OT: Acrobat Reader needs plugin?

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 00:10 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> > 
> > I thought that it fairly well explained the methodology and purpose of
> > the file open plugin on Matthews link. I hadn't ever heard of the plugin
> > before and didn't realize that it was something beyond the mozilla
> > plugin.
> 
> Ah, I presumed (incorrectly) that all those were links internal to the
> page. I found the explanation. However, at least one of the statements
> made there is untrue.
> 
> [QUOTE MODE ON]
> 
> Q8. What if I am not connected to the web?
> A8. If you open and save a document locally on your computer, then 
> you'll be able to use that document for at least 30 days whether or not 
> you are connected to the web. You can renew your 30 days by reconnecting 
> to the web and reopening the document.
> 
> [QUOTE MODE OFF]
> 
> This is demonstrably untrue. I have demonstrated it to be false. I got a
> "failure to connect to server" error pop-up, and I downloaded it just
> hours ago.
> 
> In any case, I disagree with the means by which they hope to
> achieve their goals. OpenFile is not going to survive on my machine.
> I haven't carefully evaluated their goals to see whether I agree
> with them, but I certainly disagree with their characterization of
> the tool used.
----
just a guess but perhaps the Windows version has a bit more programming
effort and achieved their target whereas close might have been good
enough for Linux...I don't know and don't really care.
----
> If one purchases a copy of something, then that copy should belong
> to the one who purchased it. Not the work, of course, but the copy.
> This is an attempt to prevent people from owning their own copies
> of the item. As such, it is spyware and malware, end of story.
----
hmmm...DRM, what a shock that you find it objectionable.

try reading the EULA on a Windows XP (SP2), Windows Vista or Windows
Media Player.

-- 
Craig White <craig at tobyhouse.com>