5 ms·
It's not a ransomware package and drawing upon metaphors like this is poor reasoning. I suggest you read some Dijkstra on this idea of "medieval thinking."
by ethanwillis 5y ago
It's not a ransomware package and drawing upon metaphors like this is poor reasoning. I suggest you read some Dijkstra on this idea of "medieval thinking."
- arcticbull 5y ago[edit] The point I was making is not that the author committed a ransomware package (or even that it is a good analogy) but that the idea there is a blanket waiver of warranties that covers whatever you wish it to by virtue that it is yours is trivially falsifiable.
- ethanwillis 5y agoSorry, I can't continue a good faith argument with someone who defines this as malware. It's delusional. I won't edit my comment above except to note what the original parent comment was: " The author committed malware to a package many relied on, that they had not made a commit to in 3 years. My point is not that the author committed a ransomware package but that the idea there is a blanket waiver of warranties that covers whatever you wish it to is trivially falsifiable."
- arcticbull 5y agoYou are correct that calling it malware is borderline - it was malicious software designed to cause harm or nuisance (to some degree) for users. However, I have amended my comment to for clarity of intent. The definition of malware for the record is: ... software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Seems close to me, the modifications were designed to disrupt the users of this package. This is not strictly relevant.
- ethanwillis 5y agoAll I want to say is that if accepting your argument as 100% true, then corporations have done much worse with software end users have actually PAID for. Yet, this same community that holds this developer of software that is free is held to a higher standard they don't apply to their own commercial projects.
- arcticbull 5y agoOut of curiosity do you have some examples where customers paid for a library, and then the author of that library decided they disliked the terms of the arrangement and injected some code to make it non-functional demanding nebulous payment? Or worse? I suspect not, because they would be sued into the dirt for breech of contract and shortly find themselves out of business. In fact I believe the customers could even sue for specific performance and force the seller to actually execute the contract as committed. It's not that I hold free software to a higher standard, I hold folks to the standard they committed to. The author had big sellers remorse, upset that they had offered this software free of charge. I'm sorry, we all make decisions we regret. If they didn't want to maintain it anymore they could have found a new maintainer. Instead they decided to mess with the computers of people who accepted their representations.
- ethanwillis 5y agoSure, How about Google borking a user's device with OTA updates and then telling users to go pound dirt with their silence? https://9to5google.com/2015/04/10/nexus-5-nexus-7-bricked-android-lollipop/ https://9to5google.com/2015/04/10/nexus-5-nexus-7-bricked-an...
- arcticbull 5y agoThat appears to be (a) unintentional, which is a critical distinction (b) 7 years ago and (c) if the comments section is to be believed, resolved by calling Google up, explaining the situation and receiving a complementary warranty extension. To their credit they stood behind it. Mine was repaired, FREE (October 2015) The delay was, more than likely, simply that big companies move slow. This is not the same thing.
- dse1982 5y agoWhat about this: https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/google-is-intentionally-making-its-products-worse-for-users-reason-might-surprise-you.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/google-is-intentionally-makin...