Since SmartTags was unveiled, there has been a lot of reactions to it.
You can find funny journalists , the usual amateur lawyering , and of course, the MS is eeeeevil! angle.
But you know what? This was all to be expected. After all, this feature comes from Microsoft, and we all know nothing good ever came from there, right?
Well, I am tired of watching alleged linux advocates behave this way. When Ballmer calls Linux a cancer, I can at least know that a) he is being metaphoric, b) he is doing it for money.
But what is the rationale for all this bashing of SmartTags? You know, I had thought of something similar a few weeks ago, and it really seems like a nice feature! And even if it is not a nice feature, who cares? No software is perfect, and if it really sucks, it will go away
After all, is it not the whole point of the web to link to information? What is bad in letting software fix the lame level of (not) hyperlinking done by webpage authors?
Ok, so this tool can be abused? Big deal. It happens all the time! Reimplement it. And do it better. If you think MSIE with SmartTags gives useless links, or even damaging links, write software that GIVES BETTER LINKS.
Make Galeon, Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, whatever, give cooler extra linking. If the users want it to be easy to disable, make it easy to disable. If the user wants the "extra" links to be easily recognizable as not part of the original page, make it so.
And why am I so sure that the whole backlash is simply because it comes from Microsoft? I am sure because linux users have been, for years, using software that modifies the webpages and REMOVES information from webpages without the copyright holders agreement.
Where is the outrage of the amateur lawyers? Where is the anger of the web designers? The Slashdot coverage? Nowhere, that is where.
So, stop hypocrisy. If a feature seems useful, dont condemn it because of the one providing it. If it doesnt seem useful, just dont use it, or build a better one.
It is not through whining that free software is built.