201–210 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Android app store?
More like android f-droid store. Its mostly a windows problem. I haven't seen malware from .debian.org or more recently .freebsd.org.
Free software vendors make so much more money by bundling other software than they do by selling subscriptions that it’s pretty much the only business plan that anybody can consider using. At least Avast is bundling something good, so we can’t really argue with it. Because when the product is free the real product is YOU. His use of the term "free software" kinda bugs me here. Yes, "freeware" are harmful, but just be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find my InDesign icon... where have you put it?
So your parents use inDesign who needs hours of training and they can't avoid install crapware? Yeah, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and that it's our own fault Whose fault exactly is it? Has anybody in HN worked with a company which does this crapware bundling, let alone creating? Or does anybody know anyone who's "in the business"? Because I, quite honestly, can't understand how or why people would be doing this. Is it really that "Well, I know this shit is going to infect thousands of machines with software which nobody would like to have, bu…
> Whose fault exactly is it? People who think that software should be free, as in beer. Developers have to be paid. When people paid for software with dollars, this exchange was much more straightforward. But now people think that software should be free as in beer, which means it comes with ad software or "sponsored software" that in turns sells ads, or spies on everything you do, or something to pay the bills.
If it's going to spy on you, it should tell you right up, not in small prints in the EULA.
Also, the assumption that developpers have to be paid is wrong, some people might do it for charity or for other non-profit reasons.
> Because when the product is free the real product is YOU. I disagree with this conclusion. Also, I have a related issue with some of the opinions I hear e.g. on HN that confuse me. Many a person says in defense of ads - "but surely authors have to support themselves, otherwise there'd be no site/software", "TANSTAAFL", etc. But this seems to me to be in disagreement with observable reality. What I see is a strong a…
I've always considered the assertion that quality content is only created if there is financial reward to be a flagrant lie. Expectations of ads fully supporting websites are relatively new even to the world wide web, let alone the internet. 10 years ago, you might at best hope that your ads would offset a bit of the websites hosting costs. The really good content is put up by people who are in it because they care a…
Consider the work on the Snowden files. Snowden handed his huge collection to professional reporters, who then spent weeks and months carefully reading it, confirming what they could independently, working with experts to understand what was most important, working with lawyers to understand what they could and not publish, and finally, writing and editing the articles.
Or consider investigative journalism pieces like the work that revealed the problems at the U.S. Veteran's Administration, or the Washington Post's series on civil asset forfeiture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...
The Post and other news operations need to make money somehow, so that their reporters can afford to spend the time to keep doing this work. So far, ads are the only revenue source that seems reliable, although a lot of news ops are experimenting with online subscriptions as well.
Download.com is just the beginning of this crap. At least a lot of people now realise that download.com is shady. Google is just as bad as download.com, but people still think of Google as a reputable site. Even in this discussion people are recommending just googling the product name to find a download. Please don't tell people to do that. It's dangerous. If you type terms like 'firefox' into google search much of t…
This is the exact reason why the first thing I do for a friends computer is installing adblock on chrome. As an aside, I wonder how prevalent the adware would be when searching for "download chrome"?
µBlock is especially good for this as some of the lists have additional rules specifically targeting malware sources, and it can block things like actual script tags and such instead of just hosts.
Mobile computer tech, here. War story follows. I handle high single-figures of these adware and/or potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) infestations every week. Mostly it's Windows 7 and 90% adware/PUPs-centric, occasionally ransomware. In the huge majority of cases, the following will get a computer back up and sorted in a sensible amount of (billable) time: First, bring known-good copies of AdwCleaner, Junkware Rem…
Addendum: I save a ninite.com installer to their desktops, renaming it to `Run this every Wednesday`. If they see any `You need to update Flash Player` dialogues, I advise them to close them and only run the desktop icon - this in and of itself saves most people from reinfection. Edit: typo and formatting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
independent websites that use PayPal downloads and license keys As of 1 Jan this is now economically infeasible in the EU (see "VATMOSS").
How about using a provider like Fastspring? Or are their fees too high?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic, considering that Apple did exactly the same, when you installed QuickTime on Windows. They tried to trick you into installing iTunes and Safari and set them as default apps. Also, it stinks that Apple has nailed iOS that shut that even as a knowledgeable user you are not able to bypass it. They did not yet dare to do the same on Mac OS, but who knows when that comes.
Apple tricked quite a few Windows users into installing Safari and setting it as the default. Then Apple discontinued Safari for Windows without making an announcement or notifying uses (same as they do with older OS X versions... they just stop updating them). So there are quite a few people out there using Safari on Windows with no clue about the fact that they're using a completely insecure browser.
And by the way, I never managed to make it work in Windows...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-technological people are very bad at distinguishing bad sources from legitimate ones. I see it all the time - "well, the address bar said freemp3converter.com - it looked legit to me..." Now imagine a site or software that tries to look just remotely serious. Normal people often just don't see the difference. Plus, it's pretty normal in Windows world to have all kinds of crap installed - Dell, nVidia & Co. instal…
It's true, but how can you blame them? Even "reputable" sources like the official Java updater and many others attempt to install crapware. I consider myself reasonably savvy and even I get tricked to install crap on windows if I'm not 100% attentive when installing software. The other day I was setting up a brand new windows machine. I wanted to download chrome so I boot up internet explorer, end up at the bing home…