Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
CookieRevised, please stop trying to make valid points look bad. If your running outta arguments and this is your way to make yourself still look good then just dont reply to the thread. Maybe some of the points you argumented because i didnt express them correctly. My ideas are for Plus! not for the "people"

---

I think you shouldn't say that... Cookie is the member who knows plus! better then any other member, and he is a beta tester.
don't you think testers would already have suggested that?

and, there still is a reason why it won't be added: if patchou wanted it, he would have added it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
And because it is 3rd party it IS a privacy breach

---

OK ill give you a better example; MSN puts in a new feature that detects the version of MSN on the other side but Plus also decides to make this feature for Plus! too. Your saying that it would be a breach of privacy on the part of Plus! BUT not MSN?? Why make addon's thenl???

---

MSN will not include this in a hidden way just because of the fact that it is a privacy breach. Why should you have to know in a sneaky way what version the other one is using? If this is added, it will be in a visible way so the other user knows you are requestion the versionnumber. The same with Plus!: Plus! will not include this in a hidden way, hence it is included in a visible way...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Once again, PRIVACY BREACH! Because it isn't an build-in feature of Messenger and because Plus! wont temper with the protocol.

---

To enable this feature (Plus! Detection) the protocol would have to be used?

---

I suggest you to reread this thread to know why I mention the protocol here (in short: using the protocol is 1 method of doing it) ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Where did I say it can't be done? I said it wont be done! Besides what has chat-logging to do (even remotely) with anything discussed here?

---

Chat-loggin has nothing to do with it.

---

Then why did you used it to make a "point"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Chat loggin is both in Plus! and in MSN. Webcam detection is in MSN so why not Plus! detection? That is the relation between them

---

Again... (): Webcam detection IS already included in Messenger. MSN can do (almost) whatever they want in their own program. It will NOT be a privacy breach because EVERYBODY is using the same program and thus the same protocol, thus EVERYBODY _should_ know that it has this feature already included (also see the old discussion about "msn logging=privacy breach?").

NOT everybody has Plus! and if those people without Plus! are being "pinged" in a hidden way, then that could be a privacy breach towards them. Hence it is NOT done in a hidden way...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Furthermore I said Patchou and Plus! wont add anything P2P. I didn't say that plugins (which are 3rd party compared to Plus!) couldn't do it...

---

Theres more than one way around the wall; meaning if p2p doesnt want to be done then theres gotta be another way...

---

No there isn't... The other methods are also out of the question for Plus!... Reread the thread, all the methods have been mentioned and explained. The only valid method is using textmessages, just like it is done now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
riahc4, please stop to try and convince people, it wont be added for all the reasons we gave already several times before. No matter how hard you try (also because you're starting to give contradicting or offtopic reasons). sorry....

---

CookieRevised, please stop trying to make valid points look bad.

---

Sorry, but your points are the ones that aren't valid and that is explained over and over again (and not only in this thread, see many other threads also)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
If your running outta arguments and this is your way to make yourself still look good then just dont reply to the thread.

---

With all respect but, like M_E said, I think I can say I know Plus! a bit better then you (so it seems) and what Patchou has said in the past about these things.

in short: NO protocol tempering, NO P2P things, NO hidden things, NO things which could breach the privacy, even in a remote way... period!

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
My ideas are for Plus! not for the "people"

---

That doesn't make sense. Plus! IS for the "people". And because Plus! is used by millions of users, there are things that need to be done (or not done for that matter) for the "protection" of those users...

You know, I typically read cookie's replies with great interest since he obviously has some insights not available to the rest of us, but the response here, and in other threads I've read recently, is starting to sound very "know it all".  I understand that there are potential privacy issues here, but to just blatantly state that this is a breach of privacy because Patchou says so is pretty silly (I know there were other reasons stated as well, but I happen to see things differently).  It could be argued that other existing plugins (like StuffPlug-NG) are being equally intrusive.  I think it's important to try to listen to others insights and not just shoot them down with snotty comebacks, and "Patchou already said no".

And in spite of this whole discussion, I think the point being made by stuartbennet and riahc4 is that the current /ping solution is not a very good one since those without plus see an apparently meaningless tag they weren't expecting.  I agree wholeheartedly and there has to be a better way, privacy issues aside.

thanks caldjeff

quote:

---

MSN will not include this in a hidden way just because of the fact that it is a privacy breach. Why should you have to know in a sneaky way what version the other one is using? If this is added, it will be in a visible way so the other user knows you are requestion the versionnumber. The same with Plus!: Plus! will not include this in a hidden way, hence it is included in a visible way...

---

OK so like i said make it visible so both users know that (if the feature is enabled) it is checking if Plus! is on the computer.

quote:

---

I suggest you to reread this thread to know why I mention the protocol here (in short: using the protocol is 1 method of doing it) ...

---

Ok then dont use the protocol or p2p or anything you mentioned which Patchou doesnt like.....whats the big point?

quote:

---

Then why did you used it to make a "point"?

---

Forget it, it seems you dont read my replies and just browse thru them so you can get incorrect point and argument against them...

quote:

---

Again... (): Webcam detection IS already included in Messenger. MSN can do (almost) whatever they want in their own program. It will NOT be a privacy breach because EVERYBODY is using the same program and thus the same protocol, thus EVERYBODY _should_ know that it has this feature already included (also see the old discussion about "msn logging=privacy breach?").

---

OK so when someone downloads Plus! they should be told about this new feature of auto detection (and because its a such big issue about privacy then it be disabled from default)

quote:

---

NOT everybody has Plus! and if those people without Plus! are being "pinged" in a hidden way, then that could be a privacy breach towards them. Hence it is NOT done in a hidden way...

---

This is the only valid point ive seen in all of your argument. So what i say is maybe a test; if there are complains remove it if not then the auto detection stays.

quote:

---

No there isn't... The other methods are also out of the question for Plus!... Reread the thread, all the methods have been mentioned and explained. The only valid method is using textmessages, just like it is done now.

---

Yes there is because everything is tech hasnt been discovered so some devs maybe overlooking something. If i think of something ill post it.

quote:

---

With all respect but, like M_E said, I think I can say I know Plus! a bit better then you (so it seems) and what Patchou has said in the past about these things.

---

"So it seems" no i know you know Plus! from inside out alot better than me.

quote:

---

in short: NO protocol tempering, NO P2P things, NO hidden things, NO things which could breach the privacy, even in a remote way... period!

---

These things then shouldnt be used....Simple solution.

quote:

---

That doesn't make sense. Plus! IS for the "people". And because Plus! is used by millions of users, there are things that need to be done (or not done for that matter) for the "protection" of those users...

---

I ment something else with that phrase. Sorry bout that.

quote:

---

You know, I typically read cookie's replies with great interest since he obviously has some insights not available to the rest of us, but the response here, and in other threads I've read recently, is starting to sound very "know it all".  I understand that there are potential privacy issues here, but to just blatantly state that this is a breach of privacy because Patchou says so is pretty silly (I know there were other reasons stated as well, but I happen to see things differently).  It could be argued that other existing plugins (like StuffPlug-NG) are being equally intrusive.  I think it's important to try to listen to others insights and not just shoot them down with snotty comebacks, and "Patchou already said no".

And in spite of this whole discussion, I think the point being made by stuartbennet and riahc4 is that the current /ping solution is not a very good one since those without plus see an apparently meaningless tag they weren't expecting.  I agree wholeheartedly and there has to be a better way, privacy issues aside.

---

I thank you for your backup but Cookie is problably the person that knows just as much as Patchou bout Plus! so his arguments (altho not really valid) are true about Plus! but still isnt a excuse for this feature not to be implanted or at least thought about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
You know, I typically read cookie's replies with great interest since he obviously has some insights not available to the rest of us, but the response here, and in other threads I've read recently, is starting to sound very "know it all".

---

If I sound like "know it all" lately then I do apologize for it. But on the other hand, I only write about the things that I know of (thus facts), if this is considered "know it all", then sorry...

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I understand that there are potential privacy issues here, but to just blatantly state that this is a breach of privacy because Patchou says so is pretty silly

---

I never said or meant it like "because Patchou has said so". The whole issue what is discussed here is automatically checking if the other user has Plus! in a "hidden" way (at least that is what it turned into it). And this is a privacy issue (like I said in my very first post), no matter what Patchou has said about it.

The only time I said "Patchou has said" is for stating that Plus! will not include P2P methods and that it wont temper with the protocol. This isn't silly, this is a choice that Patchou has made for good reasons and to keep Plus! "safe".

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
(I know there were other reasons stated as well, but I happen to see things differently).

---

Well, those other reasons is what is discussed here at this moment, nothing else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
It could be argued that other existing plugins (like StuffPlug-NG) are being equally intrusive.

---

Indeed they are, but that is up to the creators of those plugins, not to Patchou. As long there isn't a certain line crossed there is nothing wrong. But for Plus! itself there are "strict rules" of what will/can be done.

Also note that the big difference between MSN Messenger, Plus! and plugins is that MSN Messenger is used by everybody. Plus! is not used by everybody, but those who use it espect to use a "safe" non-intrusive application. And although plugins are supported by Plus!, they must be used at the users own risk. If the user chooses to use a intrusive plugin, that's his choice. But that user can't force anybody else to use a certain plugin (eg: oversized emoticons in StuffPlug-NG; both need the plugin for this to work). So there are the three big differences between the three types of programs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I think it's important to try to listen to others insights and not just shoot them down with snotty comebacks, and "Patchou already said no".

---

I can assure you that I wont have comments on other suggestions (even if I, personaly, find them useless), unless there are some general objective remarks to be made. The only thing that I've said is that this suggestion (auto-checking for Plus! in a hidden way) is a breach of privacy and therefore will not be added. If that is too difficult to believe, and a reason to start a heavy discussion then so be it, but facts stay facts. And this isn't to play the "the all knowing person"; This is me informing people that it is a privacy issue and/or flooding issue and will not be added because of that, just like I said in my first post in this thread. Thus, I even didn't say if I liked/disliked the pruposed feature, I only said it wont be implemented because of certain reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
And in spite of this whole discussion, I think the point being made by stuartbennet and riahc4 is that the current /ping solution is not a very good one since those without plus see an apparently meaningless tag they weren't expecting.

---

I never commented on the fact that it may be something meaningless to those who don't have Plus!. My first post was because riahc4 "invited" me to post a comment on the hidden auto-check feature like he suggested in his toppost. I simply commented on that...

This whole discussion started only because riahc4 questionned the fact that the hidden and/or automatic detection can be considered flooding and/or breach of privacy and trust. Nothing more. I know this may sound rude but please reread the thread (especially the first posts before this whole discussion, as you can easly loose perspective with all this)...

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I agree wholeheartedly and there has to be a better way, privacy issues aside.

---

Well, sorry, but there isn't. If you know one then please inform Patchou.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
OK so like i said make it visible so both users know that (if the feature is enabled) it is checking if Plus! is on the computer.

---

It is visible atm. And because of that it means that it can't be done automatically because then you would be flooding. Thus by doing it visible there is no privcay issue, but there is a flooding-issue. eg: I don't want to be pinged each time a contact of mine comes online! This means, no auto-checking...

(And a possebility to dissable this wont do any good, because I will still recieve the ping request, although my Plus! will ignore it.)

Another reason for not auto-checking: it would take a long time to go through your entire contactlist and checking each contact each time. Thus creating a major lag when you connect to the network.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Ok then dont use the protocol or p2p or anything you mentioned which Patchou doesnt like.....whats the big point?

---

The point is that the only method left is sending visible text. (and not automatically for the reason given above)

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Forget it, it seems you dont read my replies and just browse thru them so you can get incorrect point and argument against them...

---

Don't start flaming and making this personal. I do read every single post and comment in this thread (twice). What I try to post is objective and doesn't have anything to do with personal opinions. Also, replying to one argument at the time is a decent way of discussing on a forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
OK so when someone downloads Plus! they should be told about this new feature of auto detection (and because its a such big issue about privacy then it be disabled from default)

---

Yes that _could_ be done, but Patchou has choosen not to and keeping Plus! away from these issues in the first place...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
NOT everybody has Plus! and if those people without Plus! are being "pinged" in a hidden way, then that could be a privacy breach towards them. Hence it is NOT done in a hidden way...

---

This is the only valid point ive seen in all of your argument.

---

Every single point I've made in every single post in this thread is about that same argument. I only put it in a different way again and again...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
So what i say is maybe a test; if there are complains remove it if not then the auto detection stays.

---

If you've said this in the first place instead of questioning and arguing that it is not a breach of privacy or what not, then we wouldn't had this discussion....

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
No there isn't... The other methods are also out of the question for Plus!... Reread the thread, all the methods have been mentioned and explained. The only valid method is using textmessages, just like it is done now.

---

Yes there is because everything is tech hasnt been discovered so some devs maybe overlooking something.

---

This doesn't have anything to do with. This isn't like discovering new animal species. The possible methods are known and include every possible way: P2P, pure protocol and text. How else are you gonna send something? A program can only communicate to another program via the net in X ways, this is basic knowledge...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
If i think of something ill post it.

---

please do... But I can assure you that whatever you post it will fit in one of the three catagories...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
in short: NO protocol tempering, NO P2P things, NO hidden things, NO things which could breach the privacy, even in a remote way... period!

---

These things then shouldnt be used....Simple solution.

---

My whole point all along...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
I thank you for your backup but Cookie is problably the person that knows just as much as Patchou bout Plus!

---

Well, not at all. I know not that much about it. But when you read almost everything that is posted on this forum and you put things together, you gather a lot of info...

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
so his arguments (altho not really valid) are true about Plus! but still isnt a excuse for this feature not to be implanted or at least thought about.

---

if they are true then they are valid. Anyways, this /ping feature has been discussed for as long it is implemented (how long now? some years? cba to look it up). I mean, even if it seems like it could be "better"/"advanced", this is the only way without breaking any policies that Patchou has set forward for Plus!. All the possebilities have been evaluated long time ago, and the conlussion is still non-auto-checking with textmessages.

---

And to comment on the actually [ping] sentences that people without Plus! will get. "ping" is the commonly used word for such a feature in many (if not all) IM softwares and protocols, so I'm not sure if this should be changed at all...

what a long discussion... I've alredy been very clear in the past about this: I cannot add automatic detection of plus for privacy reasons. Some people are just waiting for a reason to write another bad review of my software (and myself in the process), I wont give them this chance. If you want to complain, talk to all the paranoid people out there .

i wish riach4 would just face life and stop bugging people about crap.

And go cookie

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

Also note that the big difference between MSN Messenger, Plus! and plugins is that MSN Messenger is used by everybody. Plus! is not used by everybody, but those who use it espect to use a "safe" non-intrusive application. And although plugins are supported by Plus!, they must be used at the users own risk. If the user chooses to use a intrusive plugin, that's his choice. But that user can't force anybody else to use a certain plugin (eg: oversized emoticons in StuffPlug-NG; both need the plugin for this to work). So there are the three big differences between the three types of programs.

---

I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with your reasoning here.  It just seems like you're drawing bogus conclusions.  If your "everybody is using it" logic is the determining factor, then why can I write a simple script in php and immediately determine what operating system you are using, what browser and version you are using, the ip address of your computer, what browser plugins you have installed on your machine, and whether or not you have enabled javascript.  Is this a breach of privacy?  Some may think it is, but I happen to think not, along with Microsoft, Apple, Macromedia, Intel and many others.  In my eyes, it is simply a method for finding out more about the users of my applications so I can enhance their web-browsing experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
The only thing that I've said is that this suggestion (auto-checking for Plus! in a hidden way) is a breach of privacy and therefore will not be added. If that is too difficult to believe, and a reason to start a heavy discussion then so be it, but facts stay facts. And this isn't to play the "the all knowing person"; This is me informing people that it is a privacy issue and/or flooding issue and will not be added because of that, just like I said in my first post in this thread.

---

Again, I think the problem is not that you're trying to be helpful, but the rather demeaning tone and blatant calling of something a "fact" that isn't truly a fact.  Your insight is usually quite helpful.  The "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with your reasoning here.  It just seems like you're drawing bogus conclusions.  If your "everybody is using it" logic is the determining factor, then why can I write a simple script in php and immediately determine what operating system you are using, what browser and version you are using, the ip address of your computer, what browser plugins you have installed on your machine, and whether or not you have enabled javascript.  Is this a breach of privacy?  Some may think it is, but I happen to think not, along with Microsoft, Apple, Macromedia, Intel and many others.  In my eyes, it is simply a method for finding out more about the users of my applications so I can enhance their web-browsing experience.

---

No it isn't a breach...
What you are trying to give as an example hasn't got anything todo with what has been discussed previously and certainly not with what the differences are between programs, addons and plugins, other then that those features are BUILD IN.... again: BUILD IN... and thus not a breach of privacy...

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
Again, I think the problem is not that you're trying to be helpful, but the rather demeaning tone and blatant calling of something a "fact" that isn't truly a fact.  Your insight is usually quite helpful.  The "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is not.

---

for crying out loud, all my posts in this thread are copies of each other and I constantly keep saying the same FACTS over and over again in an objective manner. Why is it so hard to grasp the reality of it? Yes, I'm getting mad now and only now you have the right to say something about my attitude. I'm only human and you are pulling every possible string of my patience. Ask anyone else on this forum about this thread, they will agree with me. No, not because I'm an elite or for the sake of agreeing, but simple because I stated simple true plain logic facts...

Privacy issues aren't personal opinions, they are facts.

Even after Patchou replied to this thread and said exactly the same thing, you still keep whining about it...

As far as I'm concearned this thread can be closed because this is useless as long as you don't seem to have the slightest idea about what privacy/flooding/etc. is after all these posts....

sorry