Coffeehouse Thread

18 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

A new Law to protect users

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    CKurt

    Sometimes it is good to protect users from themself. What do you think about this 'law' ?

     

    A software program installer may not install any additional programs, when they are not depending on each other.

     

    A few examples:
    # Upgrading Skype just asked me if I wanted to install Google Chrome in the installer
    # Installing the Quicktime Codec installs Quicktime Player AND iTunes by default. I don't need iTunes

    # The 'Update Manager' from Apple installs Safari by default

    # Installing Adobe Acrobat reader asks me first if I want Open Office too

     

    This is getting out of hand, right? There must be better ways to promote your software. Protect the 'next' -> 'next' -> 'next' -> 'next' -> 'i accept' -> 'next' -> 'finnish' people! What good is it to get an 'install base' of your software that way is nobody will ever launch or use it anyway. You are messing with the peoples Windows experience!

     

     

  • User profile image
    giovanni

    would love it to be that way, but I am afraid this will be hard to implement...

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    Yep, I see tons of machines with Safari installed just because the user has an iPod. It's shameful, but for every 200 people that install it, 1 might start using it.

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    Why do people ask for laws like this? I hate the practice myself, but a law? Really?

  • User profile image
    davewill

    Just say NO to laws and walk away from the offending software.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    The law would be unenforcable, but this is the type of quality control Apple have on their Phones and Windows 7 will have in the future.

     

    I like a strict set of critera that is solely concerned with the quality of the applications on a device, but no operating system (at this point in time) would be successful if it regulated software in such a manner. There has been significant dissaprobation from developers about Apple's recent draconian methods.

     

    The best way is to get everyone to send the companies you have listed a letter of complaint, explaing your dissatisfaction and annoyance in the install process withh the bundled software in their products - see if you get a reply.

     

    Whether you believe it or not, the general user loves the rubbish-ware that is bundled with new computers, and most say yes because they think they are getting freebies.

     

    A better solution is to have an OptOut boolean setting in windows, that either shows rubbish-ware in installations if set to true, but this probably creates as many problems as it solves.

  • User profile image
    CKurt

    vesuvius said:

    The law would be unenforcable, but this is the type of quality control Apple have on their Phones and Windows 7 will have in the future.

     

    I like a strict set of critera that is solely concerned with the quality of the applications on a device, but no operating system (at this point in time) would be successful if it regulated software in such a manner. There has been significant dissaprobation from developers about Apple's recent draconian methods.

     

    The best way is to get everyone to send the companies you have listed a letter of complaint, explaing your dissatisfaction and annoyance in the install process withh the bundled software in their products - see if you get a reply.

     

    Whether you believe it or not, the general user loves the rubbish-ware that is bundled with new computers, and most say yes because they think they are getting freebies.

     

    A better solution is to have an OptOut boolean setting in windows, that either shows rubbish-ware in installations if set to true, but this probably creates as many problems as it solves.

    But can something be done about the 'update' software? Can windows enforce every software developer to use Windows Update as an update mechanisme?

     

    Especcialy Java updates and so, would that be enforcable?

     

    I know it's very hard to enforce, just like me I know when you use somebody's computer you always ask the question "Do you really use this?' "no" "Then why don't you remove it?"

     

    I think the first stap might be learning people how to uninstall instead of learning them not to install in the first place. Although that might seem backwards.

  • User profile image
    mstefan

    CKurt said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*

    But can something be done about the 'update' software? Can windows enforce every software developer to use Windows Update as an update mechanisme?

     

    Especcialy Java updates and so, would that be enforcable?

     

    I know it's very hard to enforce, just like me I know when you use somebody's computer you always ask the question "Do you really use this?' "no" "Then why don't you remove it?"

     

    I think the first stap might be learning people how to uninstall instead of learning them not to install in the first place. Although that might seem backwards.

    And of course, in some cases it's a source of revenue rather than just self/cross-promotion of other "related" software. Junkware in all of its various forms is here to stay becase, in the end, it's making someone money.

  • User profile image
    turrican

    No.

     

    You know why? It would open a can of worms for those... politicians... and the PC and Internet would die as we know it. Welcome to CableTV or something.

     

    I'm a freemarket guy, let the market decide.

     

    As a user, the power is with you. Don't use bad software. Just as simple as that.

     

    EDIT : Remember! There is always a choice. Atleast for now. Smiley

  • User profile image
    CKurt

    turrican said:

    No.

     

    You know why? It would open a can of worms for those... politicians... and the PC and Internet would die as we know it. Welcome to CableTV or something.

     

    I'm a freemarket guy, let the market decide.

     

    As a user, the power is with you. Don't use bad software. Just as simple as that.

     

    EDIT : Remember! There is always a choice. Atleast for now. Smiley

    I don't eather, but some of my friends are not 'smart' enough. Maybe it's something like "With great power come great resposibility" and my friends are just irisponsible. But don't tell them, because they would say you are a flat out lyer.


    And lets just hope it never comes to CableTV as we know it today, because if there is one thing in this universe thats sucks, it's the restrictions on settop boxes.

     

    @mstefan: indeed, there is always someone to make money of it.

  • User profile image
    exoteric

    giovanni said:

    would love it to be that way, but I am afraid this will be hard to implement...

    It may not be enforced in practice for all software in the world but clearly major software vendors would have to watch their backs...

  • User profile image
    turrican

    CKurt said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    I don't eather, but some of my friends are not 'smart' enough. Maybe it's something like "With great power come great resposibility" and my friends are just irisponsible. But don't tell them, because they would say you are a flat out lyer.


    And lets just hope it never comes to CableTV as we know it today, because if there is one thing in this universe thats sucks, it's the restrictions on settop boxes.

     

    @mstefan: indeed, there is always someone to make money of it.

    Yes, some people are "not smart"... and that is exactly the freemarket at work. Let them be the way they are, if they are not smart enough to use good software, then they will suffer, which is the whole point of freemarket. Let them suffer until they get smarter.

     

    Usually, people do not listen until they hit into a brick wall and if that's the case, then so be it.

    Smiley

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    CKurt said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*

    But can something be done about the 'update' software? Can windows enforce every software developer to use Windows Update as an update mechanisme?

     

    Especcialy Java updates and so, would that be enforcable?

     

    I know it's very hard to enforce, just like me I know when you use somebody's computer you always ask the question "Do you really use this?' "no" "Then why don't you remove it?"

     

    I think the first stap might be learning people how to uninstall instead of learning them not to install in the first place. Although that might seem backwards.

    WindowsUpdate can not be used by 3th party applications at this moment. I did fill in a questionnaire from the Windows Installer (msi) team about a year ago where they were hinting at this kind of functionality.

  • User profile image
    CKurt

    turrican said:
    CKurt said:
    *snip*

    Yes, some people are "not smart"... and that is exactly the freemarket at work. Let them be the way they are, if they are not smart enough to use good software, then they will suffer, which is the whole point of freemarket. Let them suffer until they get smarter.

     

    Usually, people do not listen until they hit into a brick wall and if that's the case, then so be it.

    Smiley

    Yeah well, it kind of makes me think about the whole "Free Credit Card" card stuff, and "Free credit" stuff. Some goverments have come in to play to protect there citisens...

     

    Somehow I find it sad that "not smart" people have suffer... I know they should just learn and then they wouldn't but still, it feels wrong in society.

     

    @ZippyV: Lets really really really hope Windows 8 makes this possible, because it will at least be untill Windows 9 that updates won't ship that way because of backwards compatibility.

  • User profile image
    OrigamiCar

    CKurt said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    Yeah well, it kind of makes me think about the whole "Free Credit Card" card stuff, and "Free credit" stuff. Some goverments have come in to play to protect there citisens...

     

    Somehow I find it sad that "not smart" people have suffer... I know they should just learn and then they wouldn't but still, it feels wrong in society.

     

    @ZippyV: Lets really really really hope Windows 8 makes this possible, because it will at least be untill Windows 9 that updates won't ship that way because of backwards compatibility.

    Yeah - I hate how seemingly every free app now comes with 'xx toolbar' or other such app. A friend of mine has 5 different toolbars installed, none of which she specifically downloaded, but were automatically set to install with other non related software if you don't uncheck the checkbox in a 'custom' installation. Not sure you can legislate against it though - education rather than law would be better.

     

    The other one I absolutely despise and wish they could make illegal is when you are downloading a specific free or shareware app and the website shows an advert for some 'spyware checker' type app with a big download button. Invariably a regular user would hit that 'button' instead and of course the spyware app would report lots of problems and ask for payment for the full version of the app to remove these none existing problems. Now that, I wish they would make illegal.

     

    The same friend got burned exactly this way trying to download Spybot Search and Destroy (a completely free app) but ended up hitting a download link for some useless fake app instead.

     

  • User profile image
    dahat

    You sounds like you are not only inadvertently advocating for more insecure software... but also more expensive (or at least less free software).

     

    Sure... an app installing an update mechanism (blockable or not) can be annoying... it does have the advantage of keeping all of those bits up to date (granted it would be nice if there was some underlying OS or common platform that would enable that).

     

    Also think of all of the applications which include the option to install the Google Toolbar. Do you think they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Hell no! Google is paying them some bounty per install which helps to subsidize the software development... and I’d bet good money the same goes for Opera & Skype.

     

    Yes... it is a similar business model that some spy/adware vendors used back during the heyday of Kazaa and the like... unlike then though, such installations are far more obvious and rejectable... and when they aren’t, you hear screams the way you do a Windows Update adds a Firefox extension.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Then you cannot install WL Essenstial? Like WLPhoto Gallery installed SQL Express.

     

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    CKurt

    dahat said:

    You sounds like you are not only inadvertently advocating for more insecure software... but also more expensive (or at least less free software).

     

    Sure... an app installing an update mechanism (blockable or not) can be annoying... it does have the advantage of keeping all of those bits up to date (granted it would be nice if there was some underlying OS or common platform that would enable that).

     

    Also think of all of the applications which include the option to install the Google Toolbar. Do you think they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Hell no! Google is paying them some bounty per install which helps to subsidize the software development... and I’d bet good money the same goes for Opera & Skype.

     

    Yes... it is a similar business model that some spy/adware vendors used back during the heyday of Kazaa and the like... unlike then though, such installations are far more obvious and rejectable... and when they aren’t, you hear screams the way you do a Windows Update adds a Firefox extension.

    They should be update, i really vote for everything always up to date. I'm not one of those people who never updates. I alwasy do it asap. But indeed an underlying common Os platform should be introduced. At least to UPDATE.

     

    Ubuntu has is a step ahead in that stage. They have the packet manager, to install/uninstall and update software. Also it's nice it autmaticly finds dependencies AND it asks you if you want to continue knowing extra stuff will be installed then you initialy wanted to install to make it work.

     

    But this should not mean you complety get rid of 'downloading and dubbelclicking an exe'. But it is time to offer an alternetive for modest users. It's an automatic quality check a lot of users would like. But is will need a lot of effort from the ecosystem. Time to start!

     

    @OrigamiCar: indeed, that type of adds should be banned. But then again, a decent download website clearly indicates ads vs buttons...

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.