Sunbeltblog comments
Un-beep-believable. You know what? I've always been too outspoken against many of Microsoft's policies to think I could ever get one of these... now it really looks like I wouldn't even wanna get one anyway. Geez.
Have Microsoft gone mad?
Check this out -- from Paperghost's blog. Microsoft is the ONLY scanner to detect Messenger Plus at VirusTotal.
http://www.vitalsecurity.org/upl...ect1-
710006.jpg
Make that one more mad security MVP
wng_z3r0
Ah, Microsoft, the name you can trust.
That show that Microsoft is more secure....Naaaaahhhhh...
)))
Careful Alex - TNT and BBD are each accusing the other of the same thing. The other comment post was already deleted, so I cannot tell who was really first.
Of course, it IS possible that two people would have the exact same reaction. I've seen it happen before, but only a few times.
Obi Wan, please check the date of my first posting and the date of his first posting.
I've known Alex for some time, not to mention I've been reading this blog for a long time, and this ain't a place where I would act like an idiot.
Maybe BBD can be so smart to explain how is it possible that my comment's posting date is older than his if I copied/pasted his, huh?
Ok, the comment was deleted on the other board. Why would anyone find it amusing to copy and paste somebody else's post anyway? Beats me.
Looks like a new form of trolling ... xerox trolling!
Lollers.
We're behind ya all the way TNT.
Folks --
One thing some people don't realize is that:
a) Bloggers talk to each other.
b) IP numbers for each comment are logged.
BBD's IP is banned and his post is deleted.
disrespectful for Security MVPs and Helpers on security forums.
Has the MVP award been revoked? I read somewhere that MS might have changed its mind.
It seems Patchou has been removed from the MVP Program as stated in Paperghost's opening paragraph in his Oct. 8th blog entry.
i know it might seem stupid, but he has had that in MSGPlus for ages and ive never had a problem with it, its people who dont pay attention that get it installed.
he deserves it, people complaining it has 'LOP' in it is stupid - pay attention when you put it in - everyone needs money!
SubSc, for chrissakes, have you ever installed LOP?
Sure, everyone needs money, but there are some ways that you SHOULDN'T acquire it.
Stealing is one of them. Installing adware, even with permission from the user of the computer is another.
No, its not illegal to install adware like this, but it is immoral! Unsuspecting users will install the sponsor just to be "nice" and not know how to get rid of it.
"its people who dont pay attention that get it installed."
...in other words, I agree with you that Lop is terrible and thank goodness I don't have it on my system.
That's proving your point how, exactly?
The wording in the installer is a big part of the problem. Think about it from the viewpoint of your average computer user. You've just downloaded a program that someone else wrote, which you think will make your life a little better. During the process, you get the choice:
* Install the sponsor program (thank you!)
* I refuse to give my support, don't install the sponsor
The average user probably knows enough about "sponsor programs" to know that they're something you don't want. However, very few people like to "refuse to give support" to someone that's helping them out in some way.
Reading the EULA for the "sponsor program" isn't likely to help the decision much, as they always hide their true effect in legal mumbo-jumbo. So now what? You've got a nicely worded request to install something you know probably isn't good, or a feeling of moral corruption if you don't.
-----
I don't mind that the developer is trying to get some money back for their efforts. But guilt-tripping someone into installing LOP onto their computer... That's what I call low.
This is one of the worst written articles I've ever seen, it's too vague and packed with bias, if more research was done you would've had a better article in my opinion. The sponsor software is not a great thing, but it's not terribly bad, a lot of the points made in these comments and on the article are in fact irrelevant to the entire matter.
The reason that Patchou's status was revoked was because a load of whining little bitches "threatened" Microsoft that they'd leave if the status wasn't revoked. Microsoft would've quite happily let Patchou keep the status if it wasn't for these people, they don't give a damn about the sponsor software, afterall when running any of their free software, it's completely packed with ads, ads to websites that are potentially dangerous to a users computer, smiley central for instance.
I don't get the problem to be honest. The sponsor program that plus! uses gives up the name lop. While I agree that this scares me, I also know (by experience instead of just copying what others say) that the program installed with plus, does not disrupt your computer, and does not give popups that show content not suitable for a pg-rated audience.
Other than that, it is easy to uninstall the sponsor program.
Everyone needs to make money, Patchou is obviously spending an incredible amount of time on messenger plus! addon. Give the guy a break.
" This is one of the worst written articles I've ever seen, it's too vague and packed with bias"
...it walks you through an install of Lop to show you what it does, complete with screenshots. Interesting definition of "vague" you have there.
"The sponsor software is not a great thing, but it's not terribly bad"
...so, do you run it on your system? Or do you take the (commonly used) Patchou supporter line that the only people who DO install it are those that "are too stupid"? Because if you're one of the many apologists for the sponsor program taking that line, you are in effect saying "god, that Lop is terrible. I'm glad I don't have that on my system". Which is hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? Not that its particularly glowing as it is.
"The reason that Patchou's status was revoked was because a load of whining little bitches "threatened" Microsoft that they'd leave if the status wasn't revoked."
...congratulations, you are 100% incorrect. I stated that I might leave the program if Patchou was allowed to remain, because I cannot reconcile the notion of me being on a program as someone peddling something thats classed as borderline Malware by most security companies. I've every right to say that, because as a public figure that's the first thing people will ask me if I don't include it in my writeup - however, that's NOT the same as "threatening to leave the program UNLESS patchou is removed".
Big difference.
In addition, you're being foolish if you think some random people "threatening to leave" would influence Microsofts decision on Patchou. Something similar happened some years back involving someone else on the MVP program, and they didn't listen then.
Which is why nobody "threatened to leave unless Patchou was removed", including myself, because we knew ultimately it wouldn't make any difference. You think MS cares if some random MVP awardees threaten to leave the program? There's around 2,600 MVPs. Losing a few wouldn't make any difference so don't kid yourself.
Or are you rather hilariously saying I don't have the right to voluntarily remove myself from the MVP program, much less state it? I suppose you'll say I shouldn't write anything on my blog next...it wouldn't be the first comical time I've heard it since last week. Then again, a lot of the supporters of Patchou don't want to you express *anything* that's contrary to their point of view. Don't state this...don't write that..post on our forum, but don't be surprised when we delete it...
Patchou was removed because he impacts upon Microsofts userbase with an install of something that's part of a world of software they are actively trying to prevent on a daily basis - ad/spy/malware. In addition, his MVP status would grant him access to numerous things covered by NDA, which would potentially give someone condoning ad/mal/spyware an edge and potentially cause real problems for end-users. If you can't understand this, that's not my problem.
Then again, I saw you say this about a neowin article:
"That article is just full of people commenting about crap they don't have a clue about."
...so I can't say I'm at all surprised by your rather blinkered, dismiss-anything-you-don't-agree-with response.
As for the other guy:
"and does not give popups that show content not suitable for a pg-rated audience."
Incorrect. Numerous colleagues testing this - and myself, come to think of it - have seen no end of incredibly dubious popups from the likes of adultfriendfinder.
"Everyone needs to make money, Patchou is obviously spending an incredible amount of time on messenger plus! addon."
Irrelevant. Numerous programmers make far more complex pieces of software than msgplus, yet don't resort to bundling their software with something like Lop to pay the bills. Every time I hear defences of Patchous method of income, it always ends up falling back on this surreal idea that he is somehow "locked" into using Lop as his sponsor, and has no other way of obtaining any sort of income.
another nonsensical idea, and another nonsensical "defence" of bundling Lop when he could try something else.
Hi,
As far as I know Microsoft already have their Messanger which is MSN Messanger.
Now recent update, is the Live Messanger the rest are "Fake" Maybe!
Karl
Commenting by HaloScan
