|
The problem that it probably will turn Windows in to a social media platform...I'm not sure we need one more...or any for that matter...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: social media platform...I'm not sure we need one more...or any for that matter...
Yup!
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: MS informed me that Spybot was not in their list of "trustworthy" anti-malware applications and uninstalled it, enabling windows defender instead.
That comes awfully close to censorship if you ask me.
We all know that users don't ever read the messages. Perhaps you clicked "OK" thinking you were just closing the message when actually you OKed the removal of it. We'd have to see a screenshot to know for sure. 
Also, why shouldn't they be allowed to censor what software runs in their OS? Apple has done it for many many years.
Microsoft is King because they opened their software and allowed anyone to write apps that ran in their OS. If they want to reverse that trend, that should be their right.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
What would you say if MS decided for whatever reason that your software gets automatically uninstalled?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: What would you say if MS decided for whatever reason that your software gets automatically uninstalled?
I would not like that. And I would try to find out why. But I would also know it's their right to do with their software what they want.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS - WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM: 13.c. Malware protection. Microsoft cares about protecting your device from malware. The software will turn on malware protection if other protection is not installed or has expired. To do so, other antimalware software will be disabled or may have to be removed.
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be fine if their software was at least as good as what it's removing...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
The harsh point of it is, that the only vote for removing any software is in Microsoft's hand - a good opening to force software vendors to pay for being on the good list...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: a good opening to force software vendors to pay for being on the good list
Now that would be extortion: Read lawsuits aplenty! 
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm following the conversation correctly, it was the free version that was uninstalled. I doubt that falls into the 'expired' category. Unless Microsoft defines it as 'no active subscription' which is just being overly pedantic.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see this causing huge problems with false positives if they leave this in.
Just imagine all those dlls or applications that get removed because the OS incorrectly identifies them as suspicious - also there are genuine cases where some people will want suspicious applications running on their computers to test firewalls etc.
I am guessing that there is going to be an easy way to switch this off in an upcoming patch - either that or the people at Microsoft have finally gone bananas.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I had a strange experience when I upgraded my grandson's laptop to 10. He had an old version of the Western Digital version of Acronis on the machine. (I put it there, to create system images.)
The Win 10 upgrader saw it as malware, and tried to uninstall it. But you don't get rid of Acronis that easily. So the attempt to remove it, failed. The machine then went into an infinite loop of trying to get rid of Acronis, failing and automatically restarting. Repeat indefinitely! I couldn't stop it!  I had to boot from a repair CD and format the friggin drive. Then I did a clean install, which worked like a dream! He now loves Win 10!
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
modified 25-Jan-16 8:41am.
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: Since everyone is complaining about windows 10.
Who is this 'everyone'? There are millions upon millions including me that aren't complaining at all!
V. wrote: That comes awfully close to censorship if you ask me.
Then I suggest that you reacquaint yourself with the meaning of 'censorship' for starters. There have been doubts about Spybot for years and it has consistently rated at 1 star (or less!) in reviews. There is every reason for MS to blacklist it to protect its OS and its users. You presumably use a malware monitor in order to eradicate programs which represent a potential danger to your security. What genuine difference is there when the OS does it instead?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
How do we preserve the wisdom men will need,
when their violent passions are spent?
- The Lost Horizon
|
|
|
|
|
A better way of doing things is to warn the user about a product and make suggestions, leaving it up to the user to have the final decision. And indeed, I did not read up on Spybot for a while, that much is true, but removing something without my consent is something else. (yes, it is in the user agreement probably, but that's for another discussion)
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it pays to stay in bed in Monday, rather than spending the rest of the week debugging Monday's code 
|
|
|
|
|
Been there done that! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the MD5 SHA of the first 100 000 prime numbers string "12357..." ?
|
|
|
|
|
| 42
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
73
"You'd have to be a floating database guru clad in a white toga and ghandi level of sereneness to fix this goddamn clusterfuck.", BruceN[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
CListView! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Liquid Nitrogen
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
|
And just where does encryption come in?
Neither MD5 nor SHA are encryption algorithms: they are both hashing algorithms. The difference is significant - encryption can be reversed to obtain the original input, but hashing can't.
And 1 is not a prime number...Why is the number one not a prime?[^]
But...the hashes for the actual first 100,000 primes as a non-separated string are:
MD5: BAC0E621A5121A4ECA7Fxxxxxxxxxxxx
SHA 256: 9c3d1ca55b62ea4bab567a5dab8a62xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The "x"es I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
