Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

What the hell is OpenCandy?

<< < (20/99) > >>

wraith808:
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.
-kartal (May 17, 2009, 10:02 PM)
--- End quote ---

Installshield (and several other installers) do the same thing.  How is this any different?

kartal:
Installshield (and several other installers) do the same thing.  How is this any different?
-wraith808 (May 18, 2009, 12:22 AM)
--- End quote ---

Install shield does what?  Does it install secret advertising network dlls?

The thing is that OC dll is irrelevant, it is not needed to run the application, thus it is irrelevant. Irrelevant dlls, exes etc should not be installed with an application. I am not sure why some of you think that it is ok to install irrelevant dlls, but this is not ok to me. And that is why I am stating my opinion and informing those who have no idea. I am the one opened this thread, if it was not to me most of you had no idea either. I do not think I should be the one who is picked out here.

wraith808, if you tell me what installshield does, I would evaluate what it does and start my crusade against installshield as well. At least I would stop using applications that comes with installshield.

I also would like to state that I do not think the way most of you think in certain cases. For example I do not carry the "but everyone does" logic. I really do not care if everyone does or not I just look at the case and bring it on the table, dissect the matter and make my informed desicion. IF you want to inform yourself based on what others does go ahead but "but everyone does" is neither scientific nor any debatable standard. 

mouser:
I don't mean to be picking on you Kartal -- everyone is entitled to their opinion.  :up:
Furthermore, i've said it before and i'll say it again -- all of us are better off because of the people who are always keeping an eye on and calling out companies when they try to go too far.

Wraith's point though is a good thought experiment for those who are up in arms about the OC DLL.  Think about this:

*ALL* of the major installers (Installshield, Wise, Inno (which i use), NSIS, etc.) can *ALREADY* do what OC is doing.. That is.. they have the functionality to show billboards (adverts) and links to download and install an additional program if user requests it, and even send information over the network.  And all of these tools put a helper .exe that gets installed with the program that aids in uninstallation.  So i'm really not sure why putting these functions into a DLL rather than the main installer helper exe would be something to get upset about.

Again -- if you want to get mad about what an author chooses to *DO* with the OC tool, and you are upset about information being sent over the internet, fine.  But i just don't think it makes sense to get upset about the fact that there is an extra DLL that got installed in the program directory.

kartal:
mouser, I did not think that you were trying to pick on me. But the way wraith808 laid his cases sounded like he wanted to ridicule the idea little bit. I do not have any personally issues with any personality on this board :D

I think everyone said enough of their opinions regarding OC case including myself. All I did was trying to inform people.

I would stop watching this thread from now on because I really do not have anything to add for now. But I will add any bad behaviour that OC might implement in the future to this thread later, again to inform people.

app103:
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.
-mouser (May 17, 2009, 11:38 PM)
--- End quote ---

Please do not to mislead people into thinking that everything that is a .dll file is harmless and nothing to worry about.

Not all .dll files are created equal. Not all applications are .exe.

There are a great many things in this world that are "just a DLL" and nothing to worry about.

There are also things that are a .dll that are a lot more than that. Every IE toolbar is a .dll, including my IE clock and the DC Search bar.

I am not saying that OC's .dll is anything evil like an unwanted toolbar, or even a full application capable of doing anything after the install. But if it is harmless and not capable of doing anything, what would be the reason for leaving it and any registry entries related to it on a user's system after the install process is completed, unless it is to activate and/or retrieve other data later, such as the next install of anything containing OC? This could very easily become a system capable of tracking your software in much the same way wakoopa does, only wakoopa's tracking of this nature is completely opt-in, with the user having full knowledge of what is going on and what data is being collected. Even without the .dll file being left on a user's system and just the registry entries, a lot of data can be collected without the user's knowledge or consent.

The data collected this time might not be the same as they collect next time, concerning whether you accept or decline in that one instance.

Let's say I install something containing OC and decline the recommended application. Then the next time because of the stuff they left on a user's system, they know what I previously installed, so they don't offer me that, and they know what I declined and won't offer me that again, either. After awhile, after a sizable portion of the world's developers are using OC in their installers (which is what they are hoping for), it would be possible to gather a pretty large list of what a user has installed on their system and what they are not interested in, in a single shot.

Your software profile grows with every OC enabled installer you use and the amount of data they know about you and your software installing habits also grows. Combine that with the data they can collect from your IP address when it contacts their servers, and they can pretty much know where you live, your connection type, what ISP you use, whether you install software at night more than during the day, on weekends rather than during the week, and a ton of other statistical data about you,too. Even without knowing your actual identity and precise street address, they can know a lot about you. This is what is not told to the user, and it's this type of information collecting the user doesn't know about and hasn't consented to.

This is like placing non-expiring tracking cookies in your registry....the kind that make the old doubleclick look like angels.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page