Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
What the hell is OpenCandy?
drapps:
@mouser
"...or is it just a dll/library that is part of the installer and only runs during installation and uninstallation?"
--- End quote ---
Yes, that's exactly right. :)
@mouser
"This is about the time when andrew is probably regretting he ever joined in this discussion, since answering the posts in this thread has become a full time job for him huh
If it's any comfort -- i do think the thread is an overall positive thing for OC -- in letting you explain the workings of it to people who might be initially skeptical. Not everyone will like it, but at least this thread will be a place they can find out more and see both sides discussed reasonably."
--- End quote ---
Haha. :) Nah, I don't regret it at all. Sure, it's taken quite a bit of time though :) But it's helped me confirm I made the right decision to join OC, because through explaining what we are doing I've gotten some positive feedback from people, that, on the whole, are just like me... security and privacy minded techies.
@cmpm
"He is a salesman mostly, not a tech, nothing wrong with that."
--- End quote ---
Fair enough, I'm part salesman. I've been selling myself as well as inanimate objects since I was 12 years old. It started with comic books and baseball cards, then burritos, then financial plans because I believed in trying to help people create a legacy, then IT services to help secure Windows machines for small businesses and home users. And now I'm with OpenCandy because I believe our technology will help fuel innovation & competition in the developer community which in turn will benefit the user community. And I'm proud that we do it in a way that doesn't trample over user's privacy and rights.
I'm definitely a tech (techie), but I'm just not a developer, programmer, coder or engineer (guess those terms are relatively interchangeable). I've personally asked pretty much every question that has been asked on this thread before I accepted my position at OpenCandy. I've asked it to our engineers, our business development team, our founders, and everyone else. I've digested it and I'm putting it out here as best I can in the terms that I'm most familiar with. Of course, if I haven't answered a question (technical or otherwise) clearly enough, please let me know. :)
@mouser
As cmpm confirmed -- it's just an extra dll that the setup program loads.
Which is how i assumed it worked when andrew explained that OC can be integrated into Inno Setup and NSIS Installers. And that's really a very clever, non-intrusive way of doing it, which i think should be applauded. Much of the resistance from people on this thread may result from the fact that people assume that OC is installing some standalone program that is running in the background, etc.
Really OC is not doing anything all that different from what many installer tools from larger companies *already do* (i.e. show some blurbs during installation, offer to let people download another related program from the company, etc.); OC just seems to offer an easier and standard way to do this for the developer who is creating the install package.
I think it's pretty clever actually.
--- End quote ---
:up: And, at least with OpenCandy, you DON'T have the classic: Click Next -> Next -> Next -- "OMG! How did I get BrandX toolbar?"
@kartal
ok here is my bet, I am putting my 100$ if anyone wants to bet on it.
I am %100$ sure that in 2 years OC will become an application that will try to install hidden stuff and spy on your download-installation activity. If anyone wants to bet I am accepting bets. Since we do not want to gamble lets keep the amount not more than 100$.
--- End quote ---
I'll bet $100 against that. It'll never happen. We will NEVER install hidden stuff or spy on people.
@mouser
"i think it should be pretty clear by now that if OC start to make some evil changes -- you can be we will all be screaming bloody murder here on this forum :)"
--- End quote ---
Amen to that! I'd be here screaming bloody murder too because I'd leave the company in a heartbeat if that ever happened (which it won't).
@app103
"I have teamed up with a company with a proven track record of abusing the trust of everyone. But don't worry, the founder of the company says he saw the light and he is all reformed now.
--- End quote ---
What company has a proven track record of doing that? Certainly not OpenCandy.
The business decisions that were made at DivX were made and done... at DivX. This is about OpenCandy. Our business decisions are driven from our vision (which I've covered extensively in my other posts on this thread) and our mission is to carry out that vision in a user-centric and user-friendly way that provides a measurable value to users (discovery of great software).
And regarding what DivX did (which I said I didn't approve of), they stopped doing it in 2004.
@app103
"I trust him, because the guy that he sent to talk to me seems like a likable guy, and that is what is really important. Whatever the nice guy says about him must be true and his motives must be pure & honorable, just because the nice guy says he believes it.
Of course I don't have any proof that the nice guy is telling the truth or that he believes what he is saying..."
--- End quote ---
The proof about what I'm saying about OpenCandy is being verified (in real time) by people like @mouser and @cmpm.
The proof that I believe what I'm saying...is that I'm saying it. Just like the proof that you believe what you are saying is that YOU are saying it.
I didn't blindly believe what the folks at OpenCandy told me previous to, and during my interview. I did research, I asked the hard questions. I wanted to know that joining OpenCandy (if I was hired) actually aligned with who I am as a person (which at the end of the day is a user advocate).
@app103 If I ever see you broken down on the side of the road........................................ You guessed it. I'd be the person that stops to help... and yes, I'll still help even if it's you! :)
Off-topic: I started a thread entitled "What makes an application "useful"?" at https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=18350.0 Check it out and share your thoughts.
Thanks again everyone. :)
Dr. Apps
kartal:
Well,
The thing is that OC installs itself(in the program directory as dll and in the registry) and does not tell the user about it even if the user does not want to install the recommended software, based on my experience. I do not know why you keep claiming that you wont do anything bad or wrong but in my standard this is bad and wrong. Because first of all most people wont know that OC is included in the installer of the application until they open the installer. Second most people wont even have any idea what the heck a dll or registry is. Clearly you are targeting this majority of people and I believe this might be called an abuse of trust that is shown by those people who though that would just get a free application. You need to make it explicit.
I just cleaned up couple OC registry entries that should not be there in the first place(I think they came from Miro) .Please refrain from such unpleasant behaviours and make sure that the applications that are in your ring clearly points out that they are part of OC network.
PhilB66:
I asked a similar question some 70 posts ago.... https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=18297.msg164050#msg164050
PhilB66:
LOL app103 :D
"Mama use to tell me
Don’t take candy from a stranger"
mouser:
The thing is that OC installs itself (in the program directory as dll and in the registry) and does not tell the user about it
--- End quote ---
I don't mean to keep posting here, but a couple more thoughts:
* First, if you are unhappy about something -- it's not OC you should be upset with, it's the author of the program who decided to use the OC library/api for his or her installer.
* Second, the standards you guys are asking for would amount to all authors "warning" people about all the DLLs and helper libraries every used in any of their programs and installers. That is just plain silliness. There is something inherently bad about programs that silently install background processes/toolbars/etc., but this is *not* anything like that.
* Third, what you could possibly *reasonably* focus your ire on is the idea that the OC DLL sends info to their server about the users decision to install or not install the recommended program. As i've said it seems pretty trivial to me on the privacy invastion scale -- but at least one could make a case for the fact that the user should be warned about this beforehand and given a choice.
In other words -- I really think its misdirected energy to be complaining about the abstract concept of using a DLL in an installer -- there is just nothing to complain about regarding such a trivial everyday thing. And I don't see why anyone should care if an installer makes an opt-in recommendation to a user about another program that the author wants to recommend.
I do think this thread may be helpful to OC in one way -- it's clear there is some resistance to the concept. Andrew it may make sense to talk to OC people and find out how badly they really need that information sent back to the server (especially when user chooses not to install), and drop that feature (or make it opt-in) if it's not so essential an aspect of the idea.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version