I’ve read about a different example about people who don’t even read dialogs. Indeed baseline education would prove more effective in such cases provided these kind of people do really exist and repeatedly abide to a practice they consider inappropriate.
Reading installers dialogs for any application would be an easy feat for anybody and besides a sensible(if not obvious) practice to assume.
IMHO FUD amounts to trickery too whereas “accidentally” could be way too stretched in this case where also a screenshot of the toolbar is provided.
Besides the remote event of an accidental mistake can be resolved uninstalling the components.
There are indeed all sorts of “accidental” things that happens away from the keyboard but carelessness is never used to blame anybody for trickery.
But I agree that if someone accidentally hit a stake surely he wouldn’t have been able to if there was no stake in the first place.
Indeed assumptions the likes of don’t read or accidentally helps a lot in shifting the responsibility away from the users to the point a vendor can apparently take the blame.
I rather guess the effort to provide a free suite is rather onerous and even a small contribution may help to provide a free product in competition with many paid alternatives.
So you tell me would such competitors be happy if Comodo were to have even an insignificant amount of revenue less in order to improve the competitive value of their products? Neither of us know.
But the toolbar provide some revenue which is used to support the development of CIS, available for free even to those who didn’t install Safesurf toolbar.
Anyway having the option prechecked will only be a minor bother for those who don’t want the toolbar.
Why those who have such a strong dislike against toolbars should have others take the bother to optin?
I would call fair when to prove a point users are not assumed to consistently incur in “chances”.
I agree with that point completely and I don’t argue that which is why I felt that Comodo could simply have the boxes unticked and outright tell people it’s installing the Ask.com bar with Safesurf, then no more hounding “I THINK anyway” about it being adware would occur plus they keep the toolbar. Regardless of what any of us think, if Comodo gets a bad rap this way, is it truly helping them? Likely not and already the chain reaction of people not using Comodo is happening. If other sites begin to coin Comodo as adware, this could very well hurt them in the long run even more. CIS may be a free product, granted, however, this free product also draws people into other Comodo software and services, it’s not a one way street where only we benefit and they need to keep that reputation they built upon all this time.
I've read about a different example about people who don't even read dialogs. Indeed baseline education would prove more effective in such cases provided these kind of people do really exist and [i]repeatedly[/i] abide to a practice they consider inappropriate.
Reading installers dialogs for any application would be an easy feat for anybody and besides a sensible(if not obvious) practice to assume.
Well, when you have an 80 year old woman who is likely trying to enjoy what little life is left, I doubt she is much for dialogs or baseline education. Unfortunately most people look at things from their perspective and not others, a selfish trait we are all guilty of. Either way, she can’t determine what is inappropriate or not, she is just trying to enjoy her computer. That’s a crime for sure, not the toolbars meant to install by being all ready ticked and ready to go. 88)
IMHO [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt]FUD[/url] amounts to trickery too whereas "accidentally" could be way too stretched in this case where also a screenshot of the toolbar is provided
FUD may very well take part as it always has which is specifically why Comodo needs to attempt to clear this up. Regardless of whatever FUD anyone throws out there, the fact remains that the toolbar should NOT be pre-checked.
Besides the remote event of an [i]accidental[/i] mistake can be resolved uninstalling the components.
The point is how it got there to begin with. A virus can be removed too, doesn’t mean it belongs there or someone wanted it there.
(note: nevermind the tooltip in the above image as it was [url=https://forums.comodo.com/feedbackcommentsannouncementsnews_cis/softpedia_adware_in_cis_merged_threads-t37565.0.html;msg277179#msg277179]something [i]nice[/i] softpedia came up with[/url])
They were simply outlining what it does and if you believe people are smart enough and never would install the toolbar accidentally, then you must also agree they won’t find that tool tip to be something from Comodo no?
There are indeed all sorts of "accidental" things that happens away from the keyboard but [i]carelessness[/i] is never used to blame anybody for trickery.
But I agree that if someone [i]accidentally[/i] hit a stake surely he wouldn't have been able to if there was no stake in the first place.
Indeed assumptions the likes of [i]don't read[/i] or [i]accidentally[/i] helps a lot in shifting the responsibility away from the users to the point a vendor can apparently take the blame.
Once again, you look at it through your perspective. There are many people who are NOT technically inclined or even know what they are looking at when they install something. This is a fact and will continue to be. Sure, you or I could easily determine this scenario with the toolbar and not think twice but yet again, that’s OUR perspective. It’s not just reading something but many don’t even understand what installing is. Regardless if they should be educated, or learn from their mistakes, do you honestly believe these toolbar setups among others are not directed at such people? If they weren’t they wouldn’t even bother.
I rather guess the effort to provide a free suite is rather onerous and even a small contribution may help to provide a free product in competition with many paid alternatives.
And I would rather guess it’s going to hurt them in the long run unless they at least change the ticks and such which I don’t think anyone wants to see happen.
So you tell me would such competitors be happy if Comodo were to have even an insignificant amount of revenue less in order to improve the competitive value of their products? [i]Neither of us know.[/i]
[/quote]
Too true.
But the toolbar provide some revenue which is used to support the development of CIS, available for free even to those who didn't install Safesurf toolbar.
Anyway having the option prechecked will only be a minor bother for those who don’t want the toolbar.
It may be that to SOME, but obviously it is a big deal to many others.
Why those who have such a strong dislike against toolbars should have others take the bother to optin?
See the whole above conversation.
I would call [i]fair[/i] when to prove a point users are [i]not assumed[/i] to consistently incur in "chances".
The toolbar didn't get a bad rap for nothing, many users were victims of that crud, regardless what Ask.com is now, so obviously there are.
So would you support this toolbar even seeing what it’s doing to Comodo’s reputation? Seriously, we know it’s an A+ firewall, “been using it long enough” , the antivirus is much better, most products are excellent, so why support something that obviously hurts the reputation instead of helping it? That’s my whole point. The way it’s set up, is more like adware, even if you or I feel it’s easily enough bypassed or not, the boxes should NOT be checked, it should say outright the Ask.com toolbar will be installed with Safesurf, NOT powered by. I mean, wouldn’ t this solve both issues? Well, maybe not if they have a contract but then at least tell users this may be changed in the future.
Anyway, I have hashed this enough and thanks for replying intelligently without bashing, regardless if we agree or not.
All I can say is I hope Comodo does something to remedy this. I hate to see it go into any such category because even years from now, it tends to stick.
@GimpGuy2000
So that 80 years old lady should also disregard red pedestrians light because she doens’t care about it and just walk over the road? So she is not much into dialogs with the “red light” and she doesn’t want to learn that when red light is on, you’re not suppose to cross the road. It’s a simple analogy.
And yes, in most cases i’m looking at problems from casual users perspective and thats exactly the problem here. Ppl don’t read a ■■■■ thing. Thats a real problem, not the fact that that old lady is 80 years old and doesn’t care about other things.
As for the ask toolbar, it’s just a freakin toolbar like Yahoo or Google ■■■■. Donno why everyone are making a big deal out of it.
I think its a lot of baloney from softpedias site. Fighting some optional toolbar is also fighting most freeware. They do it just to get some public attention about their “efforts” to fight those ■■■■ freewares that’s not of their liking.
They even decided to trash talk CIS on their freaking site with a big “explanation” with why they are the holy knights vs the evil freeware monster comodo with its freeware CIS…
I don’t believe CIS users sees CIS as an Adware, and if they do maby they should do some checkup, its “optional adware” at most, CIS itself is completely adware free.
Actually its optional all the way, very easy to uninstal if you decides someday to stop using it. Optional before install, optional after install…
Ppl don't read a dang thing. Thats a real problem, not the fact that that old lady is 80 years old and doesn't care about other things.
For one, she wouldn’t know what it meant anyway. Two, people shouldn’t have to if they trust a software, PERIOD.
I say whatever, It’s not my arse on the line or my rep, so you know what? Why don’t you all take it up with Softpedia some more, it’s easy enough to cheer it on here for sure, but I doubt you’ll get the same results over there. I sure didn’t see 50 clapping smileys in the Softpedia site. If this general attitude is what’s backing Comodo then good luck, I just didn’t want to see Comodo get a bad rap either
Offensive language removed by mod Please keep things on a respectful basis,thank you.
How come PC Tools Firewall ,Outpost Free 6.5 and Online Armor installers do not offer toolbars ?
I understand the presence of toolbars along with Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120 installers ,but i really dont see the purpose of having them along with a SECURITY SOFTWARE.
God knows what vulnerabilies has this 3-rd party software and what is its impact on my computers security .I dont understand how you trust something made by 3-rd parties to be supplied with YOUR software.
I would’nt have payed to much atention to this askbar, if i would’nt have seen people complaining on Nortons implementation as well.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE SPYED FOR ANY PURPOSE ,THATS WHY I INSTALL A FIREWALL.
You can put it op-in/opt-out or whatever, i will stop using Comodo new versions, from now on ,for as long as Comodo installer contians software that is not made by Comodo.I was installing Comodo for its firewall and not for the toolbar.
If Comodo would have had this toolbar in its installer from previous versions (when we ,the users,were some kind of rat labs) i’m sure the popularity of Comodo would have been much lower.
There are appliances like consoles that don’t even get viruses and can be used to surf the Internet too but anyway IMHO carelessness should not pertain the matter at hand and it should not constitute an assumption to be extended to all users.
Even if cars don’t have speed limiters those who enjoy crossing speed limits to engage in controversial activities are unlikely to blame the absence of such devices on vendors.
The fact is limited to the availability of a pre-checked option which allow user to choose. Whatever the option should be pre-checked or not it amount to opinion although in some case it was claimed as a fact.
A virus do not ask upon installation nor it states what it is going to be installed. Virus are often removal resistant.
Although the list of differences can be extended further I guess most will find the above comparison inappropriate and possibly advocating fear.
Among others? In centuries our culture is expressed through writings and is directed toward those who can read and understand. Computers are no exception although is not unusual some people perceive them differently without leveraging on commonsense they usually abide to when they are away from the keyboard.
Perpetuating such misleading approach IMHO is likely to cause more damage than any conjecture on toolbars. I would rather invite anyone to take notice of such inconsistence and form a sound judgment whatever opinion they may eventually come to.
Since you were the first to point out the difference between facts and opinions. I invite you to acknowledge the above as conjecture rather than claim it as a fact.
As I stated before reading require no technical knowledge and pertaining the matter at hand it almost like you are implying that people are unable to understand the explicit mention of the toolbar and the corresponding toolbar picture (screenshot available in my previous post).
Do you really expect me to believe your points whereas you advocate fear of accidents, chances and trickeries?
Neither of us know. The above conjecture would be true only if education is less relevant than appeals to fear.
Eventual trusting relations do not imply carelessness whereas a careless party do usually imply a weak joint in a trusting relation.
Although it is possible to assume there are people who are willing to use CIS for free without installing the toolbar I rather doubt the bother to optout could be reasonably considered a big deal but as i stated before those who don’t make such a big deal of it should not be bothered to optin.
Anyway although IMHO such evocative fear about toolbars would amount to trickery, it could at least serve some reasonable purpose if deprived of its focus on toolbars and used to motivate those users, assumed to be careless, to abide to a more sensible approach.
I will not address the part about Comodo reputation as IMHO it cannot be a matter of opinion. The cease and desist letter sent to softpedia and the resulting PR development implicitly focused many topics on reputation related aspects whereas the only objective fact IMHO would be that Comodo rejected softpedia classification.
IMHO as different opinions are involved, such occurrence obviously would not pertain only Comodo reputation alone provided it would be quite distasteful to hijack this topic to further address opinions about reputation that are only loosely related to facts and based on several interpretative steps.
Focusing on those steps is way more practical and legitimate readers to acknowledge the necessary points before jumping to conclusions.
IMHO, although I would inclined to state is as commonsense, I find the point implying a relevant difference between “toolbar powered by ask.com” and “Ask.com toolbar” rather unconvincing.
Both terms imply that when the user will use the toolbar whose search services are provided by ask.com.
It should be obvious too that every search engine will show advertisement only if the user choose to search with them unlike “adware” that will always show advertisements.
Although usually my resposes are indirectly related to semantic choices I have to reply to and the overall approach I have to comply with, I prefer to focus on the arguments rather than bashing individuals who I rather consider an impersonal container of specific opinions.
I thank you for not perceiving the obvious divergence in opinion as bashing, an occurrence I cannot generally neglect despite my intentions.
Surely there is some common misconception of some points as the claims about forced installations or spying I read in this topic and elsewhere are IMHO too far fetched.
Besides, always IMHO, security software like CIS (especially D+) are there to let users choose whenever their computer is undergoing changes.
Indeed I’ve read some arguments in unrelated threads, that deprive users of any capabilities in this regard to the point some members expressed very emotional responses to the occurrence that in some cases CIS alert have “remember my answer” pre-checked (something occurs if the user previously checked that option for previous alerts).
But,once again IMHO, assuming a careless user is rather controversial and actually endorsing an approach damaging the whole collectivity.
Nowadays education is not optional like reading skill in medieval ages.
The above two points summarise the issue and the only issue that caused all this is because Softpedia has chosen to redefine a word.
Should they have the right to redefine a word? Where in anywhere adware definition says the toolbar you install should be opt in and not opt out? According to that anyone who has Itunes would be called adware cos it promotes Safari in an opt out way and no I do not need safari to run itunes.
Its like me saying from now on the definition of a “liar” is if you have softpedia in your domain name and hence I will call Softpedia Liar because I have just decided to redefine what Liar is. Its silly isn’t it.
That is the problem guys, so lets focus on the main issue that caused this all. That is softpedia for whatever reason thought they are the authority to redefine a term. Can they do that? Are they the authority on adware?
I think there is a screaming need for declared, authenticated definitions. AMTSO is heading towards standardised testing methodologies, but I think they need to establish baseline definitions of what they are testing against.
The toolbar is only one of the concerns. Comodo is also changing the default homepage and search engine for users of no reason! It doesn’t matter if the toolbar “phones home”. It is bad business practice to do any of these actions actions, even worse to make it opt out, and it makes the product/company look bad.
Don’t bother trying to debate what is and is not adware. Comodo doesn’t define the term “adware” for everyone. Softpedia has their own guidelines to classify what is or is not adware/spyware/etc, and these guidelines extend to all products on their site, not just Comodo. Under their guidelines, CIS contains adware… plain and simple.
I suggest completely removing the option to change the default homepage and search engine.
You call changing the users homepage, default search engine, and installing a toolbar “necessary changes”?
In what way exactly are they necessary?
Do they benefit the user in some way? (no)
Do they provide more security than CIS alone will give? (no)
Is the proper working of CIS reliant upon those changes having occurred? (no)
Neither is the toolbar itself reliant on the users homepage / search engine being changed.
I’d like to see the definition of necessary that you are using 88) (actually no i wouldn’t)
The main issue here is that Comodo seems to be relying upon users ignorance / apathy (ie just clicking next - without properly reading the small print) for a quite substantial chunk of it’s income. And quite obviously, that is why changing those options to opt-in is so unthinkable- those same users who don’t opt-out, would never opt-in either.
Has changing those options even been considered for a second? Judging by Melihs responses in this thread, the answer is no.
Thanks for extending you personal opinion to all users.
Obviously if you don’t have any use for these changes nobody should. :-TU
:-La Indeed this is the reason why the user can optout these change separately.
:o I wouldn’t have guessed so. I already optedin. :-[
Obviously this what you are putting effort into.
Apparently a crusade against toolbars is strong enough as motivation.
:-La If the setup was optout by default were you going to complain about users who wanted the toolbar AND just click next?
So it looks like users are assumed to not want the toolbar AND just clicking next.
In order to promote the impression of a forced installation users are assumed to just click next. :-TU
To this is added the assumption all users would be unwilling to have such toolbar. :-TU
Apparently a default optout is something that can be easily demanded but nevertheless it is often neglected to mention that users can choose to install and use CIS without the toolbar. That the toolbar can be uninstalled at any moment. That no ads are displayed if the users don’t use the search services provided by the toolbar.
I guess someone who dislike toolbars would fear anybody to not have enough time to[i] ponder the evil they may incur into[/i] as they should [i]carefully deliberate[/i] before taking such hazardous step. 88)
IMHO it makes way more sense that those who are not troubled by toolbars should not make even the effort to optin.
Hello, been a while
Nice development of The CIS tools; kudos to team Comodo.
Re the Softpedia imbroglio:
the only issue that caused all this is because Softpedia has chosen to redefine a word.
Respectfully, that is not the issue and really, never has been since Ask/IAC was taken on by you. :(
..Itunes would be called adware cos it promotes Safari in an opt out way and no I do not need safari to run itunes..
So if you are prepared to think of iTunes as 'adware' for those reasons and I agree that is a demonstration of Apple hubris and ..then.. ipsofacto.
I saw this on another forum, sounded good to me:
On the other hand, ASK is going about it in completely the wrong way. They should fashion a noteworthy set of servers, a competitive conscientious web site and Search Engine Page, and work at building a comprehensive database first before soliciting commercial software makers to add their ASK toolbar to security programs. This is been tried before and failed miserably.
Ask/IAC is hurting themselves and Comodo by association: or we wouldn’t all be here goin’ round and round and round.
How about a poll to check how many end users of Comodo are installing the ask/IAC search options ??
How about a data sheet/survey asking how many people would install the ask/IAC tool if it was OPT-IN ?? >:-D
How many of the defenders/proponents ( and I admire the support expressed for Melih ) of the current set-up would have ask/IAC as their default ??
Hhmm…?
Get some Q/A and prospective information; then Melih, maybe, ask yourself: What am I doing this for ??
Regards.
Add me to those who want the toolbar to be opt-IN. It should not be assumed that users would WANT the toolbar. Any changes not related to functionality should be for the user to add, not subtract.
