29-Mar-2024 06:08 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Forum] Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3ANN.lu
Posted on 03-Feb-2003 22:33 GMT by catohagen69 comments
View flat
View list
IBrowse 2.3 falsely claims MorphOS system is using AmigaOS.
Particularily misleading since MorphOS systems are reported as running AmigaOS 4.0 !!.

There exists a crude hack that just replace all "AmigaOS" strings with "MorphOS", and
"3.1", "3.5" and "3.9" with "1.1" or "1.2". Better solution should be provided by the IBrowse authors.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Xeyes03-Feb-2003 21:41 GMT
Comment 2catohagen03-Feb-2003 21:43 GMT
Comment 3catohagen03-Feb-2003 21:51 GMT
Comment 4Alkis Tsapanidis03-Feb-2003 21:59 GMT
Comment 5Argh03-Feb-2003 22:21 GMT
Comment 6the man in the shadows03-Feb-2003 22:34 GMT
Comment 7Ryu03-Feb-2003 23:59 GMT
Comment 8Linus G04-Feb-2003 00:11 GMT
Comment 9Anonymous04-Feb-2003 00:14 GMT
Comment 10gary_c04-Feb-2003 00:20 GMT
Serious bug in IBrowse 2.3 : Comment 11 of 69ANN.lu
Posted by gary_c on 04-Feb-2003 00:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Anonymous):
Somebody afraid to be identified wrote:

>You know, in my opinion, it's asking a lot for the MorphOS team to ask users to invest time, money and effort in an OS which even the blind faithful have to admit, is on the bleeding edge of legality in many countries.

There is utterly no indication of any legal problems with MorphOS. Those who own IP and believe otherwise have had ample opportunity to press their case. I think the silence is telling. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

> When asked to provide some evidence or documentation which clears MorphOS of any infringement when another company has threatened them with lawsuits, the response is usually hostile and unforgiving. You'll probably see examples of it in response to this post.

I don't know where you live, been in most of the free world, it is not the task of the accused to prove innocence, but of the accusor to prove guilt. Is this a hostile response? I hope not; I'm trying to be calm and reasonable, despite your calculated attempt to stir up trouble.

> A hack to remove the trade name "AmigaOS" and replace it with the word "MorphOS" underlines just what a thread the legality of MorphOS is dangling by.

Not at all. This issue doesn't involve the operating systems or the hardware at all; it involves the software application. Admittedly we are in uncharted waters to some extent here, since it's unusual for an application to be able to run under more than one operating system. So it will take some refinement for apps to distinguish their OS, if this is deemed important. But please understand that this is a technical issue, not a legal or moral one.

> The product legality may be a splash in the pan to most users, but when it's used by someone in a position where the threat of legal issues is a serious matter, I think responding with anything other than professional legal answers is something to raise a questioning eyebrow to.

Precisely where is anyone at legal risk in this situation? Is there legal culpability in IBrowse reporting an incorrect OS environment? Is there anything illegal about a MorphOS user running whatever software he/she is otherwise entitled to? Is there something illegal about patching IBrowse to report an alternative OS environment? You really should follow your own advise and not raise the issue of legality when you are only kicking up dust without having a clue about the facts of the matter.

-- gary_c
Jump...
#12 the man in the shadows #13 Anonymous
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 12the man in the shadows04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
Comment 13Anonymous04-Feb-2003 01:32 GMT
Comment 14[JC]04-Feb-2003 02:11 GMT
Comment 15gary_c04-Feb-2003 02:40 GMT
Comment 16Hooligan/DCS04-Feb-2003 03:26 GMT
Comment 17bbrv04-Feb-2003 03:31 GMT
Comment 18gary_c04-Feb-2003 04:53 GMT
Comment 19catohagen04-Feb-2003 06:40 GMT
Comment 20Senex04-Feb-2003 07:04 GMT
Comment 21bbrv04-Feb-2003 07:12 GMT
Comment 22Anonymous04-Feb-2003 07:13 GMT
Comment 23Ben Yoris04-Feb-2003 07:19 GMT
Comment 24Senex04-Feb-2003 07:23 GMT
Comment 25Anonymous04-Feb-2003 07:39 GMT
Comment 26catohagen04-Feb-2003 07:44 GMT
Comment 27catohagen04-Feb-2003 07:58 GMT
Comment 28priest04-Feb-2003 08:39 GMT
Comment 29Not a Eyetech Fan04-Feb-2003 09:00 GMT
Comment 30Cyberwlf04-Feb-2003 09:12 GMT
Comment 31Anonymous04-Feb-2003 09:16 GMT
Comment 32catohagen04-Feb-2003 09:25 GMT
Comment 33Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 10:45 GMT
Comment 34mahen04-Feb-2003 10:51 GMT
Comment 35mahen04-Feb-2003 10:58 GMT
Comment 36Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 10:59 GMT
Comment 37catohagen04-Feb-2003 11:12 GMT
Comment 38Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 11:17 GMT
Comment 39David Scheibler04-Feb-2003 11:18 GMT
Comment 40Johan Rönnblom04-Feb-2003 12:04 GMT
Comment 41joe04-Feb-2003 12:07 GMT
Comment 42Sigbjørn Skjæret04-Feb-2003 12:39 GMT
Comment 43tired04-Feb-2003 12:57 GMT
Comment 44logain04-Feb-2003 13:02 GMT
Comment 45Alfred Schwarz04-Feb-2003 13:22 GMT
Comment 46logain04-Feb-2003 13:33 GMT
Comment 47Anonymous04-Feb-2003 13:36 GMT
Comment 48krize04-Feb-2003 13:44 GMT
Comment 49JoannaK04-Feb-2003 14:10 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous04-Feb-2003 14:17 GMT
Comment 51Anonymous04-Feb-2003 14:24 GMT
Comment 52pixie04-Feb-2003 14:38 GMT
Comment 53Jupp304-Feb-2003 14:58 GMT
Comment 54cheesegrate04-Feb-2003 15:06 GMT
Comment 55Alkis Tsapanidis04-Feb-2003 16:49 GMT
Comment 56Elwood04-Feb-2003 19:17 GMT
Comment 57AnonX04-Feb-2003 21:12 GMT
Comment 58Anonymous04-Feb-2003 22:35 GMT
Comment 59gary_c05-Feb-2003 00:12 GMT
Comment 60Kolbjørn Barmen05-Feb-2003 00:32 GMT
Comment 61joe05-Feb-2003 11:26 GMT
Comment 62pixie05-Feb-2003 13:43 GMT
Comment 63pixie05-Feb-2003 13:46 GMT
Comment 64pixie05-Feb-2003 13:54 GMT
Comment 65pixie05-Feb-2003 14:03 GMT
Comment 66itix05-Feb-2003 16:30 GMT
Comment 67Alkis Tsapanidis06-Feb-2003 10:43 GMT
Comment 68Anonymous06-Feb-2003 23:41 GMT
Comment 69Ketzer11-Feb-2003 08:16 GMT
Back to Top