On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 00:10 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > > > I thought that it fairly well explained the methodology and purpose of > > the file open plugin on Matthews link. I hadn't ever heard of the plugin > > before and didn't realize that it was something beyond the mozilla > > plugin. > > Ah, I presumed (incorrectly) that all those were links internal to the > page. I found the explanation. However, at least one of the statements > made there is untrue. > > [QUOTE MODE ON] > > Q8. What if I am not connected to the web? > A8. If you open and save a document locally on your computer, then > you'll be able to use that document for at least 30 days whether or not > you are connected to the web. You can renew your 30 days by reconnecting > to the web and reopening the document. > > [QUOTE MODE OFF] > > This is demonstrably untrue. I have demonstrated it to be false. I got a > "failure to connect to server" error pop-up, and I downloaded it just > hours ago. > > In any case, I disagree with the means by which they hope to > achieve their goals. OpenFile is not going to survive on my machine. > I haven't carefully evaluated their goals to see whether I agree > with them, but I certainly disagree with their characterization of > the tool used. ---- just a guess but perhaps the Windows version has a bit more programming effort and achieved their target whereas close might have been good enough for Linux...I don't know and don't really care. ---- > If one purchases a copy of something, then that copy should belong > to the one who purchased it. Not the work, of course, but the copy. > This is an attempt to prevent people from owning their own copies > of the item. As such, it is spyware and malware, end of story. ---- hmmm...DRM, what a shock that you find it objectionable. try reading the EULA on a Windows XP (SP2), Windows Vista or Windows Media Player. -- Craig White <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
