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...
/ 
