Our web page has NO ads in it.
Melih
Sorry but i`ve got to agree with Softpedia on this one!
I think an opt-in option would be a lot better,i remember when i first starting using computers properly and downloaded ccleaner,i was extrememy annoyed that Yahoo had suddenly become my default.
The rating Ad-aware is the wrong terminology but they have clearly described there reasoning,i.e. changing homepage/search-engine.
Lets hope that some common ground can be reached and this doesn`t get silly.
homepagesearchenginechangerware…How`s that sound 88)
Matt
Hello, Melih Iam not sure you can view the public editable site Wikipedia as the definition… :-\ :-
Who wrote that stuff anyway, some anonymous dude?
Many people writing there are not experts on the subjects, or at the definition of stuff… Anyone can play with it.
The wikipedia article even lacks links to any site or publication of someone saying that “that” is the definition. ???
Its just text on a page with no reference… There are millions such pages, and just because Wikipedia is big doesn’t mean that they are correct. Tomorrow someone might change it “malware is a software that bla bla…”.
Anyway good luck, but I think whoever is right I think its good that softpedia at least has their definition easily accessible. Instead of just saying “adware”… :-TU
Agree on that! =)
EDIT:: I do think that calling CIS adware is a bit bold… =) =)
Softpedia is not the only organization that states this.
See the links:
Installers Hall of Shame
Products with Ask Toolbar
And to repeat a phrase written in one of the links:
CoU will no longer provide update information for the above-mentioned vendor’s products until the questionable toolbar is found clear by respected researchers, malware scanners and/or removed from their installer.
I agree,Softpedia is one of the most trustworthy download portals there is.
I’ve yet to see a single good reason why the toolbar isn’t Opt-in rather than Opt-out which seems to be at the root of the issue. ??? It isn’t adware but it is unnecessary clutter.
Thankfully as an Opera user I’m unconcerned about any additional stuff on my browser. 
Geko’s excample is taking the toolbar thing a bit too far… =S Ask has a undeserved bad reputation.
And as some said, what differs CIS from those that comes with google toolbar?
Usually they don’t even offers any do not install this option…
Something CIS at least does.
Why are the google toolbar not ADware while ASK is, google sure show ads…
Oh that’s right, Softpedia don’t want to fight their sponsor… =)
Its okay for them to show adds… GOOGLE ADS all on the page…
But free software should not have any financial interests… Noo… That’s really bad. =S
Geko's example is taking the toolbar thing a bit too far.. =S Ask has a undeserved bad reputation.
Say that to Calendar of Updates not to me. 
And as some said, what differs CIS from those that comes with google toolbar?
In this topic it explains it a bit:
It shows vulnerabilities in Ask toolbar. I’m curious to konw if Secunia informs of the vulnerabilities… Security programs marking it as adware.
There are images with google toolbar, yahoo toolbar and other marking them clean.
P.S.: Just found this from Secunia:
geko
Exactly, hence the complaints. A toolbar should never be imposed, but optional.
And, before some defender comes in rescue, allow me to say that, if people wish to install COMODO SafeSurf, which provides no additional protection to a user’s system, considering that same protection is already provided by Defense+, they’re being misleading and misinformed, because the install procedure does not state that the protection offered by SafeSurf is against exploits, and that same protection is already provided by Defense+. And, not to forget that if people opt to install SafeSurf, then Ask.com toolbar will also be automatically installed. Meaning, it’s installation is imposed, not optional. Later on, if the user is wise enough will check if there’s an option to uninstall, which there is. Still, it is imposed.
Precisely! I’ve no problem with developers bundling these things with their software,I’d never touch any of them with a barge pole but that’s my personal preference.However it should always be the choice of the user to opt-in to them,since they don’t enhance the software in question at all.
Of course any developers are free to do exactly as they wish and have it install by default,but they can’t complain if the practice is disliked by certain download portals,according to their own criteria.I do agree that the term adware is a bit harsh,perhaps they should create a new category “bundledware” or similar.
Yep. Opt-out is basically counting on the users that either aren’t paying attention, or those that don’t actually realize what those options are when installing, to add perhaps unwanted ‘fluff’ to the installation.
Opt-out should never be the default. If you want to give the users the choice to install a toolbar or make other changes to the users web browser, that’s fine. Just make the choice opt-in. Anything other than the core software that the user is installing should always be opt-in. Default opt-out is a questionable tactic.
There was a thread on this forum somewhere just recently of someone who thought they may have an infection because somehow he had the Ask toolbar installed in his browser. It had to be explained that it was CIS that dropped that payload.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think it would reflect better on Comodo if those options were removed from the installer completely. But at the very least, make opt-in the default installation choice.
You guys made this statement:
“Aside from the fact that those are good enough reasons to mark any software in our database as adware, listing programs with this type of behavior as freeware would inevitably harm Softpedia’s image on popular security sites such as SiteAdvisor that do not condone these actions in any software, especially one marked as Freeware.”
Can you pls confirm that SiteAdvisor has the yahoo toolbar they promote deselected by default requiring a user opt in? Or does it require an opt out like safesurf?
thanks
Melih
There goes about 2 months I last tested it, but, if memory still serves me, it’s opt-in and not opt-out.
Either way, that’s not an excuse not to provide your users an opt-in solution. Now, is it?
That wasn’t the point…
the point was softpedia is taking something that marks others as adware as the reason to mark as adware, even though they are doing the same thing…
Can you pls show us the screenshot you have pls, cos someone told me that its an opt out (not sure they are right or not).
Melih
no screenshot available, but i made a clean install a few days ago and I’m sure it’s opt out.
So, how can Softpedia call safesurf adware claiming that they are worried about sitadvisor will mark them as bad, if Siteadvisor itself is doing that? Both safesurf and sitadvisor offer a search toolbar and both have it as opt out! So why mark only Safesurf as adware? And how can Softpedia give siteadvisor as a product that they use as reference to mark other products even though siteadvisor does the same thing?
I would love to hear a clarification from Softpedia on that pls.
Melih
I just installed it to see and it is opt-out.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Thank you HeffeD
I think now an explanation is due from Softpedia!
Melih
How does SoftPedia mark SiteAdvisor?
Because this is what Softpedia said above:
“If we were to ignore the toolbar, CIS would still offer to change the user’s homepage and search engine. Aside from the fact that those are good enough reasons to mark any software in our database as adware, listing programs with this type of behavior as freeware would inevitably harm Softpedia’s image on popular security sites such as SiteAdvisor that do not condone these actions in any software, especially one marked as Freeware”
So that must surely also apply to Siteadvisor?
So I would be interested in their marking of SiteAdvisor on softpedia site. Can someone post a screenshot pls of how they mark it…
thanks
Melih