quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
quote:
Originally posted by absorbation
I also feel strongly about adware. I don't think anti-virus companies portray it right. A lot just simple detect it as a trojan, when it is not.
It is a trojan, depending on your definition of the word. Trojans do not have to be harmful - they just have to be a program that pretends its something else.
For starters a "trojan" is a term, and a term has a fixed definition. It is not opinion based.... Secondly, the sponsor is not pretending to be something else.
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
quote:
C2LOP is not the best adware company. But the software Patchou uses is heavily stripped.
No it's not.
Yes it was. Claiming it was never a stripped down version proofs only your big lack of knowledge about it. And over time it has had more and more features that users found annoying removed (such as the toolbar). So stop pretending you know everything about it.
Almost everything you say is nothing more than assumptions and your own believes, nothing you say is based upon facts.
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
Advanced PC users, system professionals - computer technicians and anti-malware groups are writing angry letters all over the internet - and I know that many have written to Patchou's email personally as well. Some probably sent snail-mail as well.
Again, how do you know that?... You assume things like you have a magic crystal boll...
Not to mention "all over the internet"? Excuse me, but what is been written are nothing more than copies of other things with a little of personal biased assumptions from the authors each time that same stuff is copied and copied. I have seen extremely few _real_ facts and _real_ investigations which are _not_ based upon assumptions, biased thoughts, conspiracies and what not. And those very very select few are even written in a style which other highly biased people happily interpret in the wrong way.
Stop assuming stuff, base your things on facts, not on personal believes.
May I note that even in the letter which was written by security MVPs to the MVP leads to revoke Patchou's MVP award because of the sponsor, there were even things which aren't correct and things put in which even didn't had anything todo with Plus! or even Messenger (yes, to the MVPs reading this, I'm talking about the example given in that paper)... All because "to prove their point".
This, just to say that even rewarded respected security MVPs aren't always right, even in their own field of expertise and don't always stick to facts.
Meksilon, if you want to discuss all this I suggest you first learn more about the sponsor, instead of basing your stuff on things you read here and there on the net, and stop drawing your own conclussions. Conclussions which are sometimes so far fetched or unrelated, they belong in a good thriller movie...
Almost everything you've said, word for word, has been handled, discusses and prooven wrong before.
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
*From Wikipedia: Malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner's informed consent.
Stop using quotes if you don't understand what it says. Again this wikipedia quote actually proofs you're wrong. The user has given his explicit consent when he ticks the option to install the sponsor. Period. There is absolutely nothing "hidden" in the setup or EULA, unless you're a blind man.
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
The truth is there are other options.
yes? like? You would be the first one in years who would come up with an alternative if this was true. So why don't you help the whole internet, and millions of user and enlighten Patchou with it? You would be famous doing it...
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
Because it's not their job to. It's Patchou's responsibility.
That such a typical lame excuse of an argument/reply when one is asked to actually give a concrete alternative.
Not only does it suggest you think Patchou did not thought it well over and didn't do research in other alternatives (aka: you calling him greedy/lazy/etc), it also suggest you actually do not know what you're talking about (just like that comparisson with "google ad"'ed sites.
If you can't provide it, stop using it as an argument...
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
If all Patchou had was Google ads on every page of his website, they would more than pay for the bandwidth. That is a fact.
O.o
Beats me how you know more about the whole costs of the project 'Plus!' than Patchou himself... you must have a crystal boll indeed....
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
quote:
It simply isn't that easy as you let it seem. If it was, everybody would already be a billionair.
That makes no sense. I never said Patchou could get wealthy following my advice.
It makes perfect sense... and I never implied you said that.
If it was so easy to have other alternatives, like you suggested, then many people who use google ads and other means, would already be billionair. The fact is that those alternatives are _not_ sufficient to maintain a project like Plus!. They may be sufficient to pay for a hobbiest's site, or to get him/her a bit of pocket money, but not for something like Plus!.
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
In fact - he would probably have to get a real job and do Plus! as his hobby following my advice.
If he would abondon his income, then yes, Plus! will stop to exist. Patchou needs a living. Again, programming, maintaining and updating Plus! is his job; What he does for living. And it is his choice to keep it free and not ask money for it so everybody can enjoy this tool. Including those who don't have the money to buy such a product. As alternative Patchou offers the choice (note: _choice_) to the user to support him or to use his product without supporting him.
If Patchou was the mean, selfish guy like some people portraye him to be, there wouldn't be a Plus!Live or even Plus!3 in the first place, there wouldn't be a support forum, he wouldn't personally post on that forum, he wouldn't donate money to charities, etc ...
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
quote:
Not only doesn't this have to do with anything sponsor related. It is also against the rules to advertise for such illegal (yes it is 100% illagel what you do) material on this forum and therefore you're post is reported.
LOL, and where are the files? I tell you what, I'll upload one just for you:
reread your own post and read what you've said in that post. Consider your post reported... again...
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
quote:
The people from sysinternals do not depend on those tools for a living.
And Patchou shouldn't depend on Plus! for a living - if it's supposed to be freeware.
???????? So now you're even dictating what somebody else should do for his living? Excuse me?
And for your information, you should _really_ buy some dictionary or something to look up definiation of terms. Since when can't people make a living out of freeware?????
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
No I wouldn't. Signing a contract under false pretences voids at least part of the contract - and in most cases would void the entire contract. Hospitals have a duty of care, and part of that duty of care means that you understand what surgery you're agreeing to.
Again, if you agree upon it you sign it. If you sign it while saying you understand it but without actually understanding you're not only very stupid you're also even lying... you will loose...
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
Don't forget the case in England which more than proves I'm right - a woman volunteered to be a test subject for IVF. They then created an embryo, and it died before they implanted it. They realized it had died because it was exposed to air - and then she got so upset about it that she sued them for killing the embryo - she said she did not understand that is what they would do - they did not inform her that it was a possibility that they would cause the death of the embryo ... and she won the case.
Time and again you come up with arguments which actually proof the opposite of what you want.
Let me spell it out for you: The user _IS_ informed of what the sponsor does. If you're so ignorant to the texts and the EULA in the setup that's your fault.
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
You're biased. General users do not feel the same way.
Sure, if I'm biased then what are you?... At least I try to stick to facts instead of personal believes, my own interpretations of terms, assumptions, loose arguments, hearsay, consiparcy and what not...
quote:
Originally posted by Meksilon
I have no problems with the rules (etc)
You very clearly show you ae happy to break the rules... Don't come up with such lame replies like SOMI2 hasn't got an EULA therefore it is not illegal or "grey"...
As for your other arguments in that post:
1) Even if the the sponsor EULA is agreed upon and the user ticks the checkbox, he can perfectly go back to the beginning of the setup to change his choice when he presses OK.
2)
Furthermore the You represent and warrant that you are at least 18 years of age text is not highlighted, and it has to be scrolled down to get to it - there should be a more obvious warning for minors.
plain rubbish tbh, if it was highlighted, then yuo would complain about another thing which must be highlighted/visible at once. If that is also done, you again would complain about another thing. The truth is that the whole EULA is a contract, there are no important or less important parts; they all are important. The first sentence clearly states that you must read it all (again: because it is all important).
3)
there is no "The Software will deliver popup advertisements on your computer on a regular basis."
Oh please... Pull of your eyeflaps and read the text right under the "Sponsor" title, which is even before the user has made any choice.
4) about all your
"without your permission" arguments: if the user selects the sponsor to be installed and then agrees upon the EULA that _IS_ giving his permission. I dunno what on earth isn't more clear about that (and English isn't even my main language, go figure)...
5)
The fact that it is incompatible with software recommended by advanced users and system professionals is absolutely terrible.
It suggest to me that those 3rd party programs are the cause of the trouble. all they need to do is launch the uninstaller or do what the uninstaller does. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to be able to follow those steps and even less of a rocket scientist to be able to run an uninstaller.
Those 3rd party programs are the ones which make it hard.
In fact, it has been suggested and clear how-to's have been given to certain 3rd parties so they could uninstall the sponsor in a perfect way. Yet they don't wanna do it and follow their own crappy methods which abviously will make things even worse.
6) etc.... your contra-arguments are so full of *beep* I don't wanna put any more time in replying to it all... Most of what you come up with has been prooven wrong in the past anyways. It is nothing more than repeating what has already been said...
And as for your arguments against the EULA, they contain of even more rubbish...
*beep* like:
The Software is owned by CiD and its Suppliers, and is protected by United States Copyright Law
Nice pun, but I clearly remember where it said it was governed by the laws of the UK!
Learn to read English... "
The Software is owned..." and "
This Agreement shall be governed by..." Since when is "software" a synonym for "agreement"?
/ 
