I notice that PeaZip now doesn't separate its EULA with Open Candys' EULA.
ie., you have no choice not to install Open Candy. Which is kind of the same as bending down toward some Detroit sidewalk and finding an open candy and eating it. Yummers.
Is MBAM good at getting rid of Open Candy after it's installed? I would assume it is but I'd like to hear from others here first. Thanks.
If preferred, partnership installers can be launched with /NOCANDY parameter to disable running OpenCandy advertising module at all.
If launched with /SILENT or /VERYSILENT parameter, the installer will complete without requiring user intervention and will not load, display nor install any third party offer.
Another solution is using the plain installer package (see previous box), which not contains any bundle at all.
In terms of invasiveness, OpenCandy is probably among the most respectful of users' wishes. As long as people have an expectation that software is free (or extremely cheap), we're going to be stuck with these sorts of advertising companies.
Full disclosure: OpenCandy accounts for roughly 10% of my annual income.
In terms of invasiveness, OpenCandy is probably among the most respectful of users' wishes. As long as people have an expectation that software is free (or extremely cheap), we're going to be stuck with these sorts of advertising companies.
Full disclosure: OpenCandy accounts for roughly 10% of my annual income.
Although I don't want any "candy" from them, I have to admit with all of the installers I've ran with it included Open Candy is one of the least of my worries since there's stuff out there that's far more dubious and which also doesn't have a no offer/opt-out command like /nocandy.
How one antivirus classifies OpenCandy versus another i.e.; no detection doesn't necessarily make it a bad antivirus in my opinion. I would really dislike an antivirus claiming it as being infected outright and not allowing me the choice to install something when in fact it isn't infected. Some software offer a portable version that's zipped with no adware whatsoever, however the install version may have adware.
OpenCandy is very easy to stop by using the /nocandy switch on the installer (Example: C:\Setups\setup.exe /nocandy) and/or by installing with no established Internet connection.
We have to remember that all of the popular free antivirus' use a form of in-built advertising (or "upselling" they'd prefer us to call it now) themselves; Avast, Avira, AVG, Panda, etc.
How one antivirus classifies OpenCandy versus another i.e.; no detection doesn't necessarily make it a bad antivirus in my opinion. I would really dislike an antivirus claiming it as being infected outright and not allowing me the choice to install something when in fact it isn't infected. Some software offer a portable version that's zipped with no adware whatsoever, however the install version may have adware.
OpenCandy is very easy to stop by using the /nocandy switch on the installer (Example: C:\Setups\setup.exe /nocandy) and/or by installing with no established Internet connection.
We have to remember that all of the popular free antivirus' use a form of in-built advertising (or "upselling" they'd prefer us to call it now) themselves; Avast, Avira, AVG, Panda, etc.
@ Avdavari:
I do not disagree with your statement at all, don't get me wrong.
I would also dislike any antivirus that does not allowing me the choice to install something being infected or not. You are correct in stating that the portable version does not ship with adware and that it's installable versions that does.
But how many users know they have to add the /nocandy parameter, let alone know how to implement it ?
If the build in advertisements are standalone files they can be deleted/detected one just have to look hard for them.
There are in most cases a workaround, the bigger question is, does one have to time to find it ?
But how many users know they have to add the /nocandy parameter, let alone know how to implement it ?
I agree many people won't know they can disable the OpenCandy offering let alone that a portable version is available without any "extras" piggybacking in the installation -- unless they get curious and do a web search and perhaps come upon pages like this.
I've installed the last version - 5.4, the standard Windows package linked on the homepage in the blue "free download" button - and PeaZip seems clean now, ESET Nod32 does not prompt any warning.