"New Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit Others' Sites"

[Elledan]

It seems like MS is up to something:

http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html

But even though Windows XP is still in development, I've already encountered one proposed feature, in a "beta," or test, version, that shows Microsoft may well flunk both these tests. The feature, which hasn't yet been made public, allows Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser -- included in Windows XP -- to turn any word on any Web site into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services, or to any other sites Microsoft favors.

In effect, Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission, in a way that tempts users to leave and go to a Microsoft-chosen site -- whether or not that site offers better information.

[creole]

What a bunch of punks...

I am neither pro or anti MS, but stuff like this just pisses me off. Why do they have to go and build things like this into their software?

[norfett]

Have they tho? who is to say that that website is telling the truth, or just muck spreading eh?

Pete

[bman]

that is actually the 2nd thing i have seen on that.. the other thing i read also stated that the feature will be turned off by default, and require the user to turn it on.. it also stated that there will be a metatag you can put on your site to stop it from generating these links, they were called "smart tags" in the other thing i read, i will see if i can find it..

i still dont like the idea of them putting this in a browser though..

[Elledan]

Originally posted by norfett
Have they tho? who is to say that that website is telling the truth, or just muck spreading eh?

Pete

If you seriously believe that the Wallstreet Journal, CNet and MS lie (okay, forget about the latter one ), then you're getting pretty paranoid.

In this case MS admitted putting this 'feature' in it, so yes, you're paranoid.

[Seer]

I've been seeing a lot of different issues about XP, here's one in particular that ticks me off.

"Reuters UK reports that Microsoft and RealNetworks plan to "wean customers way from MP3 files" and "limit the quality" of MP3 files that can be recorded on a computer running Windows XP. You can read all about it here."

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...53&mode=thread

[bman]

you know, i'm not a microsoft hater, but some of the things they do just tick me off.. uh oh.. better not say that too loud, they might come take my windows away...

[norfett]

Originally posted by Seer
I've been seeing a lot of different issues about XP, here's one in particular that ticks me off.

"Reuters UK reports that Microsoft and RealNetworks plan to "wean customers way from MP3 files" and "limit the quality" of MP3 files that can be recorded on a computer running Windows XP. You can read all about it here."

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...53&mode=thread

Well, the mighty slashdot - oooh oh so very reliable source there then

[Elledan]

Originally posted by norfett


Well, the mighty slashdot - oooh oh so very reliable source there then

Then please list all mistakes they made in the past few years right here.

I'd say that Slashdot is a more reliable source of Tech information than the average newspaper.

[Sparkie]

But you know what, this doesn't surprise me. If you were the richest human on earth, wouldn't you want everything to be provided to and from your website-dominated empire? Bill's such a thoughtful guy

"Smart Tags represent another step in personalizing the Web and helping bring it to life for individuals by allowing them to get the information they want in the way they want it,"

Translation: "Smart Tags represent another attempt to brainwash the feeble public mind into believing that sites we own and sites that bow down and kiss our feet are more worthy of their viewing pleasure than other, more relevant sites that have their own links to their own content."

Some smart idea, eh?

[Owen]

Slashdot is perfectly accurate... they're just biased. They'll post anti-MS articles but not pro-MS ones.

Owen

Originally posted by Elledan

Then please list all mistakes they made in the past few years right here.

I'd say that Slashdot is a more reliable source of Tech information than the average newspaper.

[sowen]

Blimey folks, calm down

this (90k) is all Smart Tags are. A background search engine that picks up keywords and gives you some links, like XML XLink but without the work!!

(sorry about the size )

[Michel V]

Originally posted by Owen
Slashdot is perfectly accurate... they're just biased. They'll post anti-MS articles but not pro-MS ones.

Yet they're loaded with 37337 pseudo-geeks who know everything about computers ! (well, about what you can do with Win98's controlpanel, that is)


Back to that "smart"-linking thing, it's just plain illegal. I don't want to include a link to Microsoft sites whenever I'm talking about Microsoft. Even if I have the possibility to turn this "feature" off by default, this is just stealing my reader's attention.
If this thing ever comes true, I would sue Microsoft if I had enough money. Or I would push big players to sue. Say you're Steve Jobs, if on Apple.com the words "operating system" are transformed into links to microsoft.com/windows, wouldn't you just sue ?

[Seer]

Here's a couple more interesting articles. And, stop picking on my choices of information sources..

Windows XP will make Internet unstable - top security expert
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19332.html

The truth about Redmond's WinXP signed driver plans
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/19114.html

[qslack]

All this anti-MS stuff sort of annoys me. Sure, I hate MS as much as anyone else, but making false claims isn't okay to do--even if it's about MS.

I think that Smart Tags will be a *good* thing. If you're a lawyer, you can use a smart tag that is attached to anything related to lawsuits that will immediately take you to a page about the suit. If you're learning English, or just curious, you could use a smart tag that will show you the definition of any word.

If you're worried about these tags altering your site, then you have a LOT more to worry about. HTML is not designed for presentation--the browser can show it however it likes. These smart tags will enhance your content (which is what the web is about) and you can even make your own tag! Microsoft has a free SDK to create them with (I'm interested in this for my site, personally).

Chances are that these smart tags can be turned off in JS or with meta tags, if you want to hinder your visitor's ability to learn more.

[Michel V]

Originally posted by qslack
Chances are that these smart tags can be turned off in JS or with meta tags, if you want to hinder your visitor's ability to learn more.

There are already lots of places on the Net for the visitors to learn more. And more about what ? Learning more about MicroSoft and the about companies that paid MS big bucks to belong to the Smart Tags isn't really what you're looking for as an user when you're browsing a ZDNet article, for example, or is it ?
And how can you think you learn when you're just redirected to sites selected by MicroSoft. Would you blindly follow MicroSoft's choice ?

Disabling this function with meta tags is a poor excuse: which company would like to pay extra-hours for their webmasters to modify all the archive pages in order not to show Smart Tags ?

It is not being anti-MS to say that this alteration of the content served to the visitor is illegal.
IMHO it would be ok if Smart Tags were activated by special Meta Tags, and not the other way around.

[qslack]

Actually, it costs nothing to make your own smart tag. The Software Development Kit is completely free.

I think that in the end, the user should be the one to choose whether they want these or not. IMO, they're a great feature, and I'd leave them on. But probably most of you would set them to off.

I plan to use the SDK to make a smart tag for my upcoming site. So, let's say the word "syslog" is displayed on a page--my smart tag will bring you the manpage for syslog. Same with perl and php functions, software licenses, etc. At least that's what I plan to do. Probably the default smart tags installed in IE6/WinXP will be pretty bad, but you'll no doubt be able to delete them somehow.

[Michel V]

MS has built its money on dummy users, and Smart Tags are a perfect weapon to get a grip on dummy users' mind.
Half of my coworkers don't even know how to change their "Home" page, do you think they'll be able to choose to turn off Smart Tags, or to delete the default ones ?

I'm surprised I didn't see the "Freedom of speech" argument coming in this discussion.

[qslack]

Originally posted by Shin Ma
MS has built its money on dummy users, and Smart Tags are a perfect weapon to get a grip on dummy users' mind.
Half of my coworkers don't even know how to change their "Home" page, do you think they'll be able to choose to turn off Smart Tags, or to delete the default ones ?

So then, it's not MS's fault, but it's the user's (since they don't know how to turn them off). If they really don't like the smart tags then they can just call MS support or their company's helpdesk, but I bet most people will love them.

[Elledan]

I must agree with Shin Ma on this one: those 'smart tags' shouldn't be disabled, but activated by a meta-tag. Do you've any idea of how much it would cost to modify a whole site to add those meta tags? How do you think that a site like About.com would think about those 'smart tags'? They would hate it. And do you think that they'll allow such links which lead the user away from the About.com network? No way in hell.
So now they'll have to modify the whole site to add those tags in order to keep those tags from appearing on their site. All financial damage is all theirs. MS, who introduced this 'function', won't have to pay a dime.

I smell another trick of MS... this time against the big networks...