Maya is already available for Linux, and LinuxCAD claims to be a complete replacement for AutoCAD.
The OP asked if spyware and its ilk should be illegal. Whether or not you happen to have an operating system and browser that is able to keep each and every one of those programs from installing on your system - a claim that I am highly skeptical of, by the way - is moot. I may live in a walled complex with night watchmen, bars on my windows and own nothing worth stealing, but that doesn’t mean that I think that burglary should be legal. It’s not just a question of whether or not I am personally at risk but whether there is a risk to the population as a whole.
Those who I think that their operating system will forever keep out all the bad programs are just as naive as those who think their burglar bars and security alarms will forever keep out the bad guys. Security always has been and always will be a compromise between the security measures themselves and the convenience and cost to the one being protected. No matter how high you jack up your security, there will be someone who will figure out a way to break it.
Oh, is Maya available for Linux? Yeah, I guess so. It doesn’t suprise me. I doubt anything that claims to be a complete replacement for AutoCAD is as good as AutoCAD. I use a lot of the secret hidden not too well known features.
And 3D studio will NEVER be available for Linux. Not until Linux is more widely accepted.
The fact of the matter is, Linux is not useful for the Architectural field. I haven’t tried this LinuxCAD, but I doubt it’s the same. You may be able to design a building with it, but I can design a building with paint for goodness sake. But that doesn’t mean I want to. AutoCAD has the most superior CAD tools on the planet. And it’s only truly available on Windows. Mac only has ArchiCAD, which sucks a$$ totally. I’ve never seen a more buggy piece of crap software. Open source software written by thousands of people, like Mozilla, is more consistent in its features than ArchiCAD.
Mac might be great for 2D presentations. Linux is certainly great for web and servers. But for 3D work, especially drafting, that’s Window’s domain. It sucks, but I have to live with it, along with all it’s blasted spyware.
So set up a dual-boot system, and do your web surfing on Linux and your work on 2000.
Of course, installing Ad Aware or Spybot is another (already mentioned) option, but if you refuse to go that route switching OSs is the best alternative solution.
I’d trust Linux far more than MS when it comes to fixing security holes that are merely annoying, not glaringly destructive. But that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Your analogy is incorrect. A better situation would be a world where this thread is asking if the governemnt should be installing ID chips in every citizen simply because the average shmuck is too much of a dumbass to lock his door when he leaves. Because that’s essentially what it’ll take to enforce a law outlawing spyware.
No way is this a realistic solution to spyware. I’m not about to switch back and forth between friggin’ operating systems just to surf the Net. Not many others will do that either.
I’m afraid your analogy makes no sense at all. But let’s not get into an analogy-off. Instead explain to us how laws against spyware would be unenforceable.
I’ll shoot: because it’s damn difficult to stamp out illegal activities on the internet. It doesn’t take much to stick a malicious program on a server in Russia and lure thousands of American rubes with the promise of free porn. Note that writing and releasing viruses and worms has been illegal for quite some time, yet we still have people writing them, and causing millions (if not billions) of dollars in damage every year. How many people are victims of fraud on Ebay every day? And fraud was illegal even before ENIAC.
I’m all in favor of prosecuting those who deliberately use malicious code to invade the privacy of others, to the best extent that law enforcement is able to. I am not in favor of coddling those who are too stupid, naive, or illiterate to read a privacy policy or patch their operating system.
So what? It’s damn difficult to stamp out illegal activities outside of the Internet, also. I’m sure that there are several burglaries going on in my town right this very minute. Does that mean we just throw up our hands and say it’s OK to burgle? No. We say that it’s a crime, and we prosecute when we can, always realizing that we won’t get them all.
We all understand the international aspect of the Internet, but many other problems are international in scope, so we’ve come up with international laws, treaties and organizations to cope with them.
**
Again let’s use a conventional crime as an analogy. Let’s say someone leaves their car unlocked and someone simply opens the door and steals their CD collection. Is it suddenly not a crime because the owner of the car didn’t take adequate security measures? Nope, it’s still a crime. The person may or may not have been a fool for leaving their car unlocked, but that doesn’t make it any less of a crime.
You orginally asked:
And I answered your question. Note that I have yet to argue that we should not make software that invades the privacy of a user without the user’s express permission illegal. In fact, I’ve explicitly stated quite the opposite. It just won’t do a whole helluva lot of good.
Your analogy doesn’t wash. The vast majority of spyware is installed with the express permission of the user. When you install Kazaa, you also agree to install the latest steaming pile of crap that they bundle with it. It says so right there in the license agreement. It’s more like inviting somebody in to your car, asking them to break your windows, piss on the upholstery, slash your tires, put sugar in the gas tank, and then giving them your CD collection as a gift.
It’s no secret that most commercial entities who offer something for free on the Internet make ends meet by collecting personal information about their “customers” to sell to marketing companies. If a user can’t be bothered to read the fine print, well, tough shit.
I guess I should probably note that I shouldn’t have included “not patching your operating system” as an example of a “tought shit” situation a couple of posts ago. That could imply that a malicious exploit doesn’t fall under the umbrella of things I think should be illegal, which I did not intend to convey. Sorry for any misunderstandings.
Though I am a bit mystified at people who choose the product of a Certain Company as their operating system of choice, but don’t trust that Certain Company to provide security fixes through Certain Company Update.
No. That is just plain not true. This is the point we are all making and you guys are not listening. It is EASY to get spyware. You don’t have to install it yourself. It installs itself. And if it doesn’t install itself then we aren’t talking about that kind of spyware. That is the whole point of the OP. If it didn’t trick you into loading, then it doesn’t belong in this discussion. Stay on topic please. We are talking about spyware that tricks you into loading it, not the spyware that asks for permission. The OP isn’t about how to prevent it, or what OS you should be using. It’s about whether it should be illegal to trick people into installing spyware. Stay. On. Topic.
prisoner, in looking over this thread it looks like you have a pretty clear consensus on the question asked in the OP: Should spyware/adware/crapware that tricks you into loading it be illegal? The answer is yes, it should be illegal.
The question of how difficuilt it will be to enforce such laws probably deserves its own thread.