On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 05:32:00AM -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 13:05:05 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> >>
> >> So, wait, Firefox is Malware? Did you notice that with FF4
> >> they changed it so that you didn't get prompted on la
On Dec 10, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 13:05:05 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Polytropon wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:38:59 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
It's still not malware, it's bloatware. Why would you
not go to t
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 13:05:05 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Polytropon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:38:59 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> >> It's still not malware, it's bloatware. Why would you
> >> not go to the development website to get the program anyway?
> >
On Dec 9, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:38:59 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> It's still not malware, it's bloatware. Why would you
>> not go to the development website to get the program anyway?
>
> Uninvitedly adding toolbars, changing web browser
> home page and d
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:38:59 -0600, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> It's still not malware, it's bloatware. Why would you
> not go to the development website to get the program anyway?
Uninvitedly adding toolbars, changing web browser
home page and default search engine are - in my
opinion - malicious acts,
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Chris Brennan wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Ryan Coleman
> wrote:
> Yeah, someone on my LUG list tried to claim that the TCLUG list was the
> reason for the /. article…
>
> stupid peons…
>
> It's still not malware, it's bloatware. Why would you not go
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Ryan Coleman wrote:
Yeah, someone on my LUG list tried to claim that the TCLUG list was the
>
reason for the /. article…
>
> stupid peons…
>
> It's still not malware, it's bloatware. Why would you not go to the
> development
website to get the program anyway?
S
On Dec 9, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Chris Brennan wrote:
> Sorry for the cross post I hadn't seen any chatter about this on the lists.
> It
> would seem that Download.com got caught with their pants down and were
> re-wrapping F/OSS with their own installer and bundling adware, spyware
> and malware with
Sorry for the cross post I hadn't seen any chatter about this on the lists.
It
would seem that Download.com got caught with their pants down and were
re-wrapping F/OSS with their own installer and bundling adware, spyware
and malware with it.
NMap's author, over at insecure.org got pretty hot abou
