That ad-supported line is no longer in production.
This was because they had a vibrant beta test program with plenty of active participants who didn't hesitate to kick ass when Vinnie first tried the adware.
In light of that you can say that BearShare itself was never spyware, and the one line (of five) that did bundle it in the installer freely allowed anyone or anything to remove the adware with no ill effects.
GREATING AND SHARING FILES WITH TRIBLER SOFTWARE
Even during the time the one ad-supported line had WhenU, Free Peers deliberately refused to tie it into the software like everybody else did, thereby enabling any user or antispyware app to remove WhenU whenever they wished. Most of the versions never had adware of any kind, yet lazy antispyware "researchers" never took the time to examine BearShare closely, instead relying on rumour and speculation supplied by each other. The story with BearShare is more complex than that. The bearshare program is even an example of this on the spyware page : Leuk he 11:02, (UTC) Reply Having a uninstall option does not make it less privacy invading. whenu send the browsing information to a centrail point and that is spyware in my opinion. This site should be trustworthy enough, since it povides a spyware removal tool.Īgreed. For example, the free version of BearShare is said to be infected with spyware. I have a source for this with different info. I wonder on what basis is the info on the column Spyware/Adware determined. not instead, but as addition? file sharing networks However multi-network clients make this very complicated. This sort of conflation is all too widespread (people say "Limewire" when they mean Gnutella, "Emule" instead of ed2k, etc.) Wikipedia shouldn't perseverate it.- 84.188.162.118 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Reply A comparison of file sharing networks would be fine. There should be a comparison of networks, and then a comparison of clients per network, as this is the logical way to go when you choose a p2p client - you decide on the network first. Many comments in "Extra Information" ( Good for rare items, Good for big files) refer to the p2p network rather than the specific client app. Ultra Loser 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Reply You cleaned up a lot, too much ! And the comparison is relative to each other, so still relvant, you can verify by trying out the programs or read the description of how they work. : Leuk he 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Reply I think that the section should be cleaned up, not removed. Tompagenet 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Reply While I agree that comments like "slow" are highly subjective, other comments like "Alternative client for the WinMX network. A proper article can deal with the differences between protocols, not a column. Time to get the "neutrality" header off then? Ultra Loser 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Reply PS - Should the "programming language" and "license" columns be moved to a new table altogether? Perhaps to a "technical information" section? Ultra Loser 06:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Reply The extra information section is heavily subjective - It's not sufficient to write "slow" or "good for rare downloads" - Wikipedia is not a usage guide to the world - it's here to present verifiable fact. Mirshafie Thanks guys, it seems much better now. I also updated some of the other info and added links to several words. Mirshafie Ok, so i removed those recommendations and added a Programming language column. Unless someone is negative to this, I'll get started with these updates pretty soon. I also think a few more BitTorrent clients should be added to the list and perhaps even a link to Wikipedias comparison of BitTorrent clients. I could probably do this for many of the apps on the wiki, since I've used many of them myself. Therefore I strongly agree that the Recommendations column should be removed, and replaced with somehting useful, such as what language the app is coded in or what the total file size is. Then readers can decide weather the app is worth a try or not, based on those facts.
– ugen64 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Reply Wikipedia should supply facts only. We should dump the "recommended" section definitely, and in "Extra Information" we don't need comments like "one of the best". The colums Extra Information and Recomended are highly subjective and incomplete.
0 kommentar(er)
