No. There is a specific difference. At no point does Steam ASSUME I want to download and install Portal. It's never an 'opt-out' process.
Apple put Safari under Apple Software Update by default. That's the difference. That presumptuous decision is the key point here. Apple have taken it upon themselves to decide that I want, need or require Safari and that if, for some reason I think they're wrong, I can opt out. It should be the exact reverse. If I WANT it, I'll go get it. (And I don't, so I have not)
Doug
Portal is in Steam by default. What if I don't want it. What if I think it is a horrible game and you should have to go look somewhere else if you want to see it? I shouldn't have to see it by default. I should have to go looking for it if I want it.
Really, look at your argument. Lets ignore the insistence you have defending your semantics debate since that is about as silly of an argument as you can come up with. (Really, who cares what the app is called. You'd be complaining if it was called Apple Software Installer. And no, I don't really want to argue the semantics of what this app is called. You are and continue to use the point to try to obfuscate the real issue.)
Now, lets get to the real issue here. You don't like various Apple software and you wish to defend the poor souls who use Windows are as so stupid that they'll fall for Apple's nefarious trap to damn their souls to hell.
Sorry, got caught up in the open source religion there for a second.
Anyway, your argument boils down to:
A) You don't like certain Apple Software
B) You think everyone who disagrees with your dislike is stupid and needs to be educated/defended from whoever the bloggers tell you is evil.
Turning software development into a grand crusade over the electronic souls of the masses is incredibly silly. Yet it keeps getting evangelized by hysterical bloggers.
You can come up with the "I shouldn't have to" arguments until the cows come home in your effort to save the stupid windows user from themselves. Thats the whole problem when the basis of your argument is trying to protect people from themselves.
You can use the argument protecting someone else from themselves to justify anything. If you want examples open a history book. It comes down to you can use that argument for both sides here. Apple is saving the windows users from their stupid selves by providing the most standards compliant browser for them so they don't have to go looking for it.
Now, you'll probably go off on me for how I'm being evil or whatnot, completely ignoring the fact that that was an example of what I could say. Unfortunately for that line of argument I'm
not using that argument. I repeat, I am not trying to save the windows user from their stupid selves.
Why am I not trying to save the windows user from their stupid self? Mainly because that is a complete waste of time. As I said in an earlier post, then general computer user is actually hurt by this kind of reasoning. Telling them they're stupid and can't solve a problem for themselves over and over again is completely insulting.
You'd like us to believe that a normal computer user shouldn't be able to navigate a menu (not even a submenu) for themselves? That they should be defended by the righteous bloggers of justice and truth? When does it stop? Should they only use apps that the bloggers of righteousness and truth recommend regardless of the cost or real world usage? When can they make a decision for themselves?
The less you use your problem solving skills and the more you're told you don't have any the more dependent the computer user is on other people. The more dependent they are the more likely their are to be open to attack from the likes of social engineers.
In the end, this is making a mountain out of a mole hill and that mountain is just further perpetuating the real problem.
