AOL 9.0 Called Badware

An anonymous reader writes "The bad news at AOL keeps coming. First they get in trouble for releasing search data on more than half a million customers, then it gives away security software with a nasty EULA, now its free client software is accused of acting like badware according to Stopbadware.org, the Google-funded rating group."

LOL

[ZachPruckowski]

So, Google technically owns like 5% of AOL, and funds stopbadware.org. So this is sort of like Sony vs. Sony, isn't it? Not directly relevant, but interesting as it shows how widespread these big Internet companies are, and how many pies they have their fingers in.

Re:LOL

[pmancini]

Its more like a concerned stock holder voicing a concern. I own a good chunck of the company I work for and if they were to screw up I'd get on them to fix things too. Its not uncommon to see stake holders do this sort of thing because it protects your bottomline.

Lets face it though, hasn't AOL been "badware" since like 1991? ;-)

Re:LOL

[Pharmboy]

Actually it sounds like truth in advertising. StopBadware.org has clearly stated that their goal is to make it known what software does bad things, and list those things that it does, and what the software makers can do to NOT be listed as 'badware'. If AOL Free version does these things, then it should be listed.

All I see is StopBadware doing what they said they would do, no matter who it is, or who owns what. This is a good thing. Anything less would mean NO ONE could trust StopBadware.org.

Badware?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a term a 5 year old would come up with.

Re:Badware?

[ZachPruckowski]

Well, it's a nice way to sum up adware, viruses, worms, trojans, rootkits, spyware, and all that stuff. It's easy to understand. Joe Schmoe might not know what a rootkit is, but he's got a good idea that "badware" or "malware" (my prefered term) is not something he wants on his computer.

Re:Badware?

[Dread_ed]

I had not seen "badware" before. I immediately thought it was categorically different from malware. Parsing the roots of the words would lead most people to that conculsion. "Mal" meaning bad but having the connotation of evil (as in malefic, malicious) seems pretty natural, but "bad" as in "sucks ass" leads me down a different cognitive road.

I immediately thought that "badware" must be poorly designed, written, or implimented software. AOL would definitely be in this category, as well as the spawn-of-Satan Microsoft products.

But since these words are synonomous I am coining a new word for software that isn't downright nasty like malware is, but just fails to reach the mark it was intended to. I call it "krapware." Those more vulgar of mind could call it "shitware" but that might be difficult to use in all circumstances.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[ZachPruckowski]

After all, it is often computers owned by people like the average Joe Schmoe which get compromised and are used to send spam or propagate worms.

Let's talk about Joe Schmoe for a second here. Joe Schmoe is probably a decent guy, and not necessarily dumb. It's just that he has a job, bills to pay, hobbies, and with any luck, a wife/girlfriend, and maybe kids. He thinks of his computer as he thinks of his washing machine. He buys it at a big box store, spends an hour or so setting it up, and then he uses it as a tool. When it breaks, he calls Geek Squad or the smart nerdy kid down the street, just like if the washing machine breaks, he calls the repair guy from Sears.

He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine. We need to educate him about how to use it safely (SP2, patches, and AV for starters), and acting all high-and-mighty about it gets you nowhere.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[monsterfish]

He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine.

In that case... I guess I look at my car as a washingmachine, look at my PC as a car... but I just can't remember what I use my actual washingmachine for!

Re:

[servognome]

but I just can't remember what I use my actual washingmachine for!

Making giant batches of koolaid. Pour the mix in set the machine, and it automagically adds the water and stirs.

Re:

[MaWeiTao]

He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine.

The average joe, especially in America, looks at his car like a washing machine too. That particular washing machine might be a bit more important because it can make him look cool to his friends, but it's still a washing machine.

A shocking number of people barely know what brand of automobile they drive, unless it's something like a BMW or a Mercedes and even then most probably wouldn't be able to spot it in the midst of Hondas and Toy

Re:

[operagost]

The average joe is a bit too ignorant for his own good.

Yes, he is too ignorant. Let us, the intellectual elite, enslave these weak-minded brutes and put them to work for us!

Seriously, I'm pretty sure most men, at least, know what they're driving. Sorry, but it's only the women I know who have had trouble recollecting certain significant details about their vehicles, such as the number of doors or when they last changed the oil.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[ZachPruckowski]

I would love to see someone operate a toaster oven with the same casual disregard for safety that people seem to want to operate computers with.

I put my toaster on the counter, stick the pop tarts in, and push the button. They get done in a minute, and I eat them.

The problem with computers is that if you use the washer incorrectly (or set it up incorrectly), it floods. You notice the problem right away. Most users don't realize they're botted until 2-3 months later (when the adware or spyware gets really, really bad).

The best way to do this is to offer computer classes with incentives, and to make home installion a part of computer sales. Failing that, Dells should all come with the firewall on, and AV and anti-spyware installed and running with a 6 month subscription, as well as a note (in dead tree form) reminding the user that he needs to update and renew the stuff in 6 months.

Re:

[mikey1134]

To some extent this is already happening. I'm an In-home technician for a major electronics retailer and I can tell you that if you buy a PC in a retail store like ours, the sales people will pound into you the idea of in-home setup, virus protection, etc. The problem is that people will find a way around it if it'll save them a few bucks. People can be told it's better for a pro to configure it but they'll take their chances for a slightly smaller bill. Even if we made it mandatory with every purchase, pe

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[mspohr]

Dude! Pop Tarts are DANGEROUS with toasters...

Lawyers and pop tarts http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/12/poptart_fire_l awsuit.html [overlawyered.com]

Flaming strawberry pop tart toaster blowtorch http://www.pmichaud.com/toast/ [pmichaud.com]

The definitive word from Dave Berry: http://www.cfcl.com/vlb/Cuute/f/pop_tarts.txt [cfcl.com]

Re:

[Joe Mucchiello]

Failing that, Dells should all come with the firewall on, and AV and anti-spyware installed and running with a 6 month subscription, as well as a note (in dead tree form) reminding the user that he needs to update and renew the stuff in 6 months.

No, they shouldn't. Most AV software is notoriously impossible to uninstall without destroying your current OS install. If they choose an AV, anti-spy, firewall package I don't like, I need to reinstall the OS before I can use the computer, and most computers don'

Re:

[nine-times]

Failing that, Dells should all come with the firewall on, and AV and anti-spyware installed and running with a 6 month subscription, as well as a note (in dead tree form) reminding the user that he needs to update and renew the stuff in 6 months.

Or Dells should start shipping with an OS that's more resilient to viruses and spyware. I'm not MS-bashing, it can be Vista for all I care (assuming Vista fits that description). Part of the problem is that the most popular security software (McAfee and Norton)

Re:

[ZachPruckowski]

I use a Mac. In fact, I am typing this on an iBook, waiting for my Mac Pro order to come in (31 more days...). I don't think it's Joe Schmoe's fault. I am not blaming anyone. I'm saying we need to fix it. Windows needs to be more secure. Patching needs to be easier for Joe Schmoe. But most of all, Joe Schmoe needs more education than "PCs have viruses. I'm a Mac, and I'm virus free". We need to accept that most relatively unskilled home users will continue to use Windows on their desktops. We need

Re:I believe you're quite mistaken, sir.

[atokata]

You know, a more cynical person, after reading about how our esteemed legislature is just *drooling* all over the idea of heavily regulating the internet, and after reading several stories about how politically-backed PR firms have been increasingly 'astroturfing*' internet forums and other community based sites, might start to think that all these nearly identical messages from ACs advocating a "driver's license for the internet" are some form of covert propaganda.

A more cynical person, someone experienced with both politics and the internet, might think that messages like this, posted with such similar wording, with such a similar idea being conveyed, could be 'testing the waters,' to see how the techies might respond to such a proposal.

A more cynical person might think that some senator or congressman, perhaps something involving Ted Stevens, is feeling out the idea of floating a bill, maybe something called "The Internet Security Act," or "The National Data Protection Act," or even the "Save the Children from Internet Pedophiles Act," where compulsory licensing is hidden away within.

A more cynical person would probably realize that all those license fees would simply disappear into heavily pork-filled projects, the main beneficiaries of which would be gigantic corporations, probably technology based, but equally likely to be ConAgra, Exxon, United Defense, or Halliburton. Even a simpleton would know the license fees do nothing to benefit them.

A cynical person might already know that as soon as a license becomes madatory, a huge revenue stream is created by fining those individuals who are unlicensed. Just like parking tickets, tax penalties, and code violations, this money will go to supporting even more regulations.

A cynical person would suspect that an unlicensed computer would become basis for sneak-and-peeks, no-knock-raids, and unwarrented wiretapping. A cynical person knows that countries like Cuba, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia already have laws regarding licensing of internet access. Sure has helped them, hasn't it?

A more cynical person might think that kind of thing, indeed.


*Astroturfing: In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals.

Re:

[ZachPruckowski]

I recognize the difference between a washing machine and a computer. but I'm a computer science major, and I have about 30 posts on slashdot today. But everyone else has other interests. There are rocket scientists whose password is "password" (or would be if they could get away with it). All I'm saying is that we need to educate people better, and we can't expect the world of them unless we're willing to sit down and teach them stuff. Threatening to take away computers won't work, because all the big

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[atokata]

My god, you're a moron.

First of all, people *do* operate cars without a thought to safety. Have you ever driven on a major highway in a large city?
How about the number of people who destroy thousand-dollar engines for want of two bucks of motor oil?

If Joe Schmoe decides he wants to click "Yes" when AnnoyingAdBar, LLC tells him to, than doesn't he pretty much get what he deserves?

(And, more importantly, when he pays me to fix it, don't I get what *I* deserve?)

Support freelancers, encourage stupidity!

Re:

[soft_guy]

You get paid to fix problems - I get paid to prevent them.

Re:

[sco08y]

First of all, people *do* operate cars without a thought to safety.

A better example to prove your point: I was watching an auto insurance ad that showed testimonials of people saying "I saved enough money on my insurance to buy (fishing gear / a camera / etc)"

Yeah, you'll be really fucking happy with that fishing rod when you get in a wreck and see that $20,000 doesn't cover shit.

Re:

[iced_773]

Or an AOL user.

Not really

[Moraelin]

Spyware has a conotation of being, you know, about _spying_ on the user. Malware implies some malicious intent. Etc. That's stuff which not only doesn't cover all the crap out there (e.g., yes, how about stuff that keeps nagging me after I thought I uninstalled it?), but also is attackable -- and indeed attacked -- in courts on technicality grounds. You get people like Claria/Gator sending legal nastygrams around just because they're prepared to argue in court about some technicality in that classification.

"Badware", while maybe it does sound like a kindergarten word, tends to convey the broader meaning and not get bogged in such lexical arguments. It doesn't imply malicious _intent_ or have to fit any definition of spying or whatever else these fucktards argue in court. It's just "bad".

And, frankly, as an end-user I don't care why or with what intent it was written like that. E.g., if a toolbar or anti-virus is a nightmare to uninstall and leaves components running after I uninstalled it, it's "bad". I don't care if it's like that by malice or if Hanlon's Razor applies. ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") It's just "bad" and they better clean up their act.

To give a personal example, I had an experience like that with one of those MacAffee all-in-one security packages. An older version, but annoying anyway. Among the many problems it had, picture this: so when installing I installed it on D:, to free space on C:. But the first update installed itself in the default directory in C: anyway. But here's the stupid part: it also let the original version from D: running at the same time, so I had two anti-viruses running at the same time, slowing my machine to a crawl. So I uninstall it. Ok, it uninstalled the newly installed one from C:, but left the old one still installed and still running. Only this time without an uninstall, so I had to manually edit the registry and remove files to get rid of it.

I'm sure that Hanlon's Razor fully applies there. It was no malice, there was no intention to spy, it's just written by the cheapest incompetent monkeys. But it's "bad" anyway. So "Badware" seems to fit that just nicely.

I thought it was something the media would come..

[StressGuy]

up with

Oh, wait....that's what you said

nevermind

Re:

[GreyPoopon]

That sounds like a term a 5 year old would come up with.

No, that would by "Pottyware". ;)

I love it!

[SanityInAnarchy]

AOL is worse than malware. Malware is written with bad intent, or possibly written by Malcom Reynolds. AOL is just badware -- badly conceived, badly designed, and badly implemented.

How 'bout This one?

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Brandware" n., software that actually doesn't do anything other than attach a company's logos, slogans, and other corporate branding to protocols & functionality that are available in at least 15 other ways. I've never used AOL software, and probably never will. But as I understand it there is No Purpose to using it unless you buy actual internet access from AOL and are somehow forced to. Is AOL's "software" still just a webpage that says "News" "Sports" "Entertainment" "Politics" -- brought to you b

AOL was good before....?

[BlahMatt]

Does this mean people actually believed that old versions of AOL were good? From what I can recall AOL has never been good. Perhaps it didn't act with malicious purpose, but it has, in my opinion, never been good and I certainly recall several occasions in my previous support job where it ended up being the cause of problems with totally unrelated software. My apologies to any AOL supporters out there, but this is looking like the end for AOL.

Re:

[Red Flayer]

I've recently been approached by several different people (most recently, the concierge at my office building) about why their internet is so slow recently. Stupid me, I forgot to ask if they used a portal... I gave them a sheet with instructions for cleaning out malware, and it didn't seem to help them. Then one of them informed me she uses AOL. Turns out, they all did. I told them all to uninstall AOL, cancel their account (good luck with that!) and use Firefox instead of IE.

My protocol for handling

Re:

[Scoth]

I was doing ISP tech support for a major ISP when AOL 5 came out. We got absolutely flooded by calls from AOL users who either used our service with AOL, or did the BYOA plan. AOL 5 replaced Windows DUN with its own version, which conveniently only worked with AOL. It was nearly impossible to rip it out and replace it with the original DUN. We had to turn tons of customers back to Microsoft or their computer vendor to reinstall Windows.

Fortunately, most people were already unhappy with AOL so it didn't take

Back in 95? Yes, they were good

[HighOrbit]

I know its very popular to bash AOL, but in their time they served a purpose.

Back in 95, I had Prodigy. It was terrible. My username and email were something like "[e-mail]" or some such un-memorable non-sense. I couldn't tell people my e-mail address because I couldn't even remember it myself. IIRC, there was no "screenname", just the account name. Their client software was very much a DOS type app (even when run under Win3.1) that could not be minimized and filled the whole screen with a single task. And they did not have IM or anything like it.

So one-day I tried AOL 2.something. It had a windows interface, so I could have multiple tasks open (i.e. one with the news, another with the weather, and another with a browser). I had a real username that was memorable and that approximated my own (along with a few other screennames for chat). And they had IM (no buddy list yet, that would be another year or two away), so I could send private messages in chat. And there was more content than prodigy. The web based advertising and spamming business were still immature, so they were not as sophisticated or motivated to spy on their customers as they are now.

I also tried a few more services back then, MSN, still independantly run compuServe, something called WOW, etc. None of them were as good as AOL in 1995. Remember that pure ISP-only "web" was still young, web content was sparse, and search technology was immature, so it was hard to locate. Once cable-modem came to town in 1999, I keep AOL around for a few years for the email address. But I shut that down back in 2002.

In their time AOL was the best on-line + internet service around. Basic internet was just not developed enough and the other services just didn't match up.

Re:

[illumin8]

So one-day I tried AOL 2.something. It had a windows interface, so I could have multiple tasks open (i.e. one with the news, another with the weather, and another with a browser). I had a real username that was memorable and that approximated my own (along with a few other screennames for chat). And they had IM (no buddy list yet, that would be another year or two away), so I could send private messages in chat.

I remember back in 95. Do you remember, Windows 95 had this thing built-in called "Dial Up Netwo

The horror

[giorgiofr]

Big Internet company claims competitor's product is bad bad bad.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Re:

[remembertomorrow]

Keep in mind that Google also has some stock in AOL...

They are missing the lesson of failing companies

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Re:They are missing the lesson of failing companie

[conteXXt]

Gotta stop going to that other site.

I swore your comment said "When you are an a hole, stop digging."

And I was ready to agree too

Re:They are missing the lesson of failing companie

[HAKdragon]

(trying to get out of a huge hole they've dug) Chief Wiggum: No, no dig up, stupid.

Not uninstalling is a huge pet peeve of mine

[indytx]

From the article:

The suite is also criticized for engaging in "deceptive installation" and faulted because some components fail to uninstall.

This is just ridiculous. Why are there so many programs that refuse to uninstall or leave pieces of themselves lying around? How hard can it be for the "uninstall" function to actually work? Worse, do I really need several dialog boxes to get rid of something? I can always install it again. It's not like I'm wiping my hard drive.

Re:

[Metaleks]

Technically, the uninstall function works just fine. Remember, it's how they want it to work. It's their decision if they want crap lurking in your hard drive after the program has been wiped. Usually the data that remains after an uninstall just remembers the settings of the program. So if you were to install it back you would have the same preferences as before. However, that's not always the case.

Re:Not uninstalling is a huge pet peeve of mine

[bogie]

If it was just a few preferences left behind then there probably won't be any issue. But have a look at this screenshot. http://stopbadware.org/images/screenshots/AOL/AOL1 1.html [stopbadware.org]

Two processes are left running and sucking up memory. The programmer who is charge of the unistall routine should be tarred and feathered and then forbidden from ever working in the field again. Beyond the obvious issue think about this. Aol 9.0.3343 is updated to 9.0.4000 because of a massive security flaw in AOLServiceHost.exe. You uninstalled AOL before the update came out and yet there sits part of the old version of AOL running as part of your OS just inviting trouble.

Re:Not uninstalling is a huge pet peeve of mine

[TheRaven64]

Uninstalling is not a trivial problem. What happens if the program installs a shared library? If you remove it when you uninstall, you might end up breaking things. You could fix this in a UNIX system by putting the library in /usr/lib and hard linking it to /usr/lib/appname/lib (for example). When you uninstall, you delete the copy in /usr/lib/appname/lib and then remove everything from /usr/lib with a reference count of 1. Or you keep an install count somewhere else (e.g. in the package management framework), although both of these require everyone to play by the rules.

And what about configuration files? Sometimes I uninstall an application because I want it gone. Sometimes I uninstall it because I want to install a new version. In the first case, I want configuration information to be deleted. In the second, I want it retained. The uninstaller needs to know which of these I'm doing. There is even the third case (although less common these days) that I am uninstalling it to free up some disk space, but I will want it back later. In this case, I probably want configuration files deleted.

Re:

[Rary]

"Uninstalling is not a trivial problem."

Yes, it is.

"What happens if the program installs a shared library?"

You answered your own question quite nicely, actually.

"...although both of these require everyone to play by the rules."

And for those who don't, that would be their problem. If you play by the rules, your install and uninstall will go smoothly.

"And what about configuration files? ... The uninstaller needs to know which of these I'm doing"

Ask. Lots of uninstallers do this.

Uninstalling is

Re:

[ZorbaTHut]

And for those who don't, that would be their problem. If you play by the rules, your install and uninstall will go smoothly.

You don't remember Windows 3.1, do you?

Many programs would install their own versions of DLLs right over other versions. If their version was newer, things might keep working. If their version was older, things would likely break. If you uninstalled the program, it would often remove the DLL entirely, ignoring the fact that other programs needed it.

Even if that other program played by

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Uninstalling is not a trivial problem.

Have you used normal applications on OS X?

What happens if the program installs a shared library?

The library remains within the application package. If you delete it, tother programs default to using the most recent compatible version of the library in any remaining application. Since every package has a copy, you don't really have to worry about this.

And what about configuration files? Sometimes I uninstall an application because I want it gone. Sometimes I uni

Re:

[TheRaven64]

Have you used normal applications on OS X?

Yes, OS X is my default system.

The library remains within the application package. If you delete it, tother programs default to using the most recent compatible version of the library in any remaining application.

This is not how I read the OS X loader documentation. It looks first in the application's bundle, then in the user's Frameworks folder, then the system Frameworks folders. Then it gives up. It never looks in other applications bundles. This means

Re:

[nine-times]

And what about configuration files? Sometimes I uninstall an application because I want it gone. Sometimes I uninstall it because I want to install a new version. In the first case, I want configuration information to be deleted. In the second, I want it retained. The uninstaller needs to know which of these I'm doing. There is even the third case (although less common these days) that I am uninstalling it to free up some disk space, but I will want it back later. In this case, I probably want configuratio

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Better yet is to not use shared libraries at all! It's not as if we have 10 meg hard drives any more, the size of any DLL compared to the drive it's on is miniscule.

I think OS X has the best solution for this I've seen. Programs all have a copy of the libraries they need included in the application package, but when the application is run it will actually use the most up to date, compatible version of the library available to any available application. In this way software can benefit from minor bug fixe

Re:

[manno]

I HATE, and I mean HATE the fact that I have to "install" programs on my computer. I would much prefer the old DOS way of putting a binary, ann all the neccesary files into 1 directory, and just finding the binary needed to run it. If I want to uninstall a program I just delete it. No need to worry about my registry, programs leaving parts of themselves all over my computer ect.

Re:

[Zardus]

From what I understand, that's how Mac OSX does it (just drop the software image on your computer and launch it). I haven't used OSX much, though, so I'm not totally positive. Gobo Linux [gobolinux.org] also kinda tries to do this with Linux.

Re:

[russ1337]

I did not know this. You Sir, have just persuaded me to look into purchasing a Mac for my next machine.

Re:

[vistic]

Most programs have preferences saved in a plist file in either ~/Library/Preferences or /Library/Preferences. There might also be some other resources that got installed.

The nice thing though is that it's all obvious where it is and it's usually all very clearly labeled... and the BULK of all a programs resources are in the .app folder that hosts the actual binary among other things. So just deleting the .app gets rid of 99% of things associated with a program usually.

You don't need to mess with anything

Re:

[vtcodger]

***How hard can it be for the "uninstall" function to actually work? Worse, do I really need several dialog boxes to get rid of something?***

Looks to me like you need to be clairvoyant to write Windows software -- including uninstallers. Since hardly anyone is clairvoyant, it comes as no suprise to me that a lot of Windows stuff barely runs ... if it runs at all. Shouldn't suprise anyone much I think. What DOES suprise me is that "they" keep on making this stuff ever complex and less reliable. I somet

Could happen

[ElephanTS]

I can't wait for when you search "AOL" in Google and it pops up that new malware screen Google are doing to warn people before going to a dodgy site.

(And actually, while I'm on this topic, can anyone disable that new Google warning. On Safari/OSX I don't care about 'bad sites'. It's embarrassing when you're installing your clients software and need a serial heh heh)

Re:

[manno]

You beat me to it I was going to ask the same thing.

Re:

[ElephanTS]

I was joking really. But there are clients and there are 'clients'.

Malware, Badware...

[whiskeyOnIce]

...I'm the guy with the coasters.

Seriously, none of the free AOL coasters that I've ever received in the mail have ever done anything remotely 'bad'. Unless you consider sticking to the bottom of a cold glass 'bad'.

I've been waiting for one of the new versions to prevent that sort of thing, though. That is certainly a necessary upgrade - maybe version 15?

Mad Props, Yo

[thedbp]

Seriously, that was a great Army of Darkness reference. Bravo. Laughed my ass off.

I'm really pissed they changed that line in the Director's Cut. But c'est la vie. Sam Raimi could fart on a rotten egg salad sandwich and I'd probably buy it.

Re:

[Andrewkov]

One scratched my coffee table once. Now I use cork toasters instead of CD based ones.

Asbestos is the best insulator!

[Moqui]

AOL 9.0 Security Edition was released 11/18/04. This is relevant for today how? Everything in retrospect is bad for you.

This is news?

[DragonHawk]

From the summary: "...its free client software is accused of acting like badware..."

This is news? Everyone I know has been saying that for *years* about AOL and their software. It tries to take over your system, has odd compatability problems, is extremely difficult to remove, and bombards you with ads. And that's when you *pay* for it!

Re:This is news?

[legoburner]

Even back in the windows 95 era it would mess up your dial up networking settings to prevent you from connecting to other ISPs using DUN. Many a support query about that fun feature went flying around.

I wonder what the "Google Toolbar" rates...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I wonder what the "Google Toolbar" rates...

Jessica Simpson

[Andrewkov]

The AOL software is down right angelic compared to the Jessica Simpson Screensaver! [stopbadware.org]

Re:

[Jeremi]

The AOL software is down right angelic compared to the Jessica Simpson Screensaver!

I like to think that the Jessica Simpson Screensaver provides a valuable service: culling the herd...

Re:

[Cutting_Crew]

why is this illegal? installation of screensavers that come with badware? shouldnt this be illegal?

Re:

[Cutting_Crew]

why *isnt this illegal..oops

Seems like the end

[moore.dustin]

While it may appear like AOL is looking down the barrel of doom, I do not seeing the service going anywhere soon. Many people have tried, and failed at being the AOL killer. Some services are able to compete, but really, AOL is still very much on the top of in regards to those providers.

On the same token, AOL is probably ready to go, but they will remain till a service is presented that can offer the same sort of service to the same people, but be much better too. Even more important though, is the abilit

Re:

[pete6677]

What does AOL provide that you can't get elsewhere, other than a uniquely horrible internet experience?

wtheck

[kemo_by_the_kilo]

Between not letting you cancel (even post mortum) and having "bad"ware... the only thing left for them to do is start including dell batteries with their CDs

duh

[matt328]

AOL has been badware since its inception. Even back in the day with version 3.0, why the hell did we need an entire goddamn program just to establish a dial up connection?

Cops

[robotsrule]

Badware, badware What'cha gonna do? What'cha gonna do when they deinstall you? Badware, badware What'cha gonna do? What'cha gonna do when they deinstall you?

AOL Triton and AOL Browser aren't 'bad'

[gelfling]

But they suck. They're the slowest creakiest pieces of shit evah.

Re:

[kahrytan]

AOL Browser uses IE.

Did you ever think that maybe...

[EnderQON]

It's not Badware, it's just drawn that way?

In related gradeschool news ...

[Floody]

Large object in the center of the Solar System called Hotthing.

No version of AOL has ever been...

[ansak]

...anything but a drinks coaster and in our house we save them for exactly that purpose. It's taken Google this long to decide that some version of AOL is badware (but not deciding what their medium is for yet)? Hmmm... could this be a sign of the beginning of the end of this first real post-dot-gone equity-market darling?

oh i have been a beggar, and will be one again...ank

You'd expect more from...

[brunascle]

...the worst tech product of all time [pcworld.com]

anyone complaining about google funding

[thelost]

this is called full disclosure. deal with it. Lenovo and Sun also sponsor StopBadware.org, big deal. Whether or not google have alternate reasons for getting behind a push like this they have a history of philanthropic work, I am not surprised to find them involved.

AOhell

[rice_burners_suck]

AOhell is the Micro$oft of the Internet Service Provider industry. Why in the world would anybody want to use AOhell? It's time for people like us to tell our friends, neighbors, and grandparents who use AOhell that it's time to dump a chunk of long term memory like Just Johnny and switch to the "real" Internet. Then, AOhell will stop sending us those darn coasters that clutter our home and increase global warming (if you throw them away, you screw up the environment by increasing the garbage crisis; if you

AOL Resonse

[MrCopilot]

RESPONSE FROM AOL

AOL reports that they are reviewing this report and that they are taking steps to address what's noted here. With regards to uninstallation, AOL says that a design flaw in the uninstaller mistakenly leaves executables running, even after a restart. The company says it is working on a fix, and in the meantime, that the executables do nothing even though they are running.
August 27th, 2006

Yeah thats it, Nothing at all... Wink... Just keep seeding those torrents..... Thats right, nothing

more strict definition of badware

[gsn]

I'd actually ask them to require stricter standards especially at installation

1) Program has option to install in any directory you choose - surprise how many of them lack this even
2) Make start menu and desktop shortcuts wherever you choose - I hate ones that just add three icons to my desktop
3) Make no folders other than in the one they are installed in or that you specify - When Reader 7.0 came out I was constantly deleting that bloody myEbooks crap until I figured out how to stop it.
4) Do not add themse

Re:

[coolGuyZak]

7) Any software that changes file associations by itself - give me the option and I will tell you what I'm going to let you open automatically.
7) Anything that does not give you a single entry in the Add Remove Programs List.

Uhh... you know... I hate to be "that guy". But. Umm... You misspelled "8".

Advertisements On-Line.....

[IHC Navistar]

AOL has ALWAYS been regarded as "badware" by anyone who can use a toothpick. AOL falls into every kind of malicious software category there is. Malware, Adware, Spyware, Spamware...AOL fits all of those pretty damn well, and the new title of "Badware" just goes to show how horrible the program and service is. I hope AOL stock tanks and the business goes belly up. It DESERVES to. AOL is a marketing ploy in the purest sense.

AOL is:

Malware: AOL has elements in it that allow it to hijack the MSN Explorer web br

good ol' days

[kahrytan]

I miss the good ol' days when AOL was on a floppy disk.

And I still don't know why AOL insists in using IE browser in all it's software. They own Netscape and they don't even use it in AOL software.

Re:badware?

[w33t]

I prefer to call it "misunderstoodware".

Re:

[owlnation]

how about badwear? or better yet naughtywear?

Now those sound much more interesting!

Re:

[rackhamh]

Badware is software that's really good when it's good, but better when it's bad.

Alternatively, badware can refer to software that gets lots of plastic surgery and lives with a monkey.

Re:badware?

[ZachPruckowski]

"Bad" is in English what "Mal" is in Latin/Greek. Badware is adware, spyware, viruses, rootkits, worms, trojans, and anything else I'm not thinking of that John Q. Public doesn't want on his PC. "Trojans" are sort of an abstract concept for most (they think of the condom before the Trojan horse), but any idiot knows that "badware" is, well, BAD.

Re:

[TCQuad]

Malware is malicious, badware is just bad.

Re:badware?

[Br00se]

Badware Behavior
Installs additional software without disclosure (Deceptive installation)
Forces users to take an action (Interferes with computer use)
Adds AOL toolbar in Internet Explorer (Makes changes to other software without disclosure)
Adds additional icons to default Internet Explorer toolbar (Makes changes to other software without disclosure)
Adds to "Favorites" in Internet Explorer (Modifies other software without disclosure)
Adds AOL Deskbar to the user's taskbar (Modifies other software without disclosure)
Updates software automatically (Deceptive installation)
Fails to uninstall software completely (Unacceptable unistallation)

Re:badware?

[Tom in Boston]

But it's so simple and easy to uninstall! I wrote up these instructions...

http://websiteperson.com/advocate/uninstallaol90.h tm [websiteperson.com]

1. Go to the control panel, Add/Remove Software, and choose AOL. I think it asks you to restart after this.
All done, right? Not yet!
2. Follow the same steps to remove "Real Player," assuming you don't want it! (Spyware, intrusive.)
3. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Coach." Apparently uninstalling AOL doen't uninstall this, whatever it is.
4. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Desk Bar." Hmmm... Maybe this was the icon in the task bar?
5. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Spyware Protection."
6. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Toolbar."
7. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL You've Got Pictures Screensaver."
I think we're almost done!
8. Follow the same steps to remove "Pure Networks Port Magic." (What the heck is THAT?)
9. Follow the same steps to remove "Viewpoint Experience Technology."
Not done yet...

Re:

[Red Flayer]

I've heard of malware, and I'm all too familiar with spyware, but what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is badware?

Of more import, what the for-unlawful-carnal-knowledge is h-e-double-hockeysticks?

I say we just pull out all the stops and call it 'evilware'.

At any rate, from now on, I'm only going to install goodware [goodware.com]. Unfortunately, it appears such products are still "coming soon" and might be vaporware.

Why is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

This in no way benefits Google. It is not the same way that MS funds FUD to help itself. The group's mission has no hidden agenda. It is not trying to make a profit by putting down a different group. It is simply pointing out bad software.

Though, I am trying to figure out how the H#$l you got upgraded. I would guess that at least one of the mods is from a FUDster. In addition, your mod ups point out the changing nature of slashdot. All in all, I am guessing that we have MAJOR artificial turfing going on her

Re:Why is that?

[rm69990]

The group rated AOL 9.0 as "badware" because it doesn't fully uninstall when you tell it to and because all of the actions the software takes aren't disclosed to the user. Google fully discloses [google.com] what their software does to the user, and I've never had a problem uninstalling Google Toolbar.

Wrong Keyword...

[denebian devil]

The real one is "AOL"

Which makes me wonder... is "AOL Keyword: AOL" recursive? Having never had, used, or even breathed on an AOL browser, I wouldn't know.

Re:Erm

[Knossos]

FTA:

Backed by tech companies such as Google, Lenovo Group, and Sun Microsystems

It is run out of two well-respected university departments: Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and University of Oxford's Internet Institute in the U.K.

It's not just funded by Google, and the researchers are in public departments, not privately employed ratings companies.

It's Still Badware

[homer_ca]

I installed AOL 9.0 on a virtual machine to see for myself, and it is a seriously annoying piece of software. It takes an extra section of the taskbar for itself (about 1/5 the width of a 1024 screen). It adds an autostart tray icon and about five desktop shortcuts. I launched the program to see if I could log in with my AIM account. I got to a screen where I could log in with an existing account or register a new account, but that screen had no back or cancel. I could only kill it with task manager.

It's obviously made for newbies who need lots of handholding, and it's good that they're bundling free antivirus with AOL 9.0 because that demographic really needs it. If you want to try out free AOL 9.0 over broadband, do yourself a favor and install it in a VM. MS Virtual PC and VMWare Player are both free (beer). QEMU is Free, but you need the KQEMU module to get decent speed, and it's free (beer).

Re:Erm

[danpsmith]

Keywords: google funded

Because Google has a real interest in taking down AOL considering that they paid a billion [businessweek.com] just to do business with them.

Re:

[MBCook]

Random guess: by definition Windows can't infect it's self.