Excuses to the newly registered people and MVPs who want to discuss this, but since that other thread was unfortunatly deleted (it was a good discussion and means to know the POV of those security MVPs), I'll post my post here:
quote:
Originally posted by hedge100
To have awarded Patchou MVP status while LOP is bundled with MSGplus ( optional or not) would have been a travesty
How can one section of Microsoft reward him while another section is villifying him for spreading malware
The section that says Plus! is a bundler actually is true too. But it says it is a bundler, as that is what it is. And yes it is adware. Again correct. It does not say it is spyware or anything else...
And yet another section even invited Patchou to RedMond. And yet another section (or maybe the same one, that I don't know) once offered him to work for them and what not (details I don't know)..
All this to say that
"How can one section of Microsoft reward him while another section is villifying him for spreading malware" and that
"it would have been a travesty" is seriously uncalled for and doesn't even come close to the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by TomCoyote
I only registered here because there is a misconception that only 2 MVP's complained about the nomination, I am on a private security list that I can assure you almost everyone on that list sent thier thoughts about Patchou to their lead teams and discussed this in depth for the merits of the MVP program and the lack of merits of Patchou regarding his quality of program verus the installation of sponsor programs which we have been targeting for a long time now.
Without dismissing what has been said or without saying the points discussed aren't valid: I really really wonder where the emphasis was. And I really really wonder what exactly has been said about the sponsor. If the posts by the security MVPs and other new members here are any indication, I can say that many stuff said in those discussions with your leads is not based upon facts, but unfortunatly upon generalizations.
Also, a "discussion", and mind the quotes, between a lead and a bunch of people who all think alike is not a discussion at all... It is a biased way of viewing things. If you wanted to discuss or oppose to this, why didn't you do it in public together with all parties involved? Isn't that how MVPs are expected to deal with this?
(maybe you did and I missed it though)
quote:
Originally posted by Subratam
MVP award is given if I am not wrong because of past achievements/contributions etc and such. I would say previously msgplus had bundled adwares and there were lots of users coming to help forums with lop/adwares/bundles in their computer and they had just installed messenger plus , and half of them went when they uninstalled it and rest had to be cleaned manually.
Sorry to cut your quote short here. But a few things need to be said about what you just said.
The MVP award is indeed given because of past achievements/contributions. Now... except for the optional sponsor which is still bundled, have you considered the things Patchou did in the past year for the messenger community? Have you considered all the help he has given in the past year? etc...
As for the sponsor, which I'm sure was the main subject: the sponsor was and always will be optional and is never ever forced upon the user. The two choices in the setup are extremely clear. Way more clear than what software from MS itself presents to the user. Nothing is ticked by default, which is something you can't say from certain MS products. Nothing is done behind the back, again something which can't be said from certain MS products.
As for what the sponsor actually is: it is adware, yes. But it is not spyware nor a virus or anything like that. It is adware just as you will find in certain MS products.
The sponsor is indeed from a company which you know by the name of LOP (which is not its current name anymore since a long long time, so it beats me why people, even security MVPs who should know better, at least that is what they claim, keep calling it like that). But what you most likely didn't consider or conveniently left out I think, or at least what the majority didn't consider as I know some did, is that "LOP" had a big variety of packages. And Patchou has always choosen the most light version and even that was stripped down further.
As for uninstalling it. It were/are exactly the programs which the security MVPs swear by which crippled the proper uninstallment of the sponsor!!! It is not the uninstaller from the sponsor which failed, it are those anti-virusses, spyware cleaners etc which goofed up. This is a major point here. By all means, if those programmers/companies/MVPs
? would have been more open to advise and suggestions and actually listened to what people like us said over the years, all those anti-virus and spyware cleaners would have been able to uninstall the sponsor properly and no PC user, who accidently installed the sponsor, would be complaining on your forums.
Heck, even giving the proper advise on such security forums would even have been a good beginning (proper advise was/is to reinstall with the sponsor so the uninstaller gets fixed and/or installed properly and uninstalling right after). Instead advise is constantly given to use programs which goof up (in this case) stuff even more. Of course people are going to complain in that case. And unfortunatly for us they complain about the wrong stuff in that case as they weren't informed about the true nature of their problems. And in that same breath I want to say that telling people to run a certain program to remove stuff without any explaination does not teach those people anything either (so they don't make the same mistake again with another program). Again something I greatly miss from those security forums, home of the security MVPs.
Isn't an MVP suppose to help and inform people instead of keeping them in the dark (with addded fear)?
Anyways... nowadays, the choice of packages are less. But the level of "malware" as you call it, has been reduced enourmously. Not that it mattered for Plus! though, because as said Plus! always already had a stripped down version of the most light package.
All this I say to show how generalizations are easly done. From MVPs I expect research, facts, stuff which you can depend on. Not some plain biased unresearched generalizations. Not to mention using all that to getting someones MVP status revoked...
To contunue...
quote:
Originally posted by Subratam
First of all , none was leader and none was follower here , It was not Sandi or Paperghost or any specific mvp who started this or any specific group who followed this. If writing on one's blog means starting a mission , then I think something is going wrong somewhere.
I'm not accusing Paperghost nor Sandi for being the leader in this particular case. Although, I must say that those two have a very big influence. So willingly or not, they did had a very big share in this. As it are the things which they said over the years about Plus! which eventually lead to the unfortunatly event we are discussing now. As for the "group", there sure is a specific group here opposing to it, no doubt about it as everybody can see that for themselfs and judge for themselfs.
quote:
Originally posted by Subratam
I understand it was all done for career , life , living , but then what about other malware/adware distributors if they also declare its just for their living?
Generalizations again.... There is a major difference between the adware in Plus! and the adware you describe and meant.
Failing to see that, raises the question if the security MVPs actually know about what they're talking about (note: I mean in this matter! I'm not talking about other matters; you're not MVP for nothing, obviously).
And that is also what most of the people on this forum are angry about. The failure to see the difference between various adware. The generalizations (and the accusations towards Patchou as a person). And using all that to get his MVP award revoked is the worst thing of all as most of the arguments are based upon untrue or generalized stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Subratam
Yes it maybe optional , but a 8 year old doesnt understand what is optional and what is not, he would go and install complete one in his computer and then start facing all sort of troubles he didnt even dream of. One can say thats not fault of programmer if user dont understand or read , yes but the associations of such softwares with msgrplus does exist optional or not.
I agree up to a certain point as the sponsor program is not that severe at all. And the association between Plus! and spyware/malware mostly comes from only one side of the IT community, unfortunatly.
If it came from all sorts of directions, and if all those claims were actually true, I wouldn't be here discussing this and would had dished Plus! and Patchou a long long time ago to kingdom hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Subratam
I repeat it was not only Sandi or Paperghost but almost all MVPs ( in almost every product area) who did not like Msgrplus being associated with adwares ( however may it be optional) so it is not right to "blame" anyone but then its just my two cents of opinion.
If that is true I'd like to see some official anouncement from MS about this or in the MVP newsgroups or whatever. I haven't checked yet, so I stand corrected if this is true but in the mean time forgive me for not taking your word on it...
quote:
Originally posted by little eagle
Patchou seams like a competent programmer that could have used his talents for something other than making money at other people's expense.
That is seriously seriously uncalled for and only shows how much (or rather how little) you know about the matter and about Patchou himself...
If it was the money he was after, he never would have made the sponsor optional, he never would continuously donate large sums of money to charity, he never would give the support he gives.
Heck, with his level of knowledge he would be able to get a very high payed job as a programmer.
He does it for the love of the community, to make people happy, to help people, etc... actually everything what a true MVP stands for, IMHO.
If this is the kind of arguments given to MS which lead to revoke his award, I am deeply, very deeply, ashamed to be an MVP too...
quote:
Originally posted by nitecruzr
But bundling it with malware is a problem. Whether or not adware exists for you, it exists for a lot of the MP targeted audience. And the content delivered by its payload is unacceptable for the targeted audience.
If it is unacceptable, by all means report it on this forum or even to Patchou personally so he can order the sponsor ro remove the ads in question. He has done so in the past with ads which accidently went thru, and will continue to do so in the future.
May I again note that the ads shown by the sponsor are very heavly filtered. In fact I ometimes see ads in Messenger itself which are far far more questionnable than the ones shown in the sponsor of Plus!.
quote:
Originally posted by nitecruzr
And a lot of MVPs (myself included) have seen the bundled Adware (payload of the sponsor program). LOP is not something that you want on your computer, or anybody else's computer.
Generalizations again. see comments above...
quote:
Originally posted by nitecruzr
I suspect that if Patchou removes the spyware bundle from MP, he will be considered again for the award, and hopefully be able to keep it. Microsoft simply wants to indicate that bundling malware (with or without advice to not click on the sponsor program) is not acceptable.
it is not malware, it is adware.... Please get at least your facts strait before complaining to MS about such stuff.
And if you want to claim that in your eyes adware is malware or spyware too (which is your good right though) then you actually also admit to generalize and not stating things as they truely are.
quote:
Originally posted by LDTate
quote:
Originally posted by lizard.boy
I wish some people would get their heads out of their asses and realize what the sponsor is and isn't.
It is OPTIONAL
It isn't a full Lop/c2 package.
It [b]is adware[/b]
It isn't malware/spyware
It is Patchou's main source of income.
It isn't going to kill you.
I suppose if it were porn it would fall under the same above items?
Generalizations again.... Why is it so hard to actually see the difference between things??
Of course porn wouldn't fall under the same items. If you investigate even a little bit you'll see that there are no porn ads at all in the Plus! sponsor.
--
To conclude this extremely long post, which I hope is still read completely (and in context!), I like to repeat:
If these were the kind of arguments given to MS which lead to revoke his award, I am deeply ashamed to be an MVP too...
If MS feels the way as those security MVPs feel about the matter, then MS shouldn't have given Patchou the award in the first place. Though they did, and they at least should stick by it.
/ 
Best reply to anything I've seen in a LONG time.
