Author Topic: What the hell is OpenCandy? (Read 384039 times)

app103 · « **Reply #300 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:43 PM »

But the dll isn't *left* on your machine. It is to facilitate the installation. That's the same as saying that NSIS is installed on your machine just because certain supporting dlls have to be extracted to be loaded into memory. That is *not* installation. It assists in installation of the requested software.
-wraith808 (March 31, 2011, 10:17 PM)

But NSIS is open source and you can obtain the code for it and whatever it needs to use to assist installing an application.

OpenCandy...no.

I have decided to contact the FSF to see what they have to say about the matter. I'll let you know when I receive a reply.

mouser · « **Reply #301 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:48 PM »

It seems to me a good solution for authors releasing open source material is to always provide the option of a "portable" non-installer download. Whether the installer is open source or not, just as a matter of convenience.

wraith808 · « **Reply #302 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:59 PM »

But the dll isn't *left* on your machine. It is to facilitate the installation. That's the same as saying that NSIS is installed on your machine just because certain supporting dlls have to be extracted to be loaded into memory. That is *not* installation. It assists in installation of the requested software.
-wraith808 (March 31, 2011, 10:17 PM)

But NSIS is open source and you can obtain the code for it and whatever it needs to use to assist installing an application.

OpenCandy...no.

I have decided to contact the FSF to see what they have to say about the matter. I'll let you know when I receive a reply.
-app103 (March 31, 2011, 10:43 PM)

NSIS is... but what if someone decides to use InstallShield. Do you have a problem with that also? Or Wise. Or any of the other non open source software options for installers? Or if someone uses NSIS with a custom extension that isn't OSS? You can write extensions, and they don't automatically become OSS...

That was my point about OC being held to a different standard; you can include all of the custom code you want to in an installer; you're already giving a certain amount of leeway to someone when you run an installer. To single out this avenue, when you can do the exact same thing and there be no problems otherwise is the part that seems disingenuous.

It seems to me a good solution for authors releasing open source material is to always provide the option of a "portable" non-installer download. Whether the installer is open source or not, just as a matter of convenience.
-mouser (March 31, 2011, 10:48 PM)

Sometimes that's not an option because of requirements of the application. This is one of the (many) reasons that I never release anything open source, nor do I use OSS when developing- sometimes people get pedantic about the licensing, even if you're releasing the software for free...

And to get a bit pedantic about this myself (

) NSIS is OSS. The scripts that I create to use with NSIS are not. I would think that plugins created are in the same way not bound by the license, especially as NSIS is licensed under the zlib/libpng license.

40hz · « **Reply #303 on:** March 31, 2011, 11:39 PM »

Yes, indeed it is a functional difference. Several things run on your machine without being installed
-wraith808 (March 31, 2011, 08:55 PM)

Just a minor niggle...

I think you might have missed what I was trying to say there.

Based on what I learned from my professors, the fact that a piece of code is capable of being run is proof positive an installation occurred. There is absolutely no "functional difference" between installing to RAM or HD, because in either case it accomplishes the exact same function - getting a piece of binary code into a place where it can be executed by the target system.

To paraphrase so there's no confusion: If it's runnable - it's been installed.

----

Note: I do consider the code Java scripts and ASPs to be installed when they're called in by a browser. So much so that I employ script blockers and a few other safeguards to make sure things don't install themselves into my system RAM without me first giving them explicit permission.

Which is a shame in a way. I don't want to block advertising and banners on sites I visit because I have a philosophical issue with my site hosts looking to earn some affiliate revenue by including them. I only do so because so many sites began abusing scripting technologies that I felt I had no choice.

That's why I object to what OC is trying to do by redefining words and undermining an informal industry guideline that has served its end-users well. Because even if it does little to prevent installation scripts from playing games, it's still valuable it that it serves as a standard for what should be considered acceptable behavior.

Just my 2¢

Renegade · « **Reply #304 on:** April 01, 2011, 12:55 AM »

Meh... This is one of those things that is polarizing, and people just won't agree.

This is the no opt-out issue, you can't opt out of OC getting to run on your PC and doing whatever it does, benign though that may be.
-Eóin (March 31, 2011, 10:27 PM)

You've phrased that in an interesting way. Let me run a bit with it... (Devil's Advocate in full effect...

)

Now, when you run just about anything, there are things that go on that you are not aware of. In fact, virtually ALL software runs other software. So when you run program X, it includes zlib, which you DIDN'T explicitly give your permission for, and program X didn't ask you. Program Y includes Gecko code and didn't ask you to run that either. Program Z includes Indy, which you didn't explicitly give your permission to run. Another program includes ILS and another Eziriz and another Xenocode and another Codejock and another runs...

We didn't opt-out of any of it, and it's all running on our machines without our permission!

While all that may seem a bit silly, it points out that we will ALWAYS run software that we didn't know we were running. "Did I explicitly choose to run ABC?" is an untenable position due to the nature of software itself. It's intentional, and different people have different intentions when performing the exact same actions. It's like peeling onions.

Step up to the Internet on a single web page and all of a sudden things spiral way out of control.

Now what "installed" means could change. If software is partially running on your machine, but also (mostly) running off your machine (servers), is it installed? It's partly there... And what that is you have zero control over.

Ok, that got silly again. But the point is that when you start applying principles, you need to be somewhat consistent with them, and some principles will run into a lot of problems very quickly.

A better measure than "did I explicitly choose to run this software" (which as I've shown above leads to complete insanity), is something more like "is this software and its components doing any harm or is it benefiting me"?

That's a much better metric to measure.

mouser · « **Reply #305 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:14 AM »

Or another way to ask is, do you sufficiently trust this developer and their partners, and the choices they make about their software and how they distribute it? If not, you probably don't want to run their software, with or without any bundled installer, advertising dll, etc.

Unless you are prepared to never install anything made be anyone who you don't completely trust -- or insist on reading carefully through every line of open source code before you run it, you are taking some risks and putting some trust in others work. Frankly it seems to me that a company like OpenCandy, even if you don't trust their motives, is probably orders of magnitude safer to install and less likely to be trouble, than most random shareware and commercial software made by people who you don't know.

Renegade · « **Reply #306 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:36 AM »

That was another good way to put it mouser. And certainly not off-the-wall like me~!

The same thing goes for pretty much most manufacturing/production.

For the fresh produce in the supermarket, you trust the:

supermarket
distribution chain
farmer
seed producer for the farmer
fertilizer producer
pesticide producer
federal food regulations
etc.

Similarly for car manufacturers and their suppliers, etc. etc. etc.

Doctors and medicine? There's a LOT of trust there. And every month a new revelation comes out about how some part of our trust was misplaced.

app103 knows just how many manufacturers put out defective products that are dangerous. (I still love the candles that were a fire hazard! The irony was beautiful.)

PhilB66 · « **Reply #307 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:40 AM »

So why most developers that partner with OC hid that fact?

Renegade · « **Reply #308 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:51 AM »

So why most developers that partner with OC hid that fact?
-PhilB66 (April 01, 2011, 02:40 AM)

I suppose that the sins of the past with stealth adware have created an environment of paranoia. The media certainly doesn't help as we've just seen yet once again with that false positive on the Samsung laptops.

The media hypes death, destruction, malign intent, disasters, terror and fear. They have no interest in the truth. If they did, they wouldn't have been hyping the Samsung story -- they would have done some investigation to find out first. But they didn't. They're fear-mongers. "If it bleeds, it leads."

People are so primed for fear that anything that could be remotely linked to your software could be a death sentence. For FL Studio, that's less of a worry as they already have a strong following and brand. For lesser-known authors, the prospect could spell death.

Plainly, I think that a lot of developers are just scared. I can't say as I blame them.

40hz · « **Reply #309 on:** April 01, 2011, 07:00 AM »

So why most developers that partner with OC hid that fact?
-PhilB66 (April 01, 2011, 02:40 AM)

I suppose that the sins of the past with stealth adware have created an environment of paranoia. The media certainly doesn't help as we've just seen yet once again with that false positive on the Samsung laptops.
*
*
*
Plainly, I think that a lot of developers are just scared. I can't say as I blame them.
-Renegade (April 01, 2011, 02:51 AM)

I don't think it's so much an issue of blaming or excusing as it is simply asking OC to yield on a business issue that many will (with some justification) be highly suspicious of.

That's why I think PhilB66 and others bring the whole problem to point by asking why developers seem to be hiding the fact they are partnering with OC.

And I think the only answer is because it betters the odds the average end-user is more likely go along with it if they don't know about it.

Which makes the practice somewhat questionable.

If it's motivated by a desire to slip something past the end-user, then it smacks of dishonesty. If it's based on some sort of "they don't need to know" and "media paranoia" justification, then it comes very close to being insulting since that presumes the developers knows best what their users need to know - or are capable of understanding.

In any case, operating like this doesn't do much to engender trust in a relationship. And it also has the potential side effect of stoking the rumor mill as well as making it that much harder for the developer to respond creditably to accusations. Most people feel if you weren't forthright at the beginning of a relationship, you won't be later on should a problem arise.

Can't have it both ways.

There's an old saying that goes: Burn me once - shame on you. Burn me twice - shame on me.

Unfortunately, in these (also justifiably) suspicious times, many potential customers won't be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if they suspect you're holding out on them.

Quack!

(Kidding...just kidding.)

----------------

@Renegade - <OT> - tried your suggestion in another thread regarding DC being smoother in Opera. I'm using Opera right now - and you're right!
Whole mo' better experience compared to FF.

wraith808 · « **Reply #310 on:** April 01, 2011, 07:40 AM »

Yes, indeed it is a functional difference. Several things run on your machine without being installed
-wraith808 (March 31, 2011, 08:55 PM)

Just a minor niggle...

I think you might have missed what I was trying to say there.

Based on what I learned from my professors, the fact that a piece of code is capable of being run is proof positive an installation occurred. There is absolutely no "functional difference" between installing to RAM or HD, because in either case it accomplishes the exact same function - getting a piece of binary code into a place where it can be executed by the target system.

To paraphrase so there's no confusion: If it's runnable - it's been installed.

-40hz (March 31, 2011, 11:39 PM)

You have a very ... unorthodox view of being installed.

The act of installation requires some very discreet actions that would seem to put lie to your explanation, and this is coming from someone who did installers for several years many moons ago on many varied OSes. For one thing, installation by any practical definition implies that the software in question can be run again without any need for further installation (leaving out the situation of a software upgrade, since the act of upgrading is changing the delta of the installed software.

Renegade · « **Reply #311 on:** April 01, 2011, 07:46 AM »

And I think the only answer is because it betters the odds the average end-user is more likely go along with it if they don't know about it.

Which makes the practice somewhat questionable.

That's kind of what sets me off a bit. It's a double-standard. I really don't care either way as long as people hold standards with some degree of equality.

e.g. I hate all people equally!

(Just kidding. I hate politicians and lawyers most~! Hahahah~!)

But seriously, let me just tear into the double-standard issue a teeny-little bit...

Hello. Welcome to my web site. I've just placed a tracking cookie on your computer and have already recorded information about your computer. Don't worry though. I'm not tracking you personally, yet. Although I do use other tracking technologies from several different companies, including Google. Since you probably have a Youtube or Gmail account, you are being personally tracked. In fact, we're serving ads up to you right now that use your personal information to specifically target you with ads that you are likely to click on so that I make money and other people make money. Your money. But don't worry. That's not the only stuff. We've also partnered with Facebook and know everything about you and your friends and your family. But don't worry... We're not the bad guys. The ones on the desktop are the bad ones. The web is safe. Downloadable software is evil. They're all trojans and spyware and adware and malware and all manner of nastiness.

Ok, maybe a bit over the top in some places, but still basically accurate.

Now... here's the question...

Who here that is opposed to OC will give up surfing the Internet? Because there basically aren't any sites that don't track you to some degree.

A browser ad-blocker is no different than AV software when it gets down to it. Now what gets blocked may vary, but the principle is the same. And how many ad-blockers flag ads that track you as malware? (Like the NOD32 false positive above.)

I think the measure needs to be whether something is going to be good for you or bad. Malware is obviously bad, and I think that we can agree that OC isn't malware. The question then becomes whether or not an ad is bad for you. That's a tough question as I don't see any harm in low-volume ads, but when they get to the level of propaganda (like most mainstream advertising by companies like Coca-cola or McDonalds), then I think that's an entirely different matter. There's also a difference between consumer education and ads, but again, that's also problematic.

Web sites don't ask permission. But people are used to that now.

f0dder · « **Reply #312 on:** April 01, 2011, 08:39 AM »

The "but OC is being installed without my consent" is silly, as already mentioned - consider the amount of 3rd party libraries used by any realistically sized application, and you'd have a crapload of "do you want to allow this library to be installed, as well?" prompts... unless you want to hold OC to higher standards.

Yes, it does run as part of the installation process, but it isn't installed - and that's a big effing difference compared to the adware of the past, that would install background processes, browser helper objects, whatever.

As long as OC doesn't send my list of installed applications but simply grabs the available offers and don't offer what it can locally check is already installed, I don't see the big fuzz about this - even if I don't like the business model and the tendency of authors to "slip it in".

But all that *IS* assuming that OC are being honest about what they're doing, and aren't going 180 degrees at some point - and we all know how likely that is.

Eóin · « **Reply #313 on:** April 01, 2011, 09:18 AM »

I have decided to contact the FSF to see what they have to say about the matter
-app103 (March 31, 2011, 10:43 PM)

Just remember that the FSF are very much GPL centric. There are a tonne of other OSS licenses. Case and point, the BSD license is OS, and anyone would be very hard pressed to cliam that OpenBSD is not opensource. But they explicitly do not grant the right to simply repackage and redistribute their Operating System CD.

Rather they retain a copyright over the CD layout

The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets to help fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).

Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD.
-http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html

An opensource application with OC included is very similar, you can rebuild and repackage the application and redistribute it, but you just can't include OC.

cmpm · « **Reply #314 on:** April 01, 2011, 11:50 AM »

I'm not so sure OC and a browser is a good comparison.
Just thinking out loud.....

There is a lot options to block tracking with a browser.
And there is a lot of tracking that can be done in a browser.

OC is more specific and tracks install, uninstalls, and how they get how long I consider an option during the install is beyond me, both how and why. And whatever else OC says it tracks.

40hz · « **Reply #315 on:** April 01, 2011, 12:15 PM »

Yes, indeed it is a functional difference. Several things run on your machine without being installed
-wraith808 (March 31, 2011, 08:55 PM)

Just a minor niggle...

I think you might have missed what I was trying to say there.

Based on what I learned from my professors, the fact that a piece of code is capable of being run is proof positive an installation occurred. There is absolutely no "functional difference" between installing to RAM or HD, because in either case it accomplishes the exact same function - getting a piece of binary code into a place where it can be executed by the target system.

To paraphrase so there's no confusion: If it's runnable - it's been installed.

-40hz (March 31, 2011, 11:39 PM)

You have a very ... unorthodox view of being installed.

The act of installation requires some very discreet actions that would seem to put lie to your explanation, and this is coming from someone who did installers for several years many moons ago on many varied OSes.
-wraith808 (April 01, 2011, 07:40 AM)

If it's an unorthodox view, it's one shared by many.

I started referring to the act of loading an executable into working memory as an "install" after hearing Marvin Minsky refer to it that way during a lecture in 1977. Back then, we didn't differentiate between the act of "installing" in your sense (i.e. on a drive or other storage media) and loading it into RAM for execution. It was the act of loading and running that constituted the "install."

And since we're trotting out our CVs, my view is from the perspective of someone who (like yourself) has programmed and installed software on various OSs for...well, let's just say a bit more than several years, starting with IBM's System/360 on mainframes, and Digital Research's CP/M on personal computers.

For one thing, installation by any practical definition implies that the software in question can be run again without any need for further installation (leaving out the situation of a software upgrade, since the act of upgrading is changing the delta of the installed software.

That's a new one for me. Bounced it off a couple of system admin cohorts of mine. Both felt your qualification that it "can be run again without any need for further installation" is not a valid criteria because they routinely install and run software utilities (not updates) that execute once and then remove themselves from the system.

We could continue this endlessly, presenting different examples and exceptions. But why bother? If you don't agree with my definition of what constitutes a software "installation," that's fine too.

Sometimes "agreeing to disagree" is educational in its own right.

f0dder · « **Reply #316 on:** April 01, 2011, 01:41 PM »

40hz: FWIW, I've never head anybody use "your" definition either. For me, and people I know, "installing" generally means "putting something on the system (more or less) permanently". Running an executable definitely doesn't count as "installing" in my book.

In previous versions, OpenCandy did get it's DLL installed on the system... but (according to the OC guys) it was just lying dormant there until (possibly) used during the uninstall process.

JavaJones · « **Reply #317 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:49 PM »

It seems like there is a lot of getting hung up on terminology here. Which is ironic because one of the most important points made here - by 40hz - is that the meaning of words *is* important and is being potentially subverted here by OC. On that point I have some concern myself. Nonetheless I think whether something is "installed" or not is ultimately tangential to what is at issue here and of actual concern. After all, I'm sure Wraith would not argue that a virus that simply loads itself into memory and formats your hard drive without ever "installing" anything is ok simply because it's not being "installed" (and neither would anyone else I'd wager

). So using "installed" as a measure of trustworthiness, safety, or anything else that is really of concern here is not really useful.

So what's really the concern here for those who are uncomfortable with OC? Well, there's certainly the association with adware and spyware of the past. But I happily ran CrashPlan in ad-supported mode for some time, and if I hadn't needed backup sets and wanted to use their online storage, I probably would have continued to do that. I've also used several other ad-supported apps. I don't mind them in principle. Do others here who are objecting to OC's system fundamentally reject all adware? If not, it's an interesting and important distinction.

Spyware, on the other hand, I do broadly reject, at least where I'm aware of it. So what exactly is spyware? The common understanding is it's software that collects information about you and sends it back to a controller, presumably a central server somewhere, for some unknown and unstated purpose. I am *still* unclear on whether OC is doing this, but my understanding from reading this thread is that *yes*, they *are* doing this, in that information is going back to OC. The problem then, at least in my view, is that data is being collected from a position of potentially elevated permissions vs. a web browser (in most cases a browser is not able to see what software you have installed, for example) and *no* disclosure is being made of that. Yes, websites do this all the time, and I'm not happy about that either, yet I continue to browse the web. But for those that have concerns about this sort of thing, there are also common tools available to block this kind of behavior. A good incoming *and* outgoing firewall will catch what OC is doing, as NOD apparently did, and warn the user, allowing them to block it. So tools are available to handle this situation is well. Nonetheless the elevated position that OC is in as far as access to my system in my opinion demands an elevated level of communication regarding its activities.

Let's keep some perspective here though. This does not need to be stated in scary terms in order to avoid being seen in a bad light. I believe OC could require better communication of its activities through its partners and their installers while not necessarily reducing opt-in significantly. Here's an example:
"This installer is powered by OpenCandy! As part of a free service, OpenCandy will check your system for potential software upgrades to improve performance and capabilities. This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers. If you'd like to decline this service, simply uncheck the box below." That's 30 seconds of thought put into the wording; a good marketer could do a lot better, keeping the important information will making it more appealing. That's what marketers do, and that's ok.

They could even make it a bit more controllable and potentially get more customers by doing something like this: "...This check will collect basic non-personal information about your system and store it securely on our servers. If you'd prefer not to have your information sent to our servers, we can still perform a local check and offer some recommendations if you select the "local check" radio button below. You can also choose to decline this service by selecting the "do not check my system" radio button." In a situation like that I might still opt-in to the local check.

Adding a sentence of info about OC's service helping to support developers might also be a good thing, depending.

In the end I think the problem 40hz has, and which I share, is that OC is not very open about what it's doing, and in some/many cases even seems to be completely unmentioned in the equation (e.g. the offer appears to be coming from Microsoft for installing IE9, with no mention of the fact that OC brokered the deal). Disclosure is a big deal to many people.

All this being said the average person doesn't give a crap.

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #318 on:** April 01, 2011, 06:46 PM »

Anyone using Wakoopa?

wraith808 · « **Reply #319 on:** April 01, 2011, 10:20 PM »

I started referring to the act of loading an executable into working memory as an "install" after hearing Marvin Minsky refer to it that way during a lecture in 1977. Back then, we didn't differentiate between the act of "installing" in your sense (i.e. on a drive or other storage media) and loading it into RAM for execution. It was the act of loading and running that constituted the "install."
-40hz (April 01, 2011, 12:15 PM)

If we're going back *that* far, then at that point there wasn't really anything that even resembles installations of today, especially given the change in media and storage technology, so I think that given the change in the English language and technology, to carry over a term from that time to apply to the methodologies of today is a pretty big stretch...

And since we're trotting out our CVs, my view is from the perspective of someone who (like yourself) has programmed and installed software on various OSs for...well, let's just say a bit more than several years, starting with IBM's System/360 on mainframes, and Digital Research's CP/M on personal computers.
-40hz (April 01, 2011, 12:15 PM)

I'd guess a bit more than several years would depend on what the definition of several years is.

For one thing, installation by any practical definition implies that the software in question can be run again without any need for further installation (leaving out the situation of a software upgrade, since the act of upgrading is changing the delta of the installed software.

That's a new one for me. Bounced it off a couple of system admin cohorts of mine. Both felt your qualification that it "can be run again without any need for further installation" is not a valid criteria because they routinely install and run software utilities (not updates) that execute once and then remove themselves from the system.
-40hz (April 01, 2011, 12:15 PM)

Personally, I wouldn't consider that an installation any more than I would consider copying a file to your computer or executing said file from a usb drive an installation. /me shrugs

But I think that with that out of the way, i.e. you've defined what you refer to as installation as anything that runs on your computer, then that seems to erode your position even more (see arguments by renegade and f0dder)

It seems like there is a lot of getting hung up on terminology here. Which is ironic because one of the most important points made here - by 40hz - is that the meaning of words *is* important and is being potentially subverted here by OC. On that point I have some concern myself. Nonetheless I think whether something is "installed" or not is ultimately tangential to what is at issue here and of actual concern. After all, I'm sure Wraith would not argue that a virus that simply loads itself into memory and formats your hard drive without ever "installing" anything is ok simply because it's not being "installed" (and neither would anyone else I'd wager ). So using "installed" as a measure of trustworthiness, safety, or anything else that is really of concern here is not really useful.
-JavaJones (April 01, 2011, 02:49 PM)

First, installation was brought up by the nay sayers, not me. It was in their own words that the problem with OC was that it installed without their knowledge.

Second it is the words that are my entire point of this conversation. OC is *not* adware, nor spyware, nor malware, but it is being categorized as such. Currently adware, spyware, and malware are all negative terms, and the threat of such labels is enough to force action in one way or another. But, if you dilute it using it in edge cases, or cases that have *nothing* to do with the terms in question, you begin to erode the power of the term (see rape, domestic abuse, and racism for examples of such). And that would be a real shame to see happen.

JavaJones · « **Reply #320 on:** April 02, 2011, 01:34 AM »

It seems I agree with you generally speaking Wraith. But what is "adware"? Is that software that consistently displays ads while it runs? And regardless of labels, are you happy with how OC operates and is presented?

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #321 on:** April 02, 2011, 01:38 AM »

Second it is the words that are my entire point of this conversation. OC is *not* adware, nor spyware, nor malware, but it is being categorized as such. Currently adware, spyware, and malware are all negative terms, and the threat of such labels is enough to force action in one way or another. But, if you dilute it using it in edge cases, or cases that have *nothing* to do with the terms in question, you begin to erode the power of the term (see rape, domestic abuse, and racism for examples of such). And that would be a real shame to see happen.
-wraith808 (April 01, 2011, 10:20 PM)

Oooooh~! And don't forget the almighty "terrorism" buzz-word! Especially those ~~students~~ terrorists in the UK that protested education cuts and tuition hikes! $:-\$

Students are not terrorists. A lone kook that starts firing into a crowd is not a terrorist. Students are exactly that - students. Kooky nutjobs that start shooting people are exactly that, nutjobs. But the use of "terrorist" to describe them is a seriously bad idea.

@wraith808 - I think you've hit on an important concept: redefining words is often not a good idea. Where a word evolves in meaning, e.g. "installation" in 1960 vs. "installation" in 2010, that's one thing, but where we casually apply words inappropriately, it is lazy and can be dangerous.

Renegade · « **Reply #322 on:** April 02, 2011, 01:42 AM »

It seems I agree with you generally speaking Wraith. But what is "adware"? Is that software that consistently displays ads while it runs? And regardless of labels, are you happy with how OC operates and is presented?
-JavaJones (April 02, 2011, 01:34 AM)

The term "adware" originated a long, long time ago, in an Internet far, far away. What was going on there was radically different than what is happening now with OC. There's really no comparison. Then, "adware" was installed on your computer and ran in the background to sporadically pop up ads. OC is nothing similar.

While they may both have ads, it's kind of like associating the horror of someone screaming with napalm burning their flesh off and burnt toast, and calling them both "burnt" or "carbon". Maybe not the best example, but the extreme nature of the difference between the two is fairly accurate.

JavaJones · « **Reply #323 on:** April 02, 2011, 02:34 AM »

So what you're saying is we need a new term to define things like OC? Maybe ad-ish-not-entirely-dishonest-may-not-be-so-bad-ware?

- Oshyan

Renegade · « **Reply #324 on:** April 02, 2011, 03:00 AM »

So what you're saying is we need a new term to define things like OC? Maybe ad-ish-not-entirely-dishonest-may-not-be-so-bad-ware?
-JavaJones (April 02, 2011, 02:34 AM)

YES~!

The best thing I've heard so far is "ad supported". It's used across platforms (web, mobile, desktop), and doesn't carry the evil connotations of "adware".

It's fairly accurate as well. Perhaps more accurate would be "ad supported in part" or "partly ad supported", but that's really just splitting hairs. e.g. At the moment my new little photo utility, Photo Resizer, is "partly" (or more accurately "minimally") ad supported as I've paid for everything (which was far from insignificant) except for the absolute tiniest portion that's so small as to not warrant mention, but still, the term "ad supported" is pretty good to describe it as it is short, succinct, and easy to remember.

Quite honestly, I resent the term "adware" to describe it because the connotations that go with "adware" are so horribly negative, and describe something entirely different. It's quite honestly offensive. (This is one of the very, very few areas where I can actually be offended. Which is why I kind of freaked out and blew up at PhilB66 here.)

The thing there is that it is very possible to confuse what's actually going on. From one perspective, they both look the same. The difference is that one of them is rotten inside. It's like meeting a police officer from Brazil and then assuming that he's part of the death squads out killing street children. There are good police, and bad ones too.

When we look at "adware", it has no real benefit. It sucks up CPU, fights with other adware for dominance, soaks up memory, and pops up ads with focus indiscriminately. That is a very, very far cry from software in the "ad supported" world. "Ad supported" software doesn't hide. Opera used to be the poster-child for ad supported, then they got rid of the ads and changed their revenue model some.

Still, I wouldn't label OC (or me or my software) as dishonest. I've been perfectly upfront and transparent about everything. Anything that I have not been upfront about is either a genuine oversight (that I'll happily address) or a detail for a larger issue that I've already mentioned and said I'd address, but simply haven't gotten around to doing so. If anything I'm a shining example of honesty in the software world~!