party libraries used by any realistically sized application, and you'd have a crapload of "do you want to allow this library to be installed, as well?" prompts... unless you want to hold OC to higher standards.
Yes, it does run as part of the installation process, but it isn't installed - and that's a big effing difference compared to the adware of the past, that would install background processes, browser helper objects, whatever.
As long as OC doesn't send my list of installed applications but simply grabs the available offers and don't offer what it can locally check is already installed, I don't see the big fuzz about this - even if I don't like the business model and the tendency of authors to "slip it in".
But all that *IS* assuming that OC are being honest about what they're doing, and aren't going 180 degrees at some point - and we all know how likely that is.
Eóin:
I have decided to contact the FSF to see what they have to say about the matter
-app103 (March 31, 2011, 10:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
Just remember that the FSF are very much GPL centric. There are a tonne of other OSS licenses. Case and point, the BSD license is OS, and anyone would be very hard pressed to cliam that OpenBSD is not opensource. But they explicitly do not grant the right to simply repackage and redistribute their Operating System CD.
Rather they retain a copyright over the CD layout
The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD.-http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html
--- End quote ---
An opensource application with OC included is very similar, you can rebuild and repackage the application and redistribute it, but you just can't include OC.
cmpm:
I'm not so sure OC and a browser is a good comparison.
Just thinking out loud.....
There is a lot options to block tracking with a browser.
And there is a lot of tracking that can be done in a browser.
OC is more specific and tracks install, uninstalls, and how they get how long I consider an option during the install is beyond me, both how and why. And whatever else OC says it tracks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version