Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
Tony comments: > OK, ha, ha, funny, funny. Joke's over. For you maybe ... 8-) > I really think that grabbing files off the network without explicit > permission from the user is a bad idea, even when it's all in good fun. 1. Putting the magic download into the base package CVS would have ensured that Tony has nothing to complain about. He's right, in any case. 2. The preceding property lookup could have a selective override to implement the conditional, thereby reproducing the behavior. > We also have users on 56k modems I'm by default on a 33k, so a streaming download doesn't work very well. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
Tony Peden wrote: > OK, ha, ha, funny, funny. Joke's over. > > Curt, David: I humbly request that such patches not be accepted in the > future. > > I really think that grabbing files off the network without explicit > permission from the user is a bad idea, even when it's all in good fun. > FlightGear is not, by nature, a network client or server by nature and > it's reasonable to expect, IMHO, that it won't initiate network activity > without the users explicit instructions to do so. I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of others. > > We also have users on 56k modems and, I believe, users who pay for > access by the minute and they should not be forced into a download > they don't want. Even on fast connections, this kind of code is not, what it is expected to be. And therefore, it is M$-like and only less steps away from doing something really nasty. M. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.martinhenne.de ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
> I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > others. I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. It is really interesting to use a linux firewall for a modern MS system. In this case, the bit I object to is simply (1) that the transfer doesn't get cached (hence my CVS comment) (2) that there is no fallback for low bandwidth clients ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
Martin Henne wrote: > Tony Peden wrote: > > OK, ha, ha, funny, funny. Joke's over. > > > > Curt, David: I humbly request that such patches not be accepted in the > > future. > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > others. Well, I was amused, anyway. Andy -- Andrew J. RossNextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
On Sun, 2002-05-19 at 17:39, Alex Perry wrote: > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > others. > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. And that somehow makes it right? > It is really interesting to use a linux firewall for a modern MS system. > > In this case, the bit I object to is simply > (1) that the transfer doesn't get cached (hence my CVS comment) > (2) that there is no fallback for low bandwidth clients > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
> > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > > others. > > > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home > > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. > > And that somehow makes it right? No, I take the viewpoint that "netiquette" is what the majority accept. Therefore, I don't think the proposed rule exists and thus was not broken. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:05:37PM -0700, Alex Perry wrote: > > > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > > > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > > > others. > > > > > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home > > > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. > > > > And that somehow makes it right? > > No, I take the viewpoint that "netiquette" is what the majority accept. > Therefore, I don't think the proposed rule exists and thus was not broken. > Fair enough. I take the view that every network transaction shares information about me (sometimes more, sometimes less). Therefore, I should always have the opportunity to authorize network transactions ahead of time, unless it's clearly understood that that's what a particular app does, such as a web browser. > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
Well I knew it was there and forgot about it. I always run from a text window so a quick CTRL+C closed the player and saved my bandwidth. Seems to me that Curt meant it as a joke, no harm intended, albeit a little less gratifying for modem users. It's only for one day. So my suggestion is lighten up and stay away from the Microsoft products ;-). Now that we're all concerned about wasting our _own_ bandwidth...I'm wondering what Curt's bandwidth stats look like! Oh and...this is like "spyware". Isn't it possible to find how many people ran FG today? Maybe even "who" ran flight gear today :-) Best, Jim Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:05:37PM -0700, Alex Perry wrote: > > > > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > > > > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home > > > > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. > > > > > > And that somehow makes it right? > > > > No, I take the viewpoint that "netiquette" is what the majority accept. > > Therefore, I don't think the proposed rule exists and thus was not broken. > > > > Fair enough. I take the view that every network transaction shares > information about me (sometimes more, sometimes less). Therefore, > I should always have the opportunity to authorize network transactions > ahead of time, unless it's clearly understood that that's what a > particular app does, such as a web browser. > ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:38:40AM -, Jim Wilson wrote: > Well I knew it was there and forgot about it. I always run from a text window > so a quick CTRL+C closed the player and saved my bandwidth. Seems to me that > Curt meant it as a joke, no harm intended, albeit a little less gratifying for > modem users. It's only for one day. So my suggestion is lighten up and stay > away from the Microsoft products ;-). > > Now that we're all concerned about wasting our _own_ bandwidth...I'm wondering > what Curt's bandwidth stats look like! > > Oh and...this is like "spyware". Isn't it possible to find how many people > ran FG today? Maybe even "who" ran flight gear today :-) Indeed. > > Best, > > Jim > > Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:05:37PM -0700, Alex Perry wrote: > > > > > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every > netiquette rule, > > > > > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks > its home > > > > > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in > this case. > > > > > > > > And that somehow makes it right? > > > > > > No, I take the viewpoint that "netiquette" is what the majority accept. > > > Therefore, I don't think the proposed rule exists and thus was not > broken. > > > > > > > Fair enough. I take the view that every network transaction shares > > information about me (sometimes more, sometimes less). Therefore, > > I should always have the opportunity to authorize network transactions > > ahead of time, unless it's clearly understood that that's what a > > particular app does, such as a web browser. > > > > > ___ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Peden) [2002.05.19 15:36]: > OK, ha, ha, funny, funny. Joke's over. Man, I've been trying to figure out what the heck you guys are talking about. Anybody else that doesn't have mpg123 installed? :-) Anyway, it's not even funny. I thought it was going to be a Stars Wars song or something, but it turned out to be a complete waste of bandwidth. :-/ > Curt, David: I humbly request that such patches not be accepted in the > future. I'll second that. "Easter eggs" should be local, not network related. The egg that's in CVS right now is rotten. > I really think that grabbing files off the network without explicit > permission from the user is a bad idea, even when it's all in good fun. > FlightGear is not, by nature, a network client or server by nature and > it's reasonable to expect, IMHO, that it won't initiate network activity > without the users explicit instructions to do so. Seconded. > We also have users on 56k modems and, I believe, users who pay for > access by the minute and they should not be forced into a download > they don't want. We've had several people on the -users list that think we have a trojan or we've been hacked. Not funny. -- Cameron Moore / Every so often, I like to stick my head out the \ \ window, look up, and smile for a satellite photo. / ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
Alex Perry wrote: > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > others. > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. > It is really interesting to use a linux firewall for a modern MS system. > I'm surprised there hasn't been a howl set up with that bit of MS spying. They've been skewered before for applications that install with covert net activity as the default. Are you referring to them going beyond the log in to active an application nonsense? Regards, Charlie H. -- "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg." - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 20 May 2002 06:38, you wrote: > OK, ha, ha, funny, funny. Joke's over. > > Curt, David: I humbly request that such patches not be accepted in the > future. Anyone got a link to the sound file? Thanks, David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE86Lxqx58m2d272NoRAk3IAJ9VRRHrquMCc59/E2505vJINfTjTgCgsmI2 hvqZ4IywJR/M+x6v07J87fA= =GYOA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
Tony Peden writes: > Curt, David: I humbly request that such patches not be accepted in > the future. I've been away for the weekend, so I don't actually know what happened, except that some music played on a certain date. I had not been aware of the Easter egg. > I really think that grabbing files off the network without explicit > permission from the user is a bad idea, even when it's all in good > fun. Agreed. All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
On Sun, 19 May 2002 22:27:35 -0700, "C. Hotchkiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Alex Perry wrote: > > > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette > > > rule, that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith > > > respect of others. > > > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its > > home website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in > > this case. It is really interesting to use a linux firewall for a > > modern MS system. ..on installing any Microsoft product, you _accept_ Microsoft's right under their licensing terms, to do as they please, with _their_own_ software, on whatever box you provide. ..you either accept this monkey business deal like half a billion other Forrest Gump's, or, go for a more intelligent, and decent, alternative. ..alternatives licensed under the GPL and derivatives, tend to have people expect quality software, without making people DL "easter eggs" traditionally created by demoralized Microsoft employees. > I'm surprised there hasn't been a howl set up with that bit of MS > spying. They've been skewered before for applications that install > with covert net activity as the default. Are you referring to them > going beyond the log in to active an application nonsense? ..well, Forrest Gump didn't do to bad in the Viet Cong ambush and in trawling shrimp... in the Hollywood made movie... ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: Re: [Flightgear-devel] uncool easter egg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 20.05.02: > > I definitely agree. It's a violation of almost every netiquette rule, > > that is concerned to virus-like behaviour or bandwith respect of > > others. > > I disagree. Almost _every_ new Microsoft-based program checks its home > website, sometimes for logging and sometimes anonymous as in this case. And who wants this behaviour? A closed source application (every 'new Microsoft-based program' is - of course - closed source) that connects to the internet. I can't believe that there are people who consider this as a 'pro' argument for that easter-egg. If it wasn't so serious, if there wasn't so many people who suffer from spyware, viruses and other things, it would make me laugh. It's good, that this discussion shows, that many people didn't accept any behaviour from a software, that is not the purpose of the software. A flightsimulator should be able to provide flightsimualtion-capabilities. Software like Realplayer should provide songs and audio-streaming from the web. As long as Realplayer users can't fly planes, Flightgear users should not be able to hear streamed songs from the net. If this someday changes, I quit using computers, as I quit using microsoft before - but that's another issue. Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.martinhenne.de Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
