Re: The FAQ for <alt.privacy.spyware> [updated March 24, 2005]

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:44:59 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
<shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Thank you Jay and Giftzwerg,
> I think we can have a compromise here by keeping it dry and pointing
> readers to questions 16 and 17 (i.e. "see Qs 16 and 17 for more
> information on why Windows users are the primary focus..." that sort of
> thing....?

At first blush, that sounds reasonable. The problem is that those particular
questions don't adequately address the issue. In fact, they are seriously
misleading in at least some ways -- particularly in the baseless disservice
they do to Open Source software in general, and the degree to which they
perpetuate the myth that the sole/primary reason Windows and MSIE/OE are so
chronically malware-ridden is because it's the biggest (i.e., "most popular")
target. That is simply not the case. Sure, the relative popularity of
Windows undoubtedly has *some* impact; but this is definitely *not* the
primary causative factor. In fact, it would be essentially irrelevant if
there weren't so many Mayflower-sized security holes (with neon billboards
pointing to them) in the code itself.

For these reasons, among others, both of those questions are desperately in
need of a rewrite.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[shplink]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:04:07 -0500, Jay T. Blocksom said nicely:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:44:59 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
> <shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Thank you Jay and Giftzwerg,
> > I think we can have a compromise here by keeping it dry and pointing
> > readers to questions 16 and 17 (i.e. "see Qs 16 and 17 for more
> > information on why Windows users are the primary focus..." that sort of
> > thing....?
>
> At first blush, that sounds reasonable. The problem is that those particular
> questions don't adequately address the issue. In fact, they are seriously
> misleading in at least some ways -- particularly in the baseless disservice
> they do to Open Source software in general, and the degree to which they
> perpetuate the myth that the sole/primary reason Windows and MSIE/OE are so
> chronically malware-ridden is because it's the biggest (i.e., "most popular")
> target. That is simply not the case. Sure, the relative popularity of
> Windows undoubtedly has *some* impact; but this is definitely *not* the
> primary causative factor. In fact, it would be essentially irrelevant if
> there weren't so many Mayflower-sized security holes (with neon billboards
> pointing to them) in the code itself.
>
> For these reasons, among others, both of those questions are desperately in
> need of a rewrite.

Hi Jay, I recall your being fairly heavily involved in the first draft of
the FAQ. I recall some differences of opinion with some of the other
regulars, in some cases your view coming up on top, in some others being
outvoted.
If my memory serves, most of the group leaned toward a "keep it simple"
approach. Feel free to disagree, and I think arguments and discussions are
what Usenet is all about- So if you disagree about the KIS, how would you
re-write those Qs?
If you agree with KIS, er- how would you re-write those Qs? In either
case, do you think your explanation above addresses all of the potential
re-writes?

--
shplink

the alt.privacy.spyware FAQ:
http://shplink.com/misc/FAQ.htm

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:46:22 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, shplink
<shplink@removeme.shplink.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Hi Jay, I recall your being fairly heavily involved in the first draft of
> the FAQ.
[snip]

Well, it wasn't exactly the "first draft"... I came across an early version
that you (?) had posted, and was struck by some of the obvious problems it
embodied. So I started commenting; and the comments started turning into more
of a re-write, and so on...

> I recall some differences of opinion with some of the other
> regulars, in some cases your view coming up on top, in some others being
> outvoted.
[snip]

As to be expected, especially considering that the changes were fairly
extensive (and to some extent challenged some folks' preconceived notions and
assumptions).

> If my memory serves, most of the group leaned toward a "keep it simple"
> approach. Feel free to disagree, and I think arguments and discussions are
> what Usenet is all about- So if you disagree about the KIS, how would you
> re-write those Qs?
[snip]

Heh. Part of the reason I never addressed this (and other higher-numbered
Q/As) until now is that during that earlier session of FAQ-massaging, I sort'a
"ran out of steam" after re-doing the first 6-8 (IIRC) Q/As, then (seemingly
endlessly) debating that batch of changes, etc.

It's not that I disagree with the K.I.S.S. principle, er... in principle. I'm
all for it, in fact. But when dealing with such potentially complex subjects,
often with important yet subtle distinctions, it is difficult to be both
simple/concise *and* complete/thorough.

> If you agree with KIS, er- how would you re-write those Qs?
[snip]

I'd have to go back and study it with some patience; which I don't have the
time/energy for right now. But OTOH...

> In either
> case, do you think your explanation above addresses all of the potential
> re-writes?

*All* possibilites/ramifications? No. But it's certainly a huge improvement
over the existing language.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.