Gizmos Freeware Reviews  

Go Back   Gizmo's Freeware Forum > Freeware Forum > Freeware Installation & Usage

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23. Mar 2012, 08:15 AM   #11 (permalink)
George.J's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,927

Originally Posted by Michel in Quebec View Post
Since OC is included with roughly 400mn application installers, OC should be open source so that independent parties can constantly verify changes and what OC's code presently consists of. So, is OC open source?

If it isn't, then who can guarantee that OC will remain safe to use for long? There'ld be potential for very serious risks being taken, otherwise.

And if OC was free for Linux distributions, then there should be a requirement that OC necessarily be open source and independently modifiable. It'ld need to be GPL'd.

Possible potential risks with OC, if it isn't open-source, will be mentioned more further on in this post.

What's the source for what you quoted about what OC is? It seems like it's from the vendor, OC, which can make incomplete claims, if OC isn't open source.
Do not confuse the term "open" in OpenCandy for open source. It is an advertising software network. I do not know if, it's open source or not, but I strongly feel, that's not what its meant to be. OpenCandy isn't a software to be made open source or GPL'd.

Moreover, OpenCandy has one of the best privacy policies that I've seen. I've read on different sets of pages on the site. As far as I can see, the privacy poliies are changing, but is only just getting better and more stringent every year, since it was introduced way back in 2008. It doesn't have anything to hide what they are doing, and they are also mentioning in their privacy details about the best web debugging tools to use, to monitor the data that they are sending over the network. If there was any personally identifiable information that was sent, the matter should have seen the light by now. The source that I've quoted about OpenCandy is available from their privacy policies itself.

Originally Posted by Michel in Quebec View Post
OC does make a questionable claim according to the article at about OC, when OC says the following.

The "and more" part is very questionable, suspect. I think it's Orbit Downloader that occasionally brings up a small message box or window listing some so-called updates that are available for other applications and if I remember correctly, I don't have all of the listed applications installed. But I checked once or twice about updates that the little message box listed update availability for and which I had installed. There were no updates available at the vendor websites. I won't use the links in the little message window or box that appears. Instead, if it mentions updates for any apps that are installed, then I go to the vendor websites to check for myself.
I've found a similar case for SuMo, the best software update monitor on our site. In most cases, probably its because the applications may not be completly uninstalled from your system, or that the updates was available to the commercial version of the same product, or because of a database error.

Originally Posted by Michel in Quebec View Post
I don't need OpenCandy, and it better be Open as the name says; for open source software. Otherwise, OS makers would be very foolish, desperate and unprofessional for including OC with their offerings. It then should also be specified in the filenames or names of the packages, f.e., by adding "-OC-" in the name.
No softwares that have bundled components specifically name in their software installers that they have it.

Originally Posted by Michel in Quebec View Post
CCleaner and Avira Antivir:

I haven't seen any ads with CCleaner and only get the historical nagger, say, from Avira Antivir Free or Personal. And I keep both up to date.

OC is purportedly or reportedly safe for the time being and let's hope that it remains that way; although, it definitely needs to be made open source, if it isn't, already. But I just tried a Web search (Google) to try to find out if OC is open-source and the website has pages mentioning open source and open-source, but not pages that are evidently about OC being open source. And I'll say more about this under the subheading of "spying" or something like that later in this post.
OpenCandy on their website, refers only that, there are open source softwares that includes OpenCandy. I was not talking about ads inside CCleaner interface or anything. We were talking only about software installers throughout this discussion. OpenCandy is only involved in software installation as an advertising platform. I referred CCleaner and Avast as adware because, the have bundled components like Google Chrome and other software installers that includes toolbars and ads in their installers, which makes them adware. Also most of them are preselected by default.

Originally Posted by Michel in Quebec View Post
Again, OC says,

"and more"!

That's the part that bothers me. I don't know of any installers of any applications, among those I have installed anyway, checking for more than old versions and existence of essential components; besides PSI! If any others do, then this is information that ethically needs to always be provided to the user in no mistakable terms. And it shouldn't be in the copyright or readme file, only. It should be stated to a person peforming an installation and right up front. It should be stated in the download Web page as well. And the details of what's being scanned for need to be stated; no omissions. Otherwise, the software maker or vendor is being secretive and that's something guard against.
OpenCandy doesn't mention in their privacy policies about "and more" for themselves. They specifically state all the components that they collect, which I've written in my previous post at number 3 and none of that matters for me. About the "and more" part for other software installers its quite true. For example, antivirus packages check for other antiviruses installed on the system. Software update monitors checks for all the softwares installed on system. Registry cleaners checks the registry hives deeply. The driver updators check for all the drivers installed on the system etc.

Which is why software installers have the "EULA" that specifically state what they are doing. If a user want's to know more, they EULA will contain a link to their privacy policies page. This is the general procedure that all software packages employ. If all the privacy policies are mentioned iniside the 400x400 pixel screen, it could not be easily readable. That's why they provide a hyperlink to their privacy policies page.

OpenCandy for better or worse?

For a software advertising application that provides the user with full control, I generally tend to trust it more than the others. For example OpenCandy only permits opt-in's for software installations, that they recommend, while most other applications provide only opt-out's, CCleaner and Avast included. Here carelessness wouldn't be question, when you would be running an installer in a hurry.

Best of all, they also provide you to opt-out completly of their advertising technique, by issuing /NoCandy command. How many advertising applications inside software packages allows you to do that? For example you have manually deselect every recommended application that's been built inside software installers like toolbars, product recommendations etc.

OpenCandy cleans itself up after software installation, their temporary download manager, the plugin and all extracted files inside temporary folder. Only the downloaded application stays behind, if you want to perform repairs to the product that you've installed via their network, which is common for all software installers.

The advertisement is only shown once during the software installation. The product recommendations inside the software installer are made by the developers of the software itself. It’s pretty simple, the developers sign up to OpenCandy, gets the Network SDK provided by OpenCandy, for their installer platform, integrates the SDK and submit the installer to OpenCandy, to make sure it’s showing recommendations properly and passes their network policies, so that the developers don't include badware.

The softwares on your system are being scanned by the network, during software installation to see if, the product recommendation included by the developer, is present on your system. If yes, they would provide another software recommendation. As far as the information that they collect, points 1 to 5 under section 3 in my previous post, doesn't matter to me at all, and if they keep it, the same way, I would definitely be a happier person, than cry about my privacy.

If people would have been so stringent on their privacy matters, no one would be uploading their files to VirusTotal, where they scan and "who knows what they might be doing with the file". Also the same with "cloud" antivirus scanners when they scan each file. And the worst of all, there wouldn't be 800 million people on Facebook, if they were really concerned on their privacy. Privacy has become a subjective matter in todays world.
If you seek for attention, do common things in life in an uncommon way!

Last edited by George.J; 23. Mar 2012 at 08:31 AM.
George.J is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.