Zugg Software :: View topic

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by Zugg
It's a problem I don't see a solution to. Although reading the news this morning I saw an article about the guy in Romania who copied the Blaster virus who could get a huge prison sentence for that. Apparently Romania is *really* cracking down on hacker and virus activities within their country. If more countries start adopting a stronger policy about this so that the consequences are severe, then maybe more people will be less likely to throw bricks through our virtual windows.

What I think is a bit wrong is that they try to make examples out of the persons. They show them on TV, on newspapers and so on. Instead they become kind of heroes.

Now many of them are also quite young. This doesn't make the situation any better but suddenly the ones making the example becomes the bad people. (one has to also take into consideration the seriousness of the computer virus. Is it just a small modification to an already existing one? Does it make it any better?).

Of course many computer viruses are issues from a business point of view. Of course people will want to get the authors of those computer viruses to pay back. But yet they once too were that kid that made upp pranks.

Isn't it usually 15 years or so you can get if you make computer viruses or even modify them by just changing a text string? Compare that to actually hurt someone in real life or stealing their belongings. I wonder which is most serious? It is an ethical discussion that many should think about. What would you say if it was your daughter or son that had played around?

In the end you have to think if the damage was just economical or if the computer virus did cause injuries to people. It is far worse if people actually got hurt. A lot of data can be restored but a person's health can perhaps not. Would you Zugg want to make a 14 year old kid stay in prison for 15 years for taking down Chiara's computer?

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Maybe the 14 year old kid shoulda thought about the consequences before he started making viruses. I mean, I think he's probably getting off lightly, if he were to be jailed for the number of lost hours of sysadmins around the world, he'd be in jail for well over 100 years.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:05 am

While it's true that the sentance terms as far as virii are typically harsh, it's far more wide spread than simply one persons computer. You figure that even a low-key virus will spread to a minimum of 100,000 computers. Now figure that a high-key virus like this Beagle virus, hit a million systems, can you imagine the monitary loss to these individuals? Lets completely throw aside the setimental and personal loss, we're talking strictly monitary. Given that time is money, you quickly start approaching the 10's, to 100's of dollars in loss. Divide that by 15 and I doubt the child could replace that cash working full time in ANY field in the same amount of time. Rainchild is right, they should have given thought to the reprocussions of their actions before they set out to create something to destroy.

And for this:

quote:
It is far worse if people actually got hurt.

Mental hurt not counting there? Many people store a great deal of personal data on their systems, and when that is no longer there, I've seen people break down and cry for days over the loss of their personal data. Sure, they may not have been physically hurt, but physical crimes are a very small part of the equation anymore. The true villian is the one who hides in shadow while doing their deed, and touches not a single person, but can raise mass chaos. It is in this category that virii authors fall.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by Rainchild

Maybe the 14 year old kid shoulda thought about the consequences before he started making viruses. I mean, I think he's probably getting off lightly, if he were to be jailed for the number of lost hours of sysadmins around the world, he'd be in jail for well over 100 years.

That is the RIAA way of thinking. They sue people on fantasy amounts of money. If they got all that money they would probably be richer than Microsoft.

Say we have this kid which we jail for 15 years. The sysadmins won't get their time back they lost though. Now the kid 30 years old gets out of jail without much education. Will he benefit society? Probably not. It is more likely that society is going to have to pay for his crime. He has lost time as a child and time with his parents and family. Time which he'll never get back. Time which many consider more important than their work.

But the sysadmins are happy though. They showed an example here and got the issue away. What they didn't realize though is that the kid(or the man now) is now upset realizing what has happened. He has no work so his hobby once again becomes writing computer viruses. Odd, isn't it? By trying to solve the issue you have actually managed to make it worse!

Let us go back 30 years and not punish him as harshly. 30 years later HE might be a sysadmin securing systems. At that time he too will be complaining and wanting huge punishments for young persons writing computer viruses though.

Just for fun let's take a look at Zugg's windows comparison. Say some kid throws a stone at your window. The kid would perhaps get a warning and some fine and then many would probably not continue to destroy windows. However... What if he got 15 years for his crime? I mean he knew the consequences after all.

I think you somewhat have to consider if the crime actually hurts someone. If you hurt another human it is far more serious in my opinion. Computers can usually be restored while humans might not.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by IceChild

While it's true that the sentance terms as far as virii are typically harsh, it's far more wide spread than simply one persons computer. You figure that even a low-key virus will spread to a minimum of 100,000 computers. Now figure that a high-key virus like this Beagle virus, hit a million systems, can you imagine the monitary loss to these individuals? Lets completely throw aside the setimental and personal loss, we're talking strictly monitary. Given that time is money, you quickly start approaching the 10's, to 100's of dollars in loss. Divide that by 15 and I doubt the child could replace that cash working full time in ANY field in the same amount of time. Rainchild is right, they should have given thought to the reprocussions of their actions before they set out to create something to destroy.

And for this:

quote:
It is far worse if people actually got hurt.

Mental hurt not counting there? Many people store a great deal of personal data on their systems, and when that is no longer there, I've seen people break down and cry for days over the loss of their personal data. Sure, they may not have been physically hurt, but physical crimes are a very small part of the equation anymore. The true villian is the one who hides in shadow while doing their deed, and touches not a single person, but can raise mass chaos. It is in this category that virii authors fall.

I would also get very angry and upset if I lost data on my computer. I would probably feel even worse if I made someone get a 15 year jail time because of it though.

I am not sure about this but isn't is usually the larger companies that scream the most about lost money due to computer viruses? That is pretty odd.

What I am talking about here though are the computer virus writers that have barely begun to make computer viruses. Or the ones that modify an existing one by for example just modifying a text string(like the 'hello' message many computer viruses have). These seem to be the people that get targetted as 'examples'.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Lets look at this in another light. If it was Zugg's computer, not Chiara's that had been a victim of this virus he would have had years of his coding life erased. Like it or not he would never be able to remake Zmud, he would have gone out of business. And you think the person who made the virus should be given a little slap on the back of his hand and say "don't do it again"?

I agree the prison system doesn't work in its current form, where you get no chance to learn how to be a productive member of society. That's a separate issue for debate, the kid should be made to pay. Even if he only changed it to 'Hello' and distributed it, he should be punnished for what his variant did in damages... he wilfully sent it out in order to do damage so he should be responsible for his actions.

Man if I hacked into Zugg's server and trashed his source code I would be expecting to go to jail. Willful damage is willful damage so you should go to a correctional facility. It's just a shame that jails don't rehabilitate the way they're supposed to... but just because the prison system doesn't work well doesn't mean that the virus writer shouldn't gosub jail.

SubAdmin Joined: 18 Nov 2001 Posts: 5182

Ah! I do enjoy philosophical and societal debates. I would really love hearing Zugg weigh in on this one though, since I have no idea how many children he has.

Now to my point of view...
In simple essence Rorso is correct, 'The punishment should fit the crime'. Also Rainchild is quite right, to paraphase just a little, 'A person should willfully accept the consequences of thier willful actions.' These two streams of thought are not mutually exclusive.

So in order to make everyone happy and better off we must find those responsible for writting new virii and assess them a proper punishment. I believe the most appropiate would be to assign a monetary value to the damage that thier virus caused then employ them as a computer programmer such that they pocket minimum wage and the rest of thier salary goes towards the debt. Obviously they are skilled and creative and both those talents go to waste in jail. For those that just want to change a little text in the virus and republish it, we should nail them with copyright infringement (maximum 25 years and 100K) on top of assessing them with damages from the virus. However since they show no creativity and only minimal skill they can rot in jail until they manage to pay all the damages from thier 17 cents an hour license plate job.

That would be an equtiable solution for all. Us poor users would get better software, there would only be 1 version of a given virus (unless the first guy was really creative and wrote a randomly polymophic version to start with) because no one would want the extra penalties, and system administrators could go to bed at night knowing those evil brick throwers would learn the glazing trade.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 3:37 am

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso

quote:
Originally posted by IceChild

While it's true that the sentance terms as far as virii are typically harsh, it's far more wide spread than simply one persons computer. You figure that even a low-key virus will spread to a minimum of 100,000 computers. Now figure that a high-key virus like this Beagle virus, hit a million systems, can you imagine the monitary loss to these individuals? Lets completely throw aside the setimental and personal loss, we're talking strictly monitary. Given that time is money, you quickly start approaching the 10's, to 100's of dollars in loss. Divide that by 15 and I doubt the child could replace that cash working full time in ANY field in the same amount of time. Rainchild is right, they should have given thought to the reprocussions of their actions before they set out to create something to destroy.

And for this:

quote:
It is far worse if people actually got hurt.

Mental hurt not counting there? Many people store a great deal of personal data on their systems, and when that is no longer there, I've seen people break down and cry for days over the loss of their personal data. Sure, they may not have been physically hurt, but physical crimes are a very small part of the equation anymore. The true villian is the one who hides in shadow while doing their deed, and touches not a single person, but can raise mass chaos. It is in this category that virii authors fall.

I would also get very angry and upset if I lost data on my computer. I would probably feel even worse if I made someone get a 15 year jail time because of it though.

I am not sure about this but isn't is usually the larger companies that scream the most about lost money due to computer viruses? That is pretty odd.

What I am talking about here though are the computer virus writers that have barely begun to make computer viruses. Or the ones that modify an existing one by for example just modifying a text string(like the 'hello' message many computer viruses have). These seem to be the people that get targetted as 'examples'.

Yes, typically it is the larger companies that you hear about screaming due to monitary loss, however that is only because they have the financial power to scream at the top of their lungs until someone hears them. And when they are infested, a virus like the one that Chiara's system got could bring down their entire network of thousands of computers. So where there is a larger scale in damager, there is a louder voice screaming for restitution.

I had a friend of mine who was convicted of a crime which related to him writing a virus.... it was probably 7 years ago now, and after serving a 4 year prison sentance, he now works for McAfee, where he helps stop virii for millions of customers. Did the prison sentance hurt him? Not really, infact, he says it helped clear his mind and make him understand exactly what he had done and on what scale. Did he become a better person after getting out? Definately. He's now rather respected amongst his peers, and he sees his day-to-day job as a way to help make sure that the things he did with his virus never happen to fewer and fewer people.

So you see, there isn't always a bad side to a prison sentance, and while I said before that I feel that 15 years is extreme (and if I didn't, I'm saying it now), a "reasonable" sentance would be fitting. I mean hell, if you want a case where the justice system screwed up bigtime, my aunt was killed by a drunk driver and got a whole whopping 26 months. Had it been able to be tried as murder, he probably would still be in, but no, DUI is different. So while there is reasonable, there is also amazingly unreasonable situtations on the other side of the coin. I guess we have to hope for some balance somewhere.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:11 am

Is it really 14 year old kids that write virii like the Bagle? I mean.. I know they might play around, but are virii *that* easy to write, that a 14 yr old can cause that much damage?

I seriously doubt it. If it were true, there'd be a 35 year old, extremely experienced coder... that snaps, and writes something that causes real damage. And there would be lots of them. Because if a kid could come up with bagle, what could 20 years of experience come up with?

I know that the kid who "plays" by changing a line, exists. I cannot believe that the more serious ones originate with them though. And its the people who write the initial versions that deserve the 15 years.

And the kid? I agree with Rorso. Don't destroy his life, but don't just give him a tap on the wrist either. Forget gaol, and forget the "juvenile justice system". Some up with something community-based that will help develop and redirect the kids talents.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:12 am

Heh...yet another fun discussion :)

To set my perspective, I don't have kids. I agree that the punishment should "fit the crime" but that is hard to do in these cases. Romania is certainly setting a *very* severe and extreme example. In a way, I understant their point of view...they want the punishment to be *so* extreme that once the word gets out, nobody will dare do this kind of stuff in that country. The punishment is so great that nobody would take the risk, which is exactly what they want.

However, when dealing with kids, we are dealing with people who don't understand consequences. We have age limits on various things for a reason. A 10 year old, for example, just isn't mature enough to understand the potential consequences of his/her action. Yes, we still want laws and punishments, but we simply need to follow the normal laws and examples. In the US, we have juvenile laws. If someone under the age of 17 or so commits a crime, the punishment is different vs an adult committing the same crime. And this changes with each crime. Murder is treated differently than theft, for example.

My nephew has actually tested this system. He stole a car as a juvenule. He ended up going to a "special school" for several years because of it, and spent a couple of nights in jail. It certainly messed up his life. The school was in a different state and he had to stay there full time. So, for two years he wasn't at home, wasn't with any of his friends, etc. An adult would have gone to jail for a period of time and paid a fine. In some situations, the parents are held accountable for fines. This is an incentive for parents to keep an eye on their kids.

Keeping an eye on children is harder online, but it should still be done. While the parents are responsible for the child, the child's activity should be monitored. In the US, children do not have the same rights as adults (after all, the punishments are already different). It is perfectly legal and necessary for a parent for monitor a childrens online activity, browser history, email, etc. So, for hackers and virus writers that are children, the parents might be held responsible for some fines as well.

There are lots of ways to handle this. But certainly having the penalty for making a small change to an existing virus greater than the punishment for rape is out of wack, and treating a minor the same as an adult also doesn't make a lot of sense.

But in general, kids need to get the idea that there *ARE* consequences for this. It's not just a kid throwing a brick through *my* window, it's a kid able to throw a brick through tens of thousands of windows simultaneously. The Internet allows children to do a lot more damage virtually then they might be able to do in real life. And Parents need to understand this and start taking more of an interest in their child's online "life".

As with all crimes, it's not just the crime itself, but it's effect. A virus that takes down a major company or causes large monetary loss (like a hack into an online bank or something) should have greater penalties than the same virus the only effects one person. So it's not just the fact that they wrote a virus, it's what that virus did, how many people if effected, etc.

These crimes really aren't all that different from normal crimes. It's just that they can effect more people. There's no reason the laws cannot be written properly to handle them. It's just a matter of time before a balance is found. Right now, the law has been so lenient on hackers that it's starting to swing the other way in order to send a message. Eventually it will find a better balance.

I'm just glad that they are finally tracking some of these people down and that they are getting good press. I'm sorry, but I don't think the attention makes them into "heroes". Is a mass murderer a "hero" because their trial is on TV and gets a lot of attention? When the kids realize that it could be *them* getting caught and getting their live ruined, a lot of them will think twice about doing it. That leaves the "professional" criminals, and there is no way to get rid of them. All you can do is stop the casual "pettry criminals" from doing it.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:17 am

Vigilante - that system can't work. Historically it will drive the person so punished into rebellion. Its the same as a country defeating another at war, then requiring monetary payments in years that follow. Rome versus Carthage. 3 wars, not just one... because a generation later Carthage still suffered. World war 1 and 2... why was there 2? Why was Germany willing to listen to Hitler? At least partly because a decade on, the people - the average person - was suffering because their country was forced to pay for the damage they'd caused.

Its the same thing. This programmer will spend 8 years earning a pittance for his hard work, then he'll get pissed off. Only he'll have 8 years more experience up his sleeve and the next virus will be a *real* one.

Apprentice Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 157 Location: USA

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso
In the end you have to think if the damage was just economical or if the computer virus did cause injuries to people. It is far worse if people actually got hurt. A lot of data can be restored but a person's health can perhaps not. Would you Zugg want to make a 14 year old kid stay in prison for 15 years for taking down Chiara's computer?

What about a virus hitting the comps of the DoD? In particular, those containing missile launch codes? Would you want somebody starting WW3 just because he thought it'd be a neat prank to hack/infect the Department of Defense? Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one has yet (esp after the movie "War Games"). Or how about someone hacking/infecting air traffic control? I'd sure want to stop hackers and virus authors long before they get that far. Making examples of those who get caught could well scare potential hackers and virus authors into going stait. But I do believe in the punnishment fitting the crime.

quote:
Originally posted by Zugg
I'm just glad that they are finally tracking some of these people down and that they are getting good press. I'm sorry, but I don't think the attention makes them into "heroes". Is a mass murderer a "hero" because their trial is on TV and gets a lot of attention?

Not necessarily...more people consider O. J. Simpson a hero now than before his trial. [}:)] Then there's Hollywood buying their stoies and iconizing them...Take, for example, the Bobbits. Or Billy the Kid. Hollywood just loves to turn villans into heros. [}:)] But for the most part, you are correct. :D

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by Jerran

quote:
Originally posted by Rorso
In the end you have to think if the damage was just economical or if the computer virus did cause injuries to people. It is far worse if people actually got hurt. A lot of data can be restored but a person's health can perhaps not. Would you Zugg want to make a 14 year old kid stay in prison for 15 years for taking down Chiara's computer?

What about a virus hitting the comps of the DoD? In particular, those containing missile launch codes? Would you want somebody starting WW3 just because he thought it'd be a neat prank to hack/infect the Department of Defense? Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one has yet (esp after the movie "War Games"). Or how about someone hacking/infecting air traffic control? I'd sure want to stop hackers and virus authors long before they get that far. Making examples of those who get caught could well scare potential hackers and virus authors into going stait. But I do believe in the punnishment fitting the crime.

Ahhh... *paus* War Games. A very good movie Smile

. Of course that kid should have had 15 years in prison... The movie did have an important message though and that is that one should not let computers control too much. Now we are talking about kids here but let's take another look here. What if say some country A got angry at country B? Hacking could be used here to cause all kind of mess. In some odd stupid way it is somewhat thanks to the kids fooling around we perhaps have higher online security today(I remember a time when a lot of people barely knew what a firewall was.)

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Zugg
I'm just glad that they are finally tracking some of these people down and that they are getting good press. I'm sorry, but I don't think the attention makes them into "heroes". Is a mass murderer a "hero" because their trial is on TV and gets a lot of attention?

Not necessarily...more people consider O. J. Simpson a hero now than before his trial. [}:)] Then there's Hollywood buying their stoies and iconizing them...Take, for example, the Bobbits. Or Billy the Kid. Hollywood just loves to turn villans into heros. [}:)] But for the most part, you are correct. :D

You should not forget the newspapers either. Most of the time they make the hackers look like heroes. One should probably remember here though that not all hackers write computer viruses. A buffer overflow issue could probably both be used to spread a computer virus and to get access to the machine.

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:56 pm

Careful how you define "hacker", the media definition and the actual definition are completely different, and the latter of which I tend to hope people actually take as the truth. That word gets mis-used more than most any other word out there....

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:51 am

quote:
Or how about someone hacking/infecting air traffic control?

This is what scares me the most. Right now it's just mainly hackers (in both the good sense and the bad sense...virus writers *are* hackers and give the good hackers a bad rep) doing the viruses. But how long will it be until *real* terrorists get their hands on this stuff and start using it.

All of us here in this forum are very computer literate and we all understand (and have discussed) how bad the security of many computers connected to the Internet really is. Now, having some experience with government DoD stuff, I know that the really sensitive computers are not even connected to the Internet, not even via firewalls. There are strict rules to keep very sensitive systems completely disconnected. But look at all of the other systems that *are* connected to the 'net: banks, medical records, etc.

I was recently re-watching ST:Deep Space Nine and there was an episode where a very sensitve shipment was arriving and they were all trying to secure the station to ensure it wouldn't be high-jacked. Well, they *did* secure all of the direct systems, but the bad guy tried to disable the garbage collection system to shut down the station. In other words, they forgot how dependant they were on a low-level low-security system.

That's what I worry about with terrorists. These virus writers are publishing their code and just handing their techniques to the real bad guys who could do *real* damage with these things. After all, we've seen how quickly a virus can spread these days. So far none of them have done anything really bad...but what's stopping them from deleting critical files and crashing a huge percentage of computers on the 'net?

Btw, from what we can tell, Chiara's computer got the "normal" Bagle.Q variation that infects by just previewing an email message (no attachment) if you don't have a particular Security Patch installed. One of the things that the .Q (and later) variations does is infect all of the EXE files that it can find on the system. This includes Windows system files. So, when it overwrote one of the EXE files that is tracked by the Windows CRC routines, we got the message telling us a system file was overwritten and prompted us to put in our WinXP CD. Then we apparently just got very unlucky and powered off the computer when it was right in the middle of infecting other Windows system files, leaving Windows unbootable and making WinXP think that Windows was no longer installed.

Just goes to show that even something that isn't *supposed* to do much damage, still can.

Novice Joined: 15 Nov 2001 Posts: 39

quote:
Originally posted by IceChild

Just to let you know, from the way it looks on their website, they've already changed their pricing policy. As per their FSecure2004 program:

quote:
Purchase price includes 1 year program license including program updates and email support.
Renewal price is EUR 37.1 / $39.85 (+ VAT)

Looks as though all virus software now a days is doing the whole extortion bit everywhere.... Kinda sad.

One year of program updates.
This means if you buy f-secure, and within one year of the perchise date, they reliese a new version of the software you get a free update.

And, if you want to keep paying $40/year, then you don't have to pay for individual software updates.

Virus definition updates still seem to be free for life.

GURU Joined: 28 Sep 2000 Posts: 156 Location: USA

quote:
You don't see this kind of crap happening with Netscape/AOL/Mozilla. Why, because it's OPEN SOURCE. Given the timing of this virus with the legal issues currently going on between Microsoft and the European Union, I hope they finally see the truth of how Microsoft's business practices have hurt us all. We need the Windows and IE source opened up to inspection.

So is ZuggMail going to be open source so we can check for security problems? How about zMUD? [}:)]

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Zugg's a coding GOD, not a Microsoft chimp, Gods don't make security problems ;)

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:44 am

Since ZuggMail will not be imbedded into the operating system where it can cause such security holes, then no, it will not be open source. Many plugins, however, *might* be open source. If IE and other Microsoft software worked more as standalone applications and were not so integrated into the operating system, then I wouldn't worry nearly as much about security issues.

And yes, if there was a need to have ZuggMail source code inspected by some independant party to ensure security compliance for use in government organizations, for example, then yes I'd submit it for that. Allowing software to be open for inspection is not the same as posting the source code to the Internet for all to copy and it not what I was talking about.

And btw, I was *very* happy to read about the fine imposed by the European Union. Since Microsoft ignored the warnings from the legal issue with the web browser and proceeded to start including a Media Player with Windows to leverage the operating system monopoly, I'm glad someone called them on it. Soon it will be time to go after their integration of MSN Messanger. One of these days they need to get a clue that just because they provide the operating system to 90% of end-user computers doesn't mean it gives them the right to distribute all of their other applications along with it. I hope this gives RealPlayer a fair chance to compete in the market and acts as an example to better protect 3rd party software developers in the future.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

quote:
Originally posted by Zugg

Since ZuggMail will not be imbedded into the operating system where it can cause such security holes, then no, it will not be open source. Many plugins, however, *might* be open source. If IE and other Microsoft software worked more as standalone applications and were not so integrated into the operating system, then I wouldn't worry nearly as much about security issues.

And yes, if there was a need to have ZuggMail source code inspected by some independant party to ensure security compliance for use in government organizations, for example, then yes I'd submit it for that. Allowing software to be open for inspection is not the same as posting the source code to the Internet for all to copy and it not what I was talking about.

And btw, I was *very* happy to read about the fine imposed by the European Union. Since Microsoft ignored the warnings from the legal issue with the web browser and proceeded to start including a Media Player with Windows to leverage the operating system monopoly, I'm glad someone called them on it. Soon it will be time to go after their integration of MSN Messanger. One of these days they need to get a clue that just because they provide the operating system to 90% of end-user computers doesn't mean it gives them the right to distribute all of their other applications along with it. I hope this gives RealPlayer a fair chance to compete in the market and acts as an example to better protect 3rd party software developers in the future.

Realplayer is bad. Why? Because they aren't better than Microsoft. Not many companies are in fact. Realplayer has the 'Real Networks' and isnt that a propietary format? Isn't quicktime also propietary?

There's something odd here. A lot of people scream that Microsoft WMP is so bad but those other companies are just as guilty trying to lock the users into their formats. Removing Media Player from Windows is not going to solve this issue but probably going to make it far worse. What instead needs to be discussed is this:

1. Software patents
I almost cry each time I see this. Software patents... The word itself is something that can cause nightmares. Because in the US anything and everything can be patented it seems. Did you know that the concept of scanning a document in the background for spelling issues appearently is patented? Which is something a 7-year old could probably figure out in less than an hour! [:(!]

Software patents are bad because they encourage monopoly. A company like Microsoft could easily patent a huge amount of concepts locking the entire software industry out.

2. Open file formats
This is related to patents. Jpeg is an example of this, I guess. Thanks to jpeg's bad choice to be patented we thankfully have .png though which is much better.

Now what will happen if Microsoft dominates the market less? The obvious: fragmentation. Back in the 80's there were loads of computers: atari, commodore, macintosh, pc, spectrum and probably a lot more I don't remember. That is what we are going back to but let us combine this with patents. Each company will lock other companies out. Making a simple software will require huge analysis to determine if it infringes a patent(also as these software patents can be so silly everyone probably infrings on some patent).

I'm glad EU doesn't have software patents, and I hope the US will realize how bad they are and remove them.

If WMP was open we wouldn't have this discussion about the Media Player. Because if it was open we could use any media player without having to worry about file formats much. This is obviously a bad bussiness practive though as you can no longer force the customers to use some product. You would finally have to play fair by trying to make a usable user interface and other services.

With the current way things work you have to have loads of software installed to play/read all kinds of file formats. This makes the computer slow and fills the harddrives. Somehow I feel that this situation isn't going to get better though.

(a small side note. One could even blame the current way development works on these issues. "A good programmer first checks if there is a program that has been made that does the specific task, and if so he uses that one instead of writing a new one". That is a quote I have found in many sites/books - quite a collision with bussiness practice. However if we have a Media Player that works, why create 10 more? They would be similar anyway and the current one could be modified to work like we want to...)

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Bah, next we'll have game companies suing microsoft because 'solitaire' is bundled with the operating system, and while we're at it editor companies suing because of notepad and wordpad, and adobe suing because of paint... and I guess Zugg could sue because telnet is bundled too.

Personally, I think these bundled things should be a tick-box to install or not, but they are all part of the core functionality I would expect from an operating system. I mean you didn't see apple getting sued because they bundle quicktime, and you don't see KDE getting sued because they bundle KMediaPlayer or whatever it is called...

I dunno. I guess because Microsoft is on top, they get picked on... but as far as media goes, I wouldn't pay for a media player. Maybe they should charge for the codec, but a window with a play, pause, and stop button is just not worth paying for :P

GURU Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 4379 Location: USA

quote:
Realplayer is bad. Why? Because they aren't better than Microsoft. Not many companies are in fact. Realplayer has the 'Real Networks' and isnt that a propietary format? Isn't quicktime also propietary?

That's why Winamp is the best. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 7:51 pm

Perhaps RealPlayer is bad because they were not able to compete and get enough sales to actually develop the software properly? If nobody is buying your software because there is a perfectly good "free" alternative, then without any money for development it's hard to make progress.

What I want to see is COMPETITION! That is how software is improved. I also like Windows Media Player a lot...but that's not the point. Why should Microsoft be allowed to include it in Windows for FREE? After all, it takes REAL MONEY to develop a program like Media Player. Microsoft is subsidizing it's development and getting more people to use it by leveraging their monopoly of Windows. *THATS* the problem. I don't want to see "software patents" either...that wasn't my point. My point is that Microsoft should NOT be allowed to use it's operating system monopoly to subsidize it's other software that it can distribute for free with the specific intent to push other competitors out of the market.

Should Solitaire and Telnet be removed? If Microsoft developed them into full-fledged applications then yes. Otherwise how would a game company trying to write Solitaire software or a company like Zugg Software compete? It's only because these are "bare-bone" applications that it's not a problem.

But Media Player is *NOT* a bare-boned application. It is a "best in class" application, just like Internet Explorer, and giving it away for free along with the operating system eliminates competition and therefore also eliminates innovation.

It's the same issue with email and the reason that there is little or no innovation going on with email clients. Large companies have a hard time making a business case to develop a better email client because Outlook Express is provided for free. Only a small company like Zuggsoft can think about doing an email client because I don't need as much sales in order to stay in business.

So bundling basic technology with an operating system is fine. The old media player that came with Windows 95 that could play basic WAV and MDI files was fine. As soon as they started making it a world-class application that competes with stuff like WinAmp and RealPlayer they should have left a "basic" version with the operating system and then charged for a "Pro" version to compete just like other companies are forced to compete.

Quicktime isn't the same because it is still a "base technology" and not a full-fledged application like Media Player has become.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

I think Microsoft is like most companies. It wants more. More money, more users, more more. The company is huge and it continues to grow. To grow even more it has to find new ways to grow Smile

. So it goes into the gaming bussiness, mobile phone, kitchen and so on.

Perhaps some day we'll only have one company left Very Happy

. However I said that this is most companies goal. What I dislike about Real Player is that their protocol isn't a standard, and is probably patented too. They are just as bad as Microsoft with their WMP file format. I don't think you can blame on Microsoft about this but how the company system works (or doesn't work).

Programming is fun. Let's face that that is a fact. I started programming when I was very young and I still enjoy it but sometimes with a bitter taste. How companies like SCO act (and many more like Microsoft, IBM etc. Most companies behave poorly in some ways) makes me feel ill about the entire software industry. Awhile I couldn't program anylonger because I saw how poorly those companies treated people. It isn't about writing good applications and having fun for them: It is about earning as much money as possible and sue or scare away all competition, if any.

Then to see these silly software patents the US has is a real disappointment. Did you know they tried to get that into EU? That would have been the end of software development as we know it. Software like games wouldn't be possible to make without paying huge amounts of money to patent holders(not to mention the mess to write an application useable in more than one country).

In the very start home computing was never much about bussiness. It was a few bearded guys in a basement having fun with things no one understood. Why do you think crackers work hard to open up applications like zMUD? I think it is because they think it's fun.

What many need to rediscover is the fun in computing. Sometimes I see you, Zugg, upset on that bug blaming Microsoft and it makes me smile. Because clearly you are having fun. You probably disagree when you read this but don't you feel pretty good when you have solved the issue? Smile

If programming is seen as less serious and more playing around, getting more friends, more fun then I think competition would always exist but even those who compete can share solutions and discuss them. Often small children gets upset when another child steals an idea the other child stole before him. Give him a cookie and milk and send him to the couch for an hour as punishment Smile

.

What I am saying is that if IBM uses concepts Microsoft uses then you'll see Microsoft angry threatening IBM. Clearly Microsoft should then be sent to the couch(where Real Networks is already having its milk and cookie) for this poor behaviour as this is the kind of thing that makes competition impossible. Now I guess one should hope they don't want to go to the cough to get cookies and milk Very Happy

.

Yet a side note here. I think someone once said that after a few years all applications that are needed would be written after which no new applications would be needed. Perhaps we are close to that point today. 100 media players aren't going to be able to compete. Then again 1700 MUDs manage to compete somewhat somehow.

I hope programming will once again become more fun, and enjoyable. Some companies surely needs to cool down. There is fun competition and there is mean competition trying to destroy all competitors. Sadly I think most companies do the mean competition today.

Apprentice Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 157 Location: USA

quote:
1. Software patents
I almost cry each time I see this. Software patents... The word itself is something that can cause nightmares. Because in the US anything and everything can be patented it seems.

Have y'all heard? Donald Trump tried to copyright "You're fired!" Hehe, the copyright office (whatever it's called) slapped him down and told him he can't copyright every day phrases. :D

Now on to the media player debate: For some things, I like Windblows Media Player. It's convenient, easy to use (more-or-less), and doesn't freeze up my system when I use certain other applications. I don't like using it to record, however, because it only lets you record in Windblows Media format, and the only real option you're given is whether or not you wanna copy protect the file, and I'm not even certain they're letting you record w/o copy protecting these files anymore. Older versions of WinAmp didn't let you record at all, and if memory serves (tho I could be thinking of another media player here) some of the older versions couldn't even play a CD. For recording MP3 files, I like using Real Jukjebox. Why? Because it can record in MP3 format, can record from line in (so I can convert all my family's old records into CDs), and it also lets me (very conveniently) burn my own CDs, also. I am also quite enamoured of Apkle's iTunes. But that's more 'cuz I like how it looks. I just wish they'd allow me to record from CDs to MP3 files and that they had a stop button. But to sum up, no company is going to make a player that will satisfy everyone. If, as Rorso suggests they should be, all software (media software in particular) was open source, there'd be hundreds of people publishing their own media player (or other software) that's virtually identical to some other software but tailored to their eccentricities. This isn't bad, really, but is, in fact, in direct opposition to Rorso's statement that there'd be only a couple media players which people could customize to work the way they want. The reality is, no 2 people can truly agree on what features truly are or aren't necessary, so if given 1/2 a chance, anyone with the skill so to do would rewrite said player to suit themselves. Again, not a bad notion, but there needs to be some guarantee of compatibility.

I should stop this note here, since I'm beginning to ramble and forget the argument I intended to post. :D