firewall without all the bloat
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Microsoft Office Live Beta
Next: Avira AntiVir
From: Bear Bottoms on 1 Sep 2006 19:31 On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:12:58 -0500, In_Parentheses <quoder(a)demonstrand.um> wrote: > Goeroeboeroe <zwitser1-remove-al-this(a)xs4all.nl> wrote in > news:MPG.1f622b3eb5511a249896fb(a)newszilla.xs4all.nl: > > <small snip> ;) >>> >> Hi, >> That's good, testing it! I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the beta >> doesn't phone home at all, and the last stable version should only >> phone home for updates. >> If you find it does more than updating I'm the first one who would >> like to hear that :o). >> >> Peter >> > > Hi Goeroe et all ;-) > > Well, that was quite an adventure. Let me say this first: I downloaded > CPF > yesterday, in the late afternoon. > > When I installed it today, there was *no* choice to be made; Launchpad > was > installed, and the sniffer showed quite some activity, both normal > (update > checking), and encrypted. > > Upon installation and reboot the system turned into a slug, and memory > was > getting quite low (which it isn't usually). 2 MB for the updater; 1.5 MB > for the "agent" (Launchpad) and 13 MB for the firewall (where the rest of > the memory went... beats me; the 15-16 MB the system easily can handle, > SMC.exe (Sygate) takes 15 MB, and the system responds quite fast, so > there > must be something else going on (and no, there wasn't any network > activity > during all this). > > Since there was an update, I updated and rebooted the system again; same > result: Launchpad was still active, no choice was displayed on the > update. > This time the program managed to to bring the system almost to a full > stop; > the packet sniffer came into "Program is not responding", and would start > only after theboth the firewall and the Launchpad had been closed (Exit). > > I went to Add/Remove Pograms to uninstall it, but the "Change/Remove" > button was grayed out, so no luck there. Fortunately I had taken > precautions and the program will be gone soon. > > I think I will stick to what I have for the time being. > I'm going to install it "inside Sandboxie" and see what happens. I heard the claim v2.3.4 was released today which gives the user an option to disable Launch Pad. If it doesn't, greys out the unistall, or uses up system resources, I will delete the virtual environment and it 'WILLBEGONE'. -- I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
From: »Q« on 1 Sep 2006 19:20 "In_Parentheses" <quoder(a)demonstrand.um> wrote in <news:Xns98313D3CCFA5FQED(a)85.31.186.76>: > Ah, I already wondered when the "Quoting police" would come in. You mean you knew you were quoting much too much, and decided to keep doing it in anticipation of the "Quoting police"? > Peter: you're boring, a PITA, and this is usenet alt (still > unmoderated), so either ignore the thread, or kill file me, Alternatively, you could ignore or kill his posts instead of calling him names and attempting to tell him what not to post. Or, you know, quit quoting unnecessary hundreds of lines. Or both. > but stop interefering with a discussion if you have nothing to add to > it! Please reconsider the orders you are giving to Peter in contrast to his "Please think about your usenet behavior." Perhaps you haven't indentified which poster is the would-be moderator. ;) -- ?Q?
From: »Q« on 1 Sep 2006 19:39 "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote in <news:1157151632.302403.184860(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>: > ?Q? wrote: > >> solving the PR problem you have at the moment here. > > eh? > > which PR problem? I thought you considered it a problem that some people don't trust your software, and I thought you were posting in this thread to try to get them to reconsider. If you don't perceive a problem, I have no idea why you have made any of your recent posts. I won't waste any more of your time with suggestions about how to solve the problem you (don't) have. > There are no questions about launchpad, just unfounded opinions! First you said my impression that you haven't answered questions here is wrong, and now you claim that there aren't even any questions. There are questions in this very thread which people have asked you specifically, and you still have not answered them. > I am more than happy to answer any specific questions about the > Launchpad! Yet you seem even happier not to answer them. > BTW: For everyone who said we don't listen to our users : Today we > launched CPF v2.3 and it has the option to disable launchpad as was > requested by our users! But launchpad still comes bundled with the firewall's installer? (Note the "?" symbol, indicating that a question is being asked of you.) -- ?Q?
From: John Fitzsimons on 1 Sep 2006 20:09 On 1 Sep 2006 16:00:32 -0700, "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: >?Q? wrote: < snip > >> I don't doubt it, but it's irrelevant to solving the PR problem you >> have at the moment here. >> ?Q? >eh? >which PR problem? If you don't see that you have a PR problem then you obviously aren't paying attention. I have no idea why you would want to alienate people who could recommend you products/site but I guess that is your choice to make. >There are no questions about launchpad, just unfounded opinions! I am >more than happy to answer any specific questions about the Launchpad! Okay, how about this specific question.. Can one now install your firewall without installing the Launchpad ? Going by your past performance I expect that you will avoid giving a direct answer to this question. >BTW: For everyone who said we don't listen to our users : Today we >launched CPF v2.3 and it has the option to disable launchpad as was >requested by our users! >Melih Looks like you aren't paying attention. Many people don't want to "disable" Launchpad. They simply don't want to install it. Regards, John.
From: John Fitzsimons on 1 Sep 2006 20:22
On 31 Aug 2006 19:20:37 -0700, "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: >?Q? wrote: < snip > >> AFAICT, every time you have been asked about what Launchpad does and >> why it is bundled without the option not to install it, you have not >> answered but only invited people to your forum to discuss it. I don't >> have any idea whether Launchpad is good, bad, or ugly, but I'm pretty >> sure that if you won't answer questions about it here, people here will >> continue to be suspicious of it. If all you want is to make your forum >> users happy, posting answers only there is fine. If you want to >> satisfy people in a.c.f as well, the only way to do it is to post >> answers here also. >> ?Q? >Q >you will see that your statement above is not true >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/browse_thread/thread/8a40c609cc084cf/eb27ceb3bd5b0bd1?lnk=st&q=comodo+firewall+launchpad&rnum=3&hl=en#eb27ceb3bd5b0bd1 >pls check the others ngs where i have explained the reasons many times >before. the above is one example. Sending people to a thread of 149 posts ? < ROFL > A rather creative way to avoid answering a direct question. >The reason why I refer people to forums is because, all the arguments >have already been made and all the explanations have already been made >and decision about launchpad's future already has been reached by its >users. Looks like you are only interested in "preaching to the choir". Your "users" are obviously not going to represent the general computing population. But of course you already know that. >Its all there, publicly available. No point in re-writing all >that hence why I refer to the link. Nobody asked you for a re-write of everyone's comments in your forum. Only answers to direct questions that have been asked of you. >If you think we haven't covered any >point about launchpad, we would love to hear from you! As you will see >our users are sophisticated and tech savvy users who know what they >want and what they need! And they have been great at helping Comodo >shape its firewall! >Melih There are plenty of people here who are "tech savvy users who know what they want and what they need!" I guess you haven't been paying attention. Regards, John. |