ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Nice blog post on the parasitic software hosting sites bundling junkware

<< < (3/10) > >>

skwire:
We've discussed this before and it's still as infuriating as ever.-mouser (April 01, 2014, 12:52 AM)
--- End quote ---

Agreed, +1,  :up:, ad nauseum.  All my software is on their site(s) and has been mangled in this way.  One of the worst things about it is the thought that unknowing Joe User thinks that I allowed them to do this, i.e., sold out.  Grrr...sets my f'ing teeth on edge.

mouser:
For the respective user that would be too late though as once your installer runs, all the crap has already been installed.

Edit: Well, I guess you assume that if you do this your SW wouldn't be wrapped like this in the first place.
--- End quote ---

the first hope would be that the site would not be able to use their wrapper if my installer made the result unusable.
the second hope would be that the really lazy sites that don't check their wrapper success, would get penalized after the fact because my installer would tell the user the reason the installer has failed and blame it on where they got the download.

40hz:
^But even with the new anti-wrapper safeguards, what would prevent them from continuing to distribute the version they already have? New users coming directly in from Google probably wouldn't be aware of what the current version number is.

Target:
and there's nothing to say that they have to wrap/bundle the original install anyway.  Their 'installer' could just be a middleware (cr)app that calls the original installer from the parent site

mouser:
Their 'installer' could just be a middleware (cr)app that calls the original installer from the parent site
--- End quote ---
yeah, you'd want to try to check where your installer was being launched from and by what process -- that should hopefully tell you what you need to know.

But even with the new anti-wrapper safeguards, what would prevent them from continuing to distribute the version they already have?
--- End quote ---


i think you're assigning to them a level of determination and resilliance that is unrealistic.  the more likely scenario is they have an automated process and if a particular installer doesnt "wrap well" for whatever reason, they probably throw it onto the pile of installers not to wrap, and move on.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version