well i already see the chkdsk issue.. sucks

For someone that claims to have beta tested software over the years you act like this Kaspersky chkdsk issue was the first software bug you have ever seen. hmmm If you have some proof Kaspersky is out to screw over customers I would love to see it.

When you get tired of praising Avira who will be next on your pedestal because it seems like just yesterday you thought the world of KAV.

 

I did too... I even bought 3 copies of their Sh*t, UNTIL They deceived their users and played dirty...

 

Proof? They acted (and still do) like a bunch of thugs.. It doesn't matter, they lost a good amount of customers, and I hope they lose more..


They well knew their technology" would not be removable, and even Microsoft disaproved of their actions.. I don't need proof. Their actions spoke and their words spoke...

 

when did Microsoft become the last word on what was right & wrong?, I mean all they have is a monopoly on the OS & your stuck with unsecure operating systems. They are certainly in no position to toss stones...

 

Straight Shooter,

Let's get one fact straight - the technology is removable. Period. You might not like that KL doesn't supply a vendor approved tool to accomplish that (and I'm decidedly on your side on this point), but the items can be removed, can be removed at will, can be removed today by anyone, and for a standalone PC the operation is innocuous.

I agree that their actions and words spoke, but they spoke of:

• an organization that is tone deaf to user feedback,
• deals with public criticism rather poorly (the same can be said of many of their competitors),
• clearly did not consider the global implications of what they were doing - ignore all the technical downside issues - what vendor in their right mind implements a scheme that leaves a raft of systemic changes on a user's system following removal of their product?
• a project development team that is a lot more naive than they are willing to admit

Blue

 

Well, in terms of what's "right and wrong" regarding the usage of facilities of the operating system that they developed..., that would be when they released it to the public.

They have a much clearer view of current and potential future secondary effects than anyone. Perhaps they are being conservative - but the facility used by KL had a very specific design purpose. That design purpose brings implied characteristics (such as sparse usage). The KL usage treads heavily on some of those implicit characteristics.

The KL response that (basically) "anything not excluded is allowed" is nothing more than after the fact BS positioning - and that's the opinion of someone who supports and uses their products.

Blue

 

Was any of this done on purpose? Where is the proof that this was the case?

All I see is a vendor with poor CS and a software issue w/ some users acting like this is the first time they have ever seen a bug and getting bent out of shape.

If it was the first time this ever happened to the user I can understand that.

 

Lucky for me I happen to frequent Wilders.. What about all these folks who don't?

Also, I suggest to Kaspersky that they stop making childish, ridiculous, and totally moronic "Rap" videos on YouTube LOL... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHxyHlFZ778

 

Which is why I absolutely agree - KL simply must provide a tool on their site to remove these entries. Personally, I'd go with an "all or all except...., and provide a check off list by type", but there are probably better ways to accomodate the business users who may actually use file object ID's in a server environment.

Yea..., that was actually more painful than the BitDefender GC-Party song video. I guess that type of thing is an acquired taste (even if just "in fun"...) that neither us particularly go for.

Cheers,

Blue

 

I think Norton Fighter (w/credit to Stephan) has both of them beat