firewall without all the bloat
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Microsoft Office Live Beta
Next: Avira AntiVir
From: Bear Bottoms on 2 Sep 2006 23:21 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:43:29 -0500, Comodo <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: > > John Fitzsimons wrote: >> On 1 Sep 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: > > --snip-- > I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that your >> product goes payware and/or is disabled somewhere down the track >> (unexpectedly) and/or has a hidden payload nobody has discovered >> yet. > --snip-- >> >> Regards, John. > > John > > It is obvious that your intentions are not honourable! > > Melih > I would have to agree to the reacton though I do not think honor has anything to do with this before or now. I think this is totally uncalled for and goes well beyond a stretch. There was never malicious intentions with Launch Pad. Of that I am now sure. This needs to stop here. I am certain John is an honorable person and is only continuing to react well past the need through a bit of pride and stubbornness. We all become passionate with our own beliefs. I am also certain than you Melih performed with as much grace, forthrightedness and caution as a person could in your capacity representing something you care much about and weighing the circumstances of the potential gravity of the outcome. A compromise was made with Launch Pad. That is more than just something. Melih always knew it wasn't malicious nor were malicious intentions ever a part. We as users had every reason to be concerned with our lack of understanding of what was actually taking place. We simply were afraid. Passionately so. We desperately wanted-needed a great freeware firewall...we just didn't want attachments we do not completely understand from which many have been burned by others in the past. I have installed the program, disabled Launch Pad and the program is working as if Launch Pad did not exist. This is acceptable to me though I would wish you Melih could find an alternative way to accomplish what it is Launch Pad accomplishes and completely remove it's code from a version for those who would want program purity. At any rate, I will again say the compromise is acceptable to me. Comodo firewall has been offered to us as a capable freeware firewall beyond that which we have had. Decisions to use it at this point are individual. Please, let us not go any further with this. -- I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
From: Bear Bottoms on 2 Sep 2006 23:25 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:36:13 -0500, Comodo <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: > > Bear Bottoms wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:59:42 -0500, badgolferman >> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Bear Bottoms, 9/2/2006,9:15:14 AM, wrote: >> > >> >> You did a very bad job, and were extremely evasive about the issue. >> > >> > It seems to me you are really antagonizing this fellow. If you don't >> > like his product don't use it, but at least quit poking at him. His >> > responses to you have been very courteous and he has been trying to >> > direct you to his forum for the technical discussion you insist on >> > having here. It's because of the people in his forum that he made a >> > change to his product, not because of your incessant badgering and >> > belittling of him. "Don't quit your day job" is rather rude >> > considering his product has received excellent reviews from people >> more >> > knowledgeable of network security than yourself. >> > >> > I am considering trying out the Comodo Firewall but haven't yet found >> > any objective test that sets it above Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 or >> > the Netveda SafetyNet offering. If anyone has a link that may dare to >> > make a rating I would appreciate it. >> > >> The link from PC magazine has been posted. I am giving my opinion >> directly, not evaluating others opinions. >> >> Melih did a bad PR job, was evasive, and the questions were simple and >> direct which he/she >> evaded elusively, not direct clear consice response. >> >> I've already install the firewall after the compromise. >> >> >> -- >> I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com > > You are a tough crowd to please! (minus John.. I think he will never be > pleased with anything! :-) ) > > All I can say is: I have always tried to give as much information as I > can. I mean come on guys, I gave you a link that has all the questions > and answers! What part of giving you all the information is evasive? > There isn't a single question that was asked that hasn't been answered > in the link I have given! > > Melih > Well ya gotta understand this forum is this forum. We gotta hash it out here. You were evasive to a point, but I've gotta understand that. I think I do now. You should understand why we are wary. -- I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
From: Comodo on 2 Sep 2006 23:51 Bear Bottoms wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:36:13 -0500, Comodo <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: > > > > > Bear Bottoms wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:59:42 -0500, badgolferman > >> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Bear Bottoms, 9/2/2006,9:15:14 AM, wrote: > >> > > >> >> You did a very bad job, and were extremely evasive about the issue. > >> > > >> > It seems to me you are really antagonizing this fellow. If you don't > >> > like his product don't use it, but at least quit poking at him. His > >> > responses to you have been very courteous and he has been trying to > >> > direct you to his forum for the technical discussion you insist on > >> > having here. It's because of the people in his forum that he made a > >> > change to his product, not because of your incessant badgering and > >> > belittling of him. "Don't quit your day job" is rather rude > >> > considering his product has received excellent reviews from people > >> more > >> > knowledgeable of network security than yourself. > >> > > >> > I am considering trying out the Comodo Firewall but haven't yet found > >> > any objective test that sets it above Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 or > >> > the Netveda SafetyNet offering. If anyone has a link that may dare to > >> > make a rating I would appreciate it. > >> > > >> The link from PC magazine has been posted. I am giving my opinion > >> directly, not evaluating others opinions. > >> > >> Melih did a bad PR job, was evasive, and the questions were simple and > >> direct which he/she > >> evaded elusively, not direct clear consice response. > >> > >> I've already install the firewall after the compromise. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com > > > > You are a tough crowd to please! (minus John.. I think he will never be > > pleased with anything! :-) ) > > > > All I can say is: I have always tried to give as much information as I > > can. I mean come on guys, I gave you a link that has all the questions > > and answers! What part of giving you all the information is evasive? > > There isn't a single question that was asked that hasn't been answered > > in the link I have given! > > > > Melih > > > Well ya gotta understand this forum is this forum. We gotta hash it out > here. You were evasive to a point, but I've gotta understand that. I > think I do now. You should understand why we are wary. > > > -- > I research freeware http://bearbottoms1.com I do understand. Thank you for your post! Pls go ahead and put in the wishlist for CPF (in the comodo forums) that you wish to have an option to install or not install Launchpad. You will see that it will be taken seriously, as we have taken all our user's requests so far and will continue to do so. thanks Melih
From: Anne Carle on 3 Sep 2006 08:19 On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:21:16 -0500, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:43:29 -0500, Comodo <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: > >> >> John Fitzsimons wrote: >>> On 1 Sep 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: >> >> --snip-- >> I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that your >>> product goes payware and/or is disabled somewhere down the track >>> (unexpectedly) and/or has a hidden payload nobody has discovered >>> yet. >> --snip-- >>> >>> Regards, John. >> >> John >> >> It is obvious that your intentions are not honourable! >> >> Melih >> > >I would have to agree to the reacton though I do not think honor has >anything to do with this before or now. I think this is totally uncalled >for >and goes well beyond a stretch. There was never malicious >intentions with Launch Pad. Of that I am now sure. This >needs to stop here. I am certain John is an honorable person and >is only continuing to react well past the need through a bit of pride and >stubbornness. We all become passionate with our own beliefs. I am also >certain >than you Melih performed with as much grace, forthrightedness and caution >as >a person could in your capacity representing something you care much about >and weighing the circumstances of the potential gravity of the outcome. > >A compromise was made with Launch Pad. That is more than just something. >Melih always knew it wasn't malicious nor were malicious intentions ever a >part. >We as users had every reason to be concerned with our lack of >understanding of >what was actually taking place. We simply were afraid. Passionately so. >We desperately wanted-needed a great freeware firewall...we just didn't >want attachments >we do not completely understand from which many have been burned by others >in the past. > >I have installed the program, disabled Launch Pad and the program is >working >as if Launch Pad did not exist. This is acceptable to me though I would >wish >you Melih could find an alternative way to accomplish what it is Launch Pad >accomplishes and completely remove it's code from a version for those who >would want program purity. > >At any rate, I will again say the compromise is acceptable to me. Comodo >firewall has been offered to us as a capable freeware firewall beyond that >which we have had. Decisions to use it at this point are individual. >Please, >let us not go any further with this. The above is a very gracious concession on your part! Hopefully the other critics will see your rationale and back off. Anne
From: John Fitzsimons on 3 Sep 2006 17:56
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:21:16 -0500, "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote: >On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:43:29 -0500, Comodo <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: >> John Fitzsimons wrote: >>> On 1 Sep 2006 18:28:57 -0700, "Comodo" <melih(a)COMODOGROUP.COM> wrote: >> --snip-- >> I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that your >>> product goes payware and/or is disabled somewhere down the track >>> (unexpectedly) and/or has a hidden payload nobody has discovered >>> yet. >> --snip-- >>> Regards, John. >> John >> It is obvious that your intentions are not honourable! >> Melih "Realistic" may be the word you are looking for. >I would have to agree to the reacton though I do not think honor has >anything to do with this before or now. I think this is totally uncalled >for and goes well beyond a stretch. There was never malicious >intentions with Launch Pad. You know this, how ? I suspect that you are just as trusting of Microsoft, Sony etc. perhaps ? Companies thrive due to the gullibility of end users. There are always undiscerning people who believe people when they say "trust us". Perhaps you haven't come across companies with "hidden agendas" before ? If not then a look at some of the current "class actions" here might be of some interest : http://windowssecrets.com/comp/060615/#story1 The legal details ; http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WGA2complaint.pdf More comments : http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060705042741949 Or maybe : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/daily/graphics/complaint_111405.pdf http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7015.cfm http://hack.fi/~muzzy/sony-drm/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/01/sony_rootkit_drm/ etc. etc. < snip > People have requested that they be able to install Comodo without the Launchpad. At long last Melih has admitted that this cannot be done. Why not ? If it is so "innocent" then there is no reason why this option couldn't be offered. Regards, John. |