Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Xerithane's Journal: My stance on Gator. 97

Journal by Xerithane

Dons asbestos suit

I posted a few comments in the Gator thread. There are several reasons for this, one is that I know a lot of people that work for Gator. The second is that I try to gain a lot of knowledge to form an opinion on a subject, without listening to the Slashbot mentality. I support DRM, I think Gator is perfectly fine. I'd never use it, but as far as ethics and legality go, they're in the clear.

Most people don't have a clear understanding of what Gator does, how it gets installed, or why most people don't like it. I'm going to attempt to educate people who are unsure or on the I-Hate-Gator Bandwagon. It probably won't work, but that's ok.

Gator is advertising software. This is how they make their money, and they are making money. They showed everybody how to make money on the internet via advertisement, and a lot of people don't like that. Banner advertisements don't work, but the Gator ads do. They are targetted, they have coupons, and all sorts of great things. Imagine walking into the supermarket and having a guy standing in the Ice Cream isle telling you, "I see you are looking at Ben & Jerry's, but if you buy this brand I'll give you a 50 cent off coupon!" That's good advertisement, and it's targetted. Aside from the supermarket getting irritated at the guy, everybody wins except for Ben & Jerry's. Some say it's mafia advertiser tactics, but almost everybody already does this. Price-matching, competitor coupons, and all that. It's a common practice, and Gator just brought it to the digital world.

Gator pays free software authors. Gator is bundled with a lot of software that is released as free, advertiser-supported software. To use the software, watch some ads when you browse the web. The authors get paid, you get some ads (and possible save some cash) and get to use the software for free, everybody wins.

Gator informs you of everything they do. On Gator.com and GAIN they disclose everything. I also know for a fact that any user is prompted to let them know they are installing Gator. There is absolutely no way that Gator can be installed without knowing about it. Gator gets installed via the Gator servers, through the web. It prompts you. If you also decline to install it you will not be bothered as long as the cookie exists (Gator sets a cookie, and won't prompt for an install if the cookie exists)

Gator knows it's viewed as a horrible, nasty company. They don't mess around. They know that if they screw up, it means more lawsuits. People don't like advertisers because of the reputation established via such pristine companies as DoubleClick. Gator isn't DoubleClick. Gator isn't Spyware. Gator doesn't do anything to you without you being able to know about it.

Update: I was informed that Gator also does something for the uneducated masses who set their Active X security control level to "Low". Their special gift is noticing that, and self-deletes and will not install because IE will fail to prompt.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

My stance on Gator. More

My stance on Gator.

Comments Filter:
  • I've had Gator install itself on two separate computers without ever telling or warning me it was going to install. Though not recently, so maybe it used to do that (like, when it first came out) and they cleaned it up?

    Actually, what I think happened was that it installed itself concurrently with some other software, and the Gator notice was probably buried deep in the EULA for the other software (not as a separate EULA, and without any extra, separate, specific warning about Gator in any way, shape or fo
    • I've had Gator install itself on two separate computers without ever telling or warning me it was going to install. Though not recently, so maybe it used to do that (like, when it first came out) and they cleaned it up?
      This would come from Ad-supported software. I can also guarantee you that unless the ad-supported software you were using was violating Gators license, it told you at least once in the install process.

      Actually, what I think happened was that it installed itself concurrently with some oth
    • I've had Gator install itself on two separate computers without ever telling or warning me it was going to install. Though not recently, so maybe it used to do that (like, when it first came out) and they cleaned it up?

      Actually, what I think happened was that it installed itself concurrently with some other software, and the Gator notice was probably buried deep in the EULA for the other software (not as a separate EULA, and without any extra, separate, specific warning about Gator in any way, shape or fo
      • But if every adware/spyware company was as well behaved as Gator there wouldn't be a problem.
        Thanks. This is my whole point.

        I still think their software is written like ass though. I think if it didn't take up 30+ MB it would be much more liked in the world.. :)
  • ... I don't care. I won't use it anyway and will warn anyone that I see using it. End of story.
    • ... I don't care. I won't use it anyway and will warn anyone that I see using it. End of story.

      I do to. I won't use it, and will tell people not to use it. I don't think it's coded all that well and the benefit of using it doesn't justify the wasted CPU cycles. I'm discounting the bullshit comments about it being spyware and that nonsense.
      • Well, you see... The problem that I have with this kind of software is the ad-delaying stuff. A small anecdote for you. I run a small server on my DSL line and have given some email addresses to people I know so they can use the webmail installed on my server.
        One day, I was IMing with a person with such an account and suddenly he asks me "say, what's up with those popup ads on your webmail?". I was completely flabbergasted. Had I been hacked? Or what's up. I visit my webmail. No popups.... Turn of
        • Gator is perhaps not as insidious as Xupiter is (since you claim it *ask* politely, I'll give you that. I won't try.), but it does change the way my site is viewed, and with *that* I do not agree.

          It's not your site. It's what is displayed on their computer. If you object to applications changing the way your site is viewed, you probably hate anything that goes over the web browser. Gator is very obvious that it is a Gator advertisement and not anything related to the page (outside of targetted adverts
          • It is *my* site. I know about "every webbrowser displays differently", but I don't think a popup ad falls in that category of deformation. Of course, my webpage looks different between Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Netscape 4.xx. Heck, it's even different between Camino and Mozilla on Mac OS X. However, I don't think that a "Horny Girls want to Suck your Cock" should be shown on my webmail site.

            Oh, and I *do* dictate what goes on other people's computers. The *moment* they ask me for help, they have to

            • It is *my* site. I know about "every webbrowser displays differently", but I don't think a popup ad falls in that category of deformation. Of course, my webpage looks different between Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Netscape 4.xx. Heck, it's even different between Camino and Mozilla on Mac OS X. However, I don't think that a "Horny Girls want to Suck your Cock" should be shown on my webmail site.

              Your site is what is displayed inside the web-browser. That is all. You have no guarantee about the computer, o
              • While I do agree to a certain extent about responsibility, there is a problem. People tend to think of their computers as they think of their VCR's. An appliance. You know it's not, I know it's not.

                However, saying there are manuals is not a good thing. Back in the day, you got a 500 page binder with your computer explaining the ins and the outs of it. Now, you get a 50-page "how to use WinXP" booklet with shiny certificate and a 5 page folder how to plug in your keyboard and stuff. That kind of docu

                • You see, in that comparision computers are like cars. Highly sensitive machines that need maintenance. Oh, and it isn't your car manual that advises against driving drunk... it is the fact that you followed your driving license courses. So essentialy, you are (in a hardliner kind of way) saying what I have said in years: we need mandatory courses for all computer users. So that they are aware of the dangers. It is the only way to protect them: education.

                  This is just bunk. Comparing car mechanics and comp
              • You made 24 post in 6 hours, my reply [slashdot.org] scrolled off your history list.

                Plus I have a "P.S." I forgot to include. You harp on and on about contracts, but people who have not agreed a contract can make fair use and you have absolutely nothing to enforce. John Q. Random can sit down at a computer with a DRM file, decrypt that file, and even publish a peice of the content as part of a critical review. So much for any mention of contracts. As I said, you can enforce copyright, you can enforce contracts, you CANNO
                • You made 24 post in 6 hours, my reply scrolled off your history list.

                  Stop posting off-topic messages. If I don't respond to you, it means I just don't care to. I don't need you to follow me around.

                  you CANNOT put John Q. Random in prision for circumventing your precious DRM!
                  That isn't what DRM is about. DRM is about making it harder. DRM is about putting technological controls on licensed content.
                  • If I don't respond to you, it means I just don't care to.

                    Once a post scrolls off my history list I generally never see any replies to it. I just didn't want my post to vanish unseen. If you see my post and choose not to respond, that's fine by me. Though maybe we can reach some agreement with this post.

                    How about I conceed you complete victory on your argument?

                    You earlier said "My arguments are very concise: DRM can be good". Fine, you can have you argument. DRM is great and wonderful. You can use DRM al
                    • Now the question - are you arguing for John Q. Random to be sent to prison? If not then you agree with my argument against laws enforcing DRM and you agree the DMCA is bad.
                      K, I'll sum it up here. DMCA needs to be reformed. The DMCA still allows educational hacking, and research hacking, that's a good thing.

                      According to the DMCA John would be criminally guilty of both circumvention and of trafficking. Each crime is punishable with up to 5 years in prison, 10 years each if it is a second offence.
                      Incor
                    • DMCA needs to be reformed.

                      We agree.

                      Incorrect interpretation.

                      We agree that we dissagree on interpreting the reverse engineering clause. Lets see if we can resolve this dissagreement.

                      Implementing a full player (whose sole purpose is not circumvention) is perfectly legal and allowable. That is where a lot of confusion comes in at. Interoperability is expressly allowed via the DMCA.

                      I agree that clause is written in a confusing way. I have explained a few times why it doesn't mean what you say it means
                    • The reverse engineering clause says you may decrypt a program. A DeCSS+player decrypts content. It is still a crime to decrypt content.

                      It is a crime to distribute software thats sole purpose is copyright-device circumvention.

                      That's all there is to it. Your explanation is flawed, the law and interpretation of the law will tell you that if you go through it more.

                      The DMCA has certain exemptions for research, but it still makes it a crime for a scientist to publish his research. Science cannot exist with
                    • Your explanation is flawed,

                      Saying my explanation is flawed is meaningless unless you show how/why it is flawed.

                      the law and interpretation of the law will tell you that if you go through it more.

                      I call bullshit. My explanion is not flawed. You have not shown how/why I am wrong because I you can't. I defy you to show how my explanation is flawed.

                      You keep calling me illiterate, but it's you who is incapable of reading the law and finding evidence proving me wrong. I read the law. I posted proof you are
                    • I call bullshit. My explanion is not flawed. You have not shown how/why I am wrong because I you can't. I defy you to show how my explanation is flawed.

                      I can, it requires more copy and pasting and interpreting than you would willing to read, understand, and comprehend. As I have already stated, you are set in your ways. You have an unrealistic ideology, and it's not my place to go into the roots of your misunderstandings about life and help cure of them. That's up to you to research and experience.

                      T
                    • >I defy you to show how my explanation is flawed.
                      I can

                      Empty assertion. You claim you can, but the fact is you didn't. I say you can't. *Poof* I just beat you LOL!

                      Wrong, the exemptions in the DMCA already have those paragraphs.

                      Empty assertion. I showed you paragraphs from the DMCA that prove I'm right. If there were any paragraphs proving me wrong you would have presented them. You came here empty handed because there are no paragraphs proving me wrong.

                      I urged you to read it, and you have obviousl
                    • Empty assertion. I showed you paragraphs from the DMCA that prove I'm right. If there were any paragraphs proving me wrong you would have presented them. You came here empty handed because there are no paragraphs proving me wrong.
                      No, you wouldn't.

                      That trick has been tried and it has failed. Copyright law CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 102. Sec. 102. - Subject matter of copyright: spells out what is and what is not subject to copyright protection. Only expressive information is copyrightable. Functional and factual
                    • >Empty assertion. I showed you paragraphs from the DMCA that prove I'm right. If there were any paragraphs proving me wrong you would have presented them. You came here empty handed because there are no paragraphs proving me wrong.

                      No, you wouldn't.

                      That comment is incomplete and unintelligible. I wouldn't what?!?
                      The text you quoted does not identify the missing "what". That text is mostly about you. The only part about me is that "I showed paragraphs". I wouldn't have shown paragraphs???

                      Interoperabil
                    • Interoperability does not mean what you claim it means. The DMCA defines interoperability, and it contradicts what you said. You have not even attempted to counter this. You can't "win the argument" if you don't even present an argument.

                      You are missing my goal here. My goal is not to win any argument, because there is none. You are not arguing, but merely professing your side without any open mindedness. Why should I exert myself if you are not open to hearing the other side?

                      Wrong. For example DeCSS
                    • You are not arguing, but merely professing your side without any open mindedness.

                      Open mindedness? You mean I'm supposed to accept "you're confused" and "you're wrong" and vague "go read the law" comments as proof?

                      Why should I exert myself if you are not open to hearing the other side?

                      I am open to hearing arguments and evidence. What I am not open to is hearing "you are wrong" without a reason. If you want to claim I'm wrong you have to show how/why I am wrong.

                      If I make a statement and you say I'm wro
                    • Open mindedness? You mean I'm supposed to accept "you're confused" and "you're wrong" and vague "go read the law" comments as proof?

                      Vague go read the law? We're talking about the law. If I ask you to go read the law, that is hardly vague.

                      (1)The text says it applies for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability with other programs, but DeCSS+player has nothing to do with other programs. You explicity admited DeCSS has nothing to do with interoperability.

                      DeCSS has nothing to do with interoperab
                    • Vague go read the law? We're talking about the law. If I ask you to go read the law, that is hardly vague.

                      The full text of the DMCA [eff.org] is one hundred and fifty screens of text (and my screen is 1024x768). Even if we assume you are merely reffering to the relevant part, Chapter 12, [cornell.edu] that's still five sections with some one hundred and fifty or so paragraphs. Yep, it's vague.

                      Were you aware the full text is 150 pages? Have you read all of chapter 12?

                      If you have a point to make about the law then you need to re
                    • Interoperability:
                      Program A contacts program B with some request X.
                      Program B understands X and sends reply Y back to program A.
                      Program A is able to understand and use Y.

                      MPlayer contacts Xine with Request Play against Data Y.
                      Windows Media Player contacts Codec with Request Play against Data Y.

                      Program A is able to understand and use Data Y. You seem to think that the only exchange of information comes from network communication. A case for interoperability can be interpreted however.

                      The key point is tha
                    • You seem to think that the only exchange of information comes from network communication.

                      I never intended to suggest that. Interoperability applies when programs send messages to other programs. That includes programs on the same machine.

                      MPlayer contacts Xine with Request Play against Data Y.

                      Interoperability means you know how to make the request. Of course there's nothing wrong with Xine returning an error message if Data Y is not a video file it understands.

                      If you give MPlayer a normal video file i
                    • (1) Just recently you were exclaiming that copyright and DRM have nothing to do with putting people in prison. Now you're embracing it?

                      DRM has nothing to do with putting people in prison. The DMCA does. This is what I am saying. DRM is something people do to protect their goods, like a lock on a door to a home or business. The DMCA makes it a felony to pick that lock, but having the lock ensures that I am protected by the DMCA and also still have the right for pursuing civil actions against the party
                    • You did not respond to anything I said about interoperability. If you have no objection to anything I said then I can only conclude that you aknowledge my reading of the clause? Do we agree that that clause is essentially useless and irrelevant?

                      On point (1)
                      DRM is something people do to protect their goods

                      Agreed. However there are any number of things I can do to "protect my goods". When I go to the beach I can build a sandcastle around my wallet. If someone "breaks through" my sand wall and does not tak
                    • You did not respond to anything I said about interoperability. If you have no objection to anything I said then I can only conclude that you aknowledge my reading of the clause? Do we agree that that clause is essentially useless and irrelevant?
                      I'm agreeing to disagree, as I think the devil lies in the interpretation. Until we have that interpretation, it's a moot point to argue.

                      Agreed. However there are any number of things I can do to "protect my goods". When I go to the beach I can build a sandcastl
                    • I'm agreeing to disagree, as I think the devil lies in the interpretation. Until we have that interpretation

                      Until we have that interpretation???? I gave over a dozzen refferences that define the term. I gave you DICTIONARY links. I gave you DICTIONARY.COM. Every single one defines interoperability to mean programs that can communicate with each other. You don't have even a single refference that says otherwise.

                      You can interpret "interoperability" to mean anything you like, but you are no longer speaking
                    • Until we have that interpretation???? I gave over a dozzen refferences that define the term. I gave you DICTIONARY links. I gave you DICTIONARY.COM. Every single one defines interoperability to mean programs that can communicate with each other. You don't have even a single refference that says otherwise.

                      "programs that can communicate with each other." Define what that means, "Interoperability". Continue. The case of ambiguity with that is Skylarov/ElcomSoft... that clause is too vague to determine wha
                    • Define what that means, "Interoperability".

                      WTF? I just gave you over a dozen sources defining it! Including dictionaries!!

                      There is no ambiguity. Every single refference source indicates that interoperability reffers to programs sending information to other programs.

                      I see five options here.
                      (1) You show that I have missunderstood or missrepresented those refferences in some specific manner.
                      (2) You come up with another dictionary that contradicts the dictionaries I refferenced.
                      (3) You acknowledge interoper

                    • First of all you have a copy rights, not property rights. Secondly I never claimed unrestricted rights. But I did point out that your copy rights have specific limits. And I am perfectly free to do anything I like so long as I do not violate your copy rights. And your copy rights consist of the exclusive right to make copies. The exclusive right to distribute copies. The exclusive perfomance rights. Period. Copyright grants only those rights. Those rights are limited in duration and are subject to all sort
                    • You again ignored the fact that I provided dictionaries proving you wrong about "interoperability". Even if you were right, you still can't show how that clause would apply to making a DVD player. You chose option (4) pretend those refferences don't exist and I write you off as being in self-denial.

                      I admit I'm dissapointed, but not supprised. Any time you are proven wrong you merely pretend it doesn't exist. And if it doesn't exist then you're still "right".

                      you don't think information is property and thi
                    • You again ignored the fact that I provided dictionaries proving you wrong about "interoperability". Even if you were right, you still can't show how that clause would apply to making a DVD player. You chose option (4) pretend those refferences don't exist and I write you off as being in self-denial.

                      No, I don't. I am merely stating that a court has not decided what constitutes interoperability and what is allowed in those clauses. I've already stated that. You are harping on irrelevant points and not lo
                    • I am merely stating that a court has not decided what constitutes interoperability and what is allowed in those clauses.

                      Yes, courts get to interpret the law when there is a question of intent. But they do so within the meanings of the words themselves. They do NOT go contrary to the english language.

                      Just because you missunderstood interoperability does not make it a valid interpretation. And your interpretation is completely contrary to the intent of the law, it would permit people to strip off the DRM l

  • drm? (Score:2)

    by Triv ( 181010 ) *
    You said you support DRM. Just so I know where you are on the RADAR (and for a time-wasting friday conversation ;) can you exemplify that? Do you support it in all instances? How far does your support run?

    Triv
    • You said you support DRM. Just so I know where you are on the RADAR (and for a time-wasting friday conversation ;) can you exemplify that? Do you support it in all instances? How far does your support run?
      Quick summary: I support DRM in restricting usage to content as allowed by the licenses. A great example is the iTunes store. Download an AAC that prevents you from sharing it on a P2P service, but still lets you burn it. Gives responsibility to the consumer to not go out of their way to violate the l
      • damnit. I was looking for a contrary opinion to get good and worked up over. I feel deflated. :)

        I agree with the iTunes store's restrictions as well even though I haven't had the chance to buy anything yet. I'd like a higher quality download, 160 kbps or so, but the security features I have no problem with.

        Triv
        • damnit. I was looking for a contrary opinion to get good and worked up over. I feel deflated. :)

          Great minds think alike? So do mediocre ones! ;)

      • Re:drm? (Score:2)

        by ces ( 119879 )
        Quick summary: I support DRM in restricting usage to content as allowed by the licenses. A great example is the iTunes store. Download an AAC that prevents you from sharing it on a P2P service, but still lets you burn it. Gives responsibility to the consumer to not go out of their way to violate the license, but grants the freedoms to let it be used in the ways it was intended.

        It depends on the DRM and what infrastrutcture is mandated along with it.

        The two things that bother me the most currently are:

        Re
  • Aside from the obvious annoyance of targeted adds (there is just something creepy about that) I do agree that the support of free apps that they give is a good service.

    Take a look at Divx. Great software. How many people have it installed? A lot.

    I am starting to see many more apps that are usefull projects put together by some guy / gal in their spare time. The reason I am seeing them is because they show up on the major freeware / shareware sites. Many are bundled with GAIN.

    I can fault Gator if the
    • I can fault Gator if they are actually replacing the graphical image that is supposed to appear on the web site of the competition. If what they are doing is sending a pop up/under but not actually changing the web site, then that seems (IANAL) legal.

      It is a window that is opened on top of the browser that is borderless, but has a handle so you can move it and close it. It is made to take up only the real-estate of the advert is is being displayed on top of so that it will not obstruct the content fo th
  • Gator = scumware...OK maybe their not "technically" scumware, but their business practice is certianly shady if not outright illegal.

    Imagine walking into the supermarket and having a guy standing in the Ice Cream isle telling you, "I see you are looking at Ben & Jerry's, but if you buy this brand I'll give you a 50 cent off coupon!" That's good advertisement, and it's targetted. Aside from the supermarket getting irritated at the guy, everybody wins except for Ben & Jerry's.

    Ok, since this doesn
    • Gator = scumware...OK maybe their not "technically" scumware, but their business practice is certianly shady if not outright illegal.
      Give me a few points why their practices are illegal and shady. I will tell you if you are misinformed as to what they actually do or not.

      A better analogy: imagine somebody going around inserting their own flyers and coupons into all the NY Times they could find, even though they didn't pay the NY Times a cent. Meanwhile, other advertisers are paying NYT thousands of doll
      • Give me a few points why their practices are illegal and shady. I will tell you if you are misinformed as to what they actually do or not.

        Ok, let me spell it out for you:

        Gator's business practice of popping ads on publisher sites is shady because they are, on a certain level, stealing. They are leeching off traffic from the NYT and other sites to generate advertising revenue.

        They are competing with NYT's legitament advertisers and diluting the impact of those ads. Therefore, they are decreasing the valu
        • Gator's business practice of popping ads on publisher sites is shady because they are, on a certain level, stealing. They are leeching off traffic from the NYT and other sites to generate advertising revenue.
          They are not stealing. The user chooses to use the software, so if you want to say someone is stealing the user would be stealing. The user can also close the window, or move it out of the way.

          Show me text from Gator's installation screen that says "WE WILL OPEN POPUPS ON YOUR COMPUTER DESKTOP." O
          • You certainly are the contrarian, aren't you?
            • Well you just gave up, so I guess you must think he makes good points..

              I don't like Gator, but I agree that users are partly to blame since they install all kinds of software without knowing what it does (why do you think so many people use Windows???)
              • I gave up from irritation and frustration, not because he made good points.

                However, now that I am rested...let's go to the CORE of his stance on why Gator isn't spyware/whatever. Then a word about my "contrarian" comment.

                CORE #1: People who install Gator without reading up on its terms of use are stupid. It's all right there on the Gator web site.

                Actually, anyone who considers this statement for a moment can see that the opposite is true: People who read the entire EULA and Gator website and STILL inst
                • Think about it: These people are too "stupid"/lazy to remember or type in their own billing/shipping address, credit card number (!) and a few passwords. Why don't they just do what I and so many others do? Memorize everything! Duh. You don't have to worry about anybody hacking it, and it follows you to whatever computer you use.
                  This is just incorrect. You are assuming because you don't like something, others don't like it. If they do like it, they are idiots. Gator is installed on 35 million desktops.
                  • Ok so now we have Core #3

                    35 million people have Gator installed on their desktops.

                    The conclusion you try to draw from this statement is "therefore, 35 million people are happy Gator users."

                    Yet, you have admitted that Gator did not *always* use kosher techniques for installing its software on computers, but has since cleaned up its act. How many of those computers have Gator software installed from the bad, early days, I wonder?

                    Furthermore, you are making the logical error of argumentum ad populum, ap
                    • Yet, you have admitted that Gator did not *always* use kosher techniques for installing its software on computers, but has since cleaned up its act. How many of those computers have Gator software installed from the bad, early days, I wonder?
                      I have never said that Gator does not use kosher techniques. I said that some of the lesser known bundled software did. There is a difference. There has never been "bad, early days" either. You are making things up. Second, Gator can be easily uninstalled. Just
                    • Ok...there is a lot on this topic in my mind, so I will do my best to distill it into writing...

                      Gator is advertising software which collects certain information but protects the anonymity of its users.

                      That is to say, it collects "no personally identifiable information." Well, aside from the first name, zip code and traffic data of its users. And information on the software you have installed on your computer.

                      I hope, as a Gator users, you don't have an uncommon first name like Chesterfield. That plus z
                    • I hope, as a Gator users, you don't have an uncommon first name like Chesterfield. That plus zip code could equal "very easily identifiable." Therefore, you had better provide a fake name. Then again, if you are smart (paranoid?) enough use a fake name why are you using Gator?
                      The entire idea that is flawed is that someone cares. They don't keep a data facility to backtrack all of the data. They just don't care. They care about demographics. They don't sell your information, outside of what is disclose
              • I don't like Gator, but I agree that users are partly to blame since they install all kinds of software without knowing what it does (why do you think so many people use Windows???)
                All I'm saying is hate the application, not the company. I think the company has (for the most part) great ethics. They disclose everything, and try to inform everybody who actually takes 2 seconds out to try to learn. The application sucks, and I can't stand it... that's not the point.

                Thanks for posting in the thread. I f
      • You have to blindly click Next on the installation screens to not know what is being installed.

        Yes, as does Joe Sixpack all the time. He does not know what he is doing, and that's the part that makes it scummy. Compare it to a 55mph sign that is overgrown by ivy and then the cop pulls you over and you get a ticket. Legally, he is allowed because you drove faster than those 55mph. However, you had no chance in seeing it.
        I am no lawyer, I do not understand half what is says in a EULA (apart from tha

        • Yes, as does Joe Sixpack all the time. He does not know what he is doing, and that's the part that makes it scummy.

          Ok, so because they click Next on a page that has a big fucking green aligator on it, it's their fault and they're scummy. Right.

          Compare it to a 55mph sign that is overgrown by ivy and then the cop pulls you over and you get a ticket. Legally, he is allowed because you drove faster than those 55mph. However, you had no chance in seeing it.

          Dude. Seriously, Gator pops up at least one win
          • I am *NOT* defending stupidity. However I'm the guy who cleans up this kind of mess all the time.

            Besides, the gator logo doesn't say a damned shit to a normal user. It might as well be the mascot of the thing they are installing. Heck, look at it: some commercial games launch 3 or 4 installers after each other (Halflife is one of these). That's the game, a patch, then another patch, then multiplayer whatever. Each of them with different logos, but all launched by the same SETUP.EXE launched by the CD

            • If technical inclined people would not try to defend the helpless (not dumb, helpless) from damage they inflict on themselves you would never see things like airbags, fuses, anti-virus software (and you probably can think of more)
              Agreed, but if people can't be responsible than I don't want to live in that world. Have you thought that maybe if everybody stopped helping uninstall programs like Gator, people would start actually reading what they're doing instead of clicking next?

              Airbags is a bad example t
              • <flamebait>
                Agreed, but if people can't be responsible than I don't want to live in that world.

                You live in the US, right? Home of the silly lawsuits where irresponsible people win millions against big companies (smokers vs. Big Tobacco... stupid woman vs. McDonalds.)
                I suggest you go to your local supermarket and buy a gun so you can shoot your own brains out. I mean, that way, you'll be out of this world.
                </flamebait>

                You know, I used to be like you. Hardliner, saying that people need to

                • You know, I used to be like you. Hardliner, saying that people need to learn about computers. Educate themselves... Yes, I used to be that way.

                  Now you are worse. You glorify what you do (as you said previously, your "clients"...)

                  I was that way until the day I was working as postal boy in a big bank and a came accross some financial manager. (Note: this was in DOS times). I saw him type in the same long command every time (to start a teminal application). I wanted to be helpful, and walked over to him
                  • XP doesn't need anybody who understands it to run it smoothly, as long as the user pays attention to what gets installed on it

                    Oh, like that guy I know that bought a new AMD 1.7GHz computer (with loads of RAM) that called me last saturday because Vice City was slow? That XP that was messed up beyond repair? Just because he had installed all crap he could lay his hands on and that his CPU was running at 100% all the time?
                    Not installing crap requires education... education that the normal user doesn'

                    • That is my whole point (also replying here to the other reply you gave me). I do not say that computers are hard (I know they are not), but most people are not interested in learning a bit about the basics. The only thing you can do is help where you can.
                      I have the opposite stance. If someone is unwilling to learn the basics, I am unwilling to help them. If someone asks my help, they get one session. If they don't pay attention or listen, that's it. I don't help them any further.

                      I know Win2000 insta
  • Aside from the universal perception of Gator being [sumware|spyware|malware] that you'll have trouble getting past, I think the whole model upon which things like Gator are based is wrong. Otherwise all shareware would work the same way.

    Now, Gator is like the gun manufacturers. They sell the guns, but they disengage themselves from all responsibility wrt to how their products are used. I DO NOT have a problem with that, at all. I'm just using it as an example. But Gator has caused a lot of headaches to a

    • or b) are victims of companies who slip Gator and other crap into their computers under the cover of an unreadable EULA.

      Keeping things factual, Gator will only be installed by bundled software if they include an easy to read message revealing Gator being installed. I challenge you to find one application where this isn't the case.

      I understand your defense of Gator as a piece of software, but I can't agree with your defense of the practices that have given it its bad reputation. IMO, it - and every oth
      • Gator will only be installed by bundled software if they include an easy to read message revealing Gator being installed

        Nope. Earlier versions of iMesh (IIRC) just installed it without a peep. Perhaps those instances are the exception, I don't know. Or perhaps Gator has cracked down on the practice. I never install that sort of software on my computers in any case. But just my experience with my family's computers is a good measure of this type of thing. Again, IMO.

        I challenge you to find one applicatio

        • Nope. Earlier versions of iMesh (IIRC) just installed it without a peep. Perhaps those instances are the exception, I don't know. Or perhaps Gator has cracked down on the practice. I never install that sort of software on my computers in any case. But just my experience with my family's computers is a good measure of this type of thing. Again, IMO.
          Blame iMesh (I'm not familiar with that) not Gator. Gator requires in their contract they do certain things, they will verify but sometimes it changes. Gator
          • Blame iMesh (I'm not familiar with that) not Gator.

            Again, you're simplifying things. Yes, you are correct in that I should blame iMesh. So iMesh may be at fault, but in the eyes of the poor sod that downloaded and installed iMesh, Gator is part of the problem regardless of whether or not Gator is a nice, clean company. What's so difficult to understand about that? Put yourself in the place of a normal user for a few seconds and consider it.

            It's fucking dumb.

            Yes, it is. But the issue is not so much "pr

            • Again, you're simplifying things. Yes, you are correct in that I should blame iMesh. So iMesh may be at fault, but in the eyes of the poor sod that downloaded and installed iMesh, Gator is part of the problem regardless of whether or not Gator is a nice, clean company. What's so difficult to understand about that? Put yourself in the place of a normal user for a few seconds and consider it.

              That's why I wrote this. I'm trying to educate people as to where to put the blame, and hopefully change a few peopl
  • One easy way to avoid gator type applications (or any popups for that matter) is to use this little goodie I found...

    It's called Proximitron [proxomitron.org]. It's kind of like what spamassasin does for e-mail.. works like a champ. It's basically a proxy that sifts out anything you don't want to come into your browser. I haven't had a single popup or ad displayed since I installed it. The ads still can load if you want them to (all it does is make them little red hyperlinks that say "AD" so you can still click). You can
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Maybe I'm missing something here, but why block adverts? What's the point? I can understand blocking Pop-ups because they are annoying as hell, but banners and embedded ads?

        What are the reasons for blocking them?
        • I find many of the advertisements annoying for the same reason I change the channel as soon as a commercial hits on TV... but beyond personal preference there really isn't much reason. I *think* (could be wrong) proximitron still grabs the advertisement image/url, it just doesn't display it in the browser-- so no harm done to the site if they are relying on ads for income. So basically you can browse "commercial free".
          • I find many of the advertisements annoying for the same reason I change the channel as soon as a commercial hits on TV... but beyond personal preference there really isn't much reason. I *think* (could be wrong) proximitron still grabs the advertisement image/url, it just doesn't display it in the browser-- so no harm done to the site if they are relying on ads for income. So basically you can browse "commercial free".
            I just don't see why they're annoying. Blinking ads and punch the monkey is annoying, b
        • I must agree with you here. I have become "ad-blind". Well, if they are embedded, popups are still annoying.

          Let's just say that the big-ass flash ads are a bit harder to ignore, especially in the middle of the screen. Nope, I don't filter regular ads...

          • What about those giant "The Real Cancun" ads that have been on the web lately. GODDAMN! All I want to do is take a break and read AintItCoolNews.com, but suddenly I've got an oversized image of a tanned girl's back with her bikini falling off splashed across my screen! WTF My manager thinks I'm looking at pr0n on the job.

            THAT'S why you should block ads.
            • Oh, bewbz....schweeet!

              Not to critizise your work habits (I read slashdot at work, so I should shut up), but AintItCoolNews.com doesn't look like a work-related site either ;-)

              Oh, and your boss needs to get a grip on what's porn and what's not porn. I've had far more offensive Wallpapers on my computer than that ad.

            • What about those giant "The Real Cancun" ads that have been on the web lately. GODDAMN! All I want to do is take a break and read AintItCoolNews.com, but suddenly I've got an oversized image of a tanned girl's back with her bikini falling off splashed across my screen! WTF My manager thinks I'm looking at pr0n on the job.

              THAT'S why you should block ads.
              Reading entertainment news sites while on the job.

              That's like that SPAM that is going around, "PROTECT YOUR JOB! Hide your websurfing habits today! PRO
              • Why is everybody giving me shit for reading AICN while at work. I look across the room and see a VP thumbing though the Weekend section of NYT or the Living section of WSJ...or my manager on CNN etc etc. What, I am held to some ridiculous higher standard?

                Please. Everyone visits non-work related sites while on the job. Getting your job done accurately and on time, that is what is important.
                • Why is everybody giving me shit for reading AICN while at work. I look across the room and see a VP thumbing though the Weekend section of NYT or the Living section of WSJ...or my manager on CNN etc etc. What, I am held to some ridiculous higher standard?

                  Because you aren't a VP or a manager? :)

                  I only visit websites that my boss knows about and doesn't care about. He knows I load Slashdot way too many times, and freshmeat, and play chess. If your boss isn't cool with it (which seems like it would be a
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • My own personal experience with Gator.. I was surfing a while back, and I got some kind of popup window. I also happened to be typing in a text box or something at the time, and somehow my keystrokes ended up in the Gator install dialogue.. the next thing I know, I've got it squatting in my task bar. Same thing happened to my sister and dad. Neither one of them explicitly installed it.

      I can tell you that you are wrong, with complete certainty. Gator will always prompt you, or be displayed that it is bein
      • If you click on a popup you are at fault. Just like if you aren't paying attention and run someone over, you are at fault. Excusing your own behavior and responsibility for what happens on your computer is just dumb.

        My main complaint (and admittedly, it isn't the strongest one) is not against Gator, but against how easy it is to accidentally install something with IE. That's why I went in to the security settings, disabled all the ActiveX crap, yadda yadda, installed proximitron, etc. But your average
        • My main complaint (and admittedly, it isn't the strongest one) is not against Gator, but against how easy it is to accidentally install something with IE. That's why I went in to the security settings, disabled all the ActiveX crap, yadda yadda, installed proximitron, etc. But your average Joe Blow user doesn't know how to do this stuff and consequently, is at a disadvantage.

          As I pointed out, if ActiveX is set to low Gator will not install. They try to make it easier to not piss off Joe Blow. Unfortunat
    • There is absolutely no way that Gator can be installed without knowing about it.


    Rosia, when using my computer, clicked "yes" to one of those "install date and time manager" pop up screenies (before I had a chance to shout "No!") and of course Gator got installed. . .
    • Rosia, when using my computer, clicked "yes" to one of those "install date and time manager" pop up screenies (before I had a chance to shout "No!") and of course Gator got installed. . .
      Then she, or you, is illiterate and stupid and missed the section that says, "Gator is being installed." which is a must. Gator goes out of it's way, far more than any program to date, to let people know it's being installed.

      Idiocy isn't their fault.
        • Gator goes out of it's way, far more than any program to date, to let people know it's being installed.


        • It would be nice if it was labeled as being "Gator" rather than "generic miscellaneous innocent sounding program".

          Of course it DOES say "Gator" some place in there. :-p

          If the program is so "great" then the company would not have to resort to drive by pop-up based installers to get it out there, people would go to the site to GET IT THEMSELVES.

          In the fine print.

          Lovely.
        • If the program is so "great" then the company would not have to resort to drive by pop-up based installers to get it out there, people would go to the site to GET IT THEMSELVES.
          Look, you don't know what you are talking about. Websites and software bundle with Gator to get advertising revenue. They make money by installing Gator on their users computers. That's how it works, you see. So when you install Kazaa and Gator gets installed, you still have to install Gator (And the ad-supported software lets
  • I haven't read all 70 comments here, so perhaps (hopefully) these points have already been made.

    I agree with you that software like gator could potentially be OK. However, despite how clearly you say they inform users, most users still don't get it. Despite the fact that you say Gator is very obvious that it is a Gator advertisement, most users still don't get it. I don't own a windows pc, so I can't find out for myself. What I do know, is that I regularly deal with people at work who claim our companys we
    • Maybe people aren't reading the EULA to their shareware. Or maybe they're getting a dialog in IE, and hitting enter without reading it. Regardless of how they're tricked, I seriously doubt most Gator users would use it if they knew what the software was doing...

      Most Gator installations require two steps of user intervention. There are a few that only require one, but more that require 3. Gator tries very hard to not deceive people. If they deceive people they get more customer service complaints, and t
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I didn't read the whole thing, because I read the original JE and can't believe that this generated some 60+ comments (I'm discounting the DRM stuff, as it doesn't seem to apply).

          Yeah, 60+ comments was a bit more than what I was expecting. My Gator contacts have read some of it, they find it silly. They are used to it though, so it wasn't anything new for them. They do appreciate having someone in the geek world that tries to be informative.

          Did I rant about the man? Did I erupt in fury at computers

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. Space is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen to you.

Close