Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

> No. This implies that (at least sometimes), "adware" and "spyware"
> are equivalent terms. They are not, and never will be. The fact
> that some particular _programs_ may be both of these things does not
> change that. For example, the program I'm using to write this
> article (Forté Agent) is both a newsreader and a mail client. But
> that does *NOT* mean that "newsreader" and "mail client" are ever
> equivalent terms.

OK, Jay.. being a non native English speaker, at least I tried to come up
with something... while answeringt shplnk's post...

> Frankly, I think your distinction between "static" and (what..?
> "dynamic"?) adware is so much angels-on-pinheads. The key point is
> that "adware" exposes (or attempts to expose) the user to
> advertising, period. That one criterium, in and of itself makes a
> program "adware". So, for purposes of defining "adware", there's no
> need to muddy the waters by worrying about _how_ it happens to do
> that.

Which is not true, and you darn well know that. Now it is *you* saying that
the two are equivalent; while we both know that it is not true. There are
programs with a small ad in it, nothing is recorded and nothing is being
sent "home"... Now, please explain to me where the intrusive part (the
"spyware" part that is, and that is what we are discussing right now) is in
all this?

What you are doing is the same as "this thief is called "Doe", so all
"Doe's" are thieves", an attitude I don't buy! I hate true spyware, but I
also hate it when good software is branded "spyware" just because it has a
"static" (fixed set of ads) built into the program...

> Yes, the functions you refer to in the second 'graph are clearly ones
> which define "spyware". But what you seem to be overlooking is that
> they do that
> *regardless* of whether they happen to be implemented in a piece of
> "adware" or not. IOW, it is quite possible to have "spyware" which
> is *not* also "adware"; but your description at least strongly
> implies that this is not the case -- i.e., it says that "spyware" is
> a subset of "adware", which is wrong.

Then please correct my English, as pointed out before: I am not a native
English speaker... come one, a bit of co-operation wouldn't hurt ;D

I agree with you on the part in which you say that spyware doesn't need to
be connected to spyware, but this goes the other way around as well!!!

Dick


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18-6-2003