<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Google's sneaky Adobe partnership ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-18T13:05:14-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[they seem to be alternating them, as the last update I saw had McAfee -nt]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3713666]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[nt]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3713666]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:30:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Glad to see the Chrome Installer]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3713683]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[For a while there Adobe was sneaking in a free version of McAfee Security Essentials. This was causing all kinds of conflicts with our McAfee Enterprise installations. I can't count the number of time I had to uninstall that. One would think McAfee would not let its free version stomp on their paying customers.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3713683]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Snobird]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:53:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[But]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700960]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We all make mistakes. The difference is that I don't blame others for my mistakes or expect them to fix what I broke.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700960]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dogknees]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:08:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[choice]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700941]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It is no choice when you have selected automatic updating.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700941]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[curtisneal@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:02:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Alternative to  Adobe flash player]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700890]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My personal solution is to access the internet via my Ubuntu 12.04 desktop install dual booted with W7, (Mint 13/ XP Sp3 on my laptop). Although this could be seen as a sledge hammer to crack a nut, the Adobe flash nut is a tough one &amp; justifies it!As you know, Adobe recently abandoned support for Linux, so no sneaky installs! I also notice the unwanted toolbars are absent. For me the 1/2 to 1hr invested installing (time lost Googling for laptop wireless driver solution), has been more than paid back with interest, withlow to nil time lost removing the unwanted, including malware, virus's (for now, popularity could change this.)  Flash player alternatives available for Mint/ Ubuntu ( &amp; derivatives of?) LightSpark &amp; Gnash. I have not found any problems opening web pages yet, or experienced the frequent lockups, crashes that I find with Adobe/windows (just been lucky so far?!)I admitted from the start, for just accessing the Internet, this takes a lot of disc space,  there are smaller Disto's  like Puppy &amp; Dam Small Linux,  but I've found wireless a problem again (just me I suspect), and I do use the Linux install for many other tasks. Most Linux can also be effectively mounted &amp; run on USB Memory sticks, also for ref, quick boot up for just Internet use, Intel used to have mounted, a Linux distro on their Mbr's.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700890]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nitramd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2012 03:30:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I know what you mean, but it doesn't happen to me as I use Zorin OS Linux]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700834]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[and when this garbage starts to run in the background I get asked to enter the password to allow it to load. I simply refuse to give the password and the stuff doesn't get loaded. I find it interesting that this stuff does get to run in the background on a Win 7 system which is supposed to stop that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700834]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:21:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[you're right, calling Adobe and the others doing this names]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700840]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[won't stop it. What needs to happen is to hit them in the hip pocket. Don't buy their software, don't use their software, complain to sites that require you to use their software; and explain to all involved why you're so against them. Get a big enough grass roots movement going to NOT use Flash or Adobe software and they will react to the loss of sales.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700840]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:18:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Adobe the Obnoxious one]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700818]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No! I've been slimed, who I'm going to call, Google busters!  To clarify, I hate, object to crapware, sneaky updates toolbar installs &amp; having to waste my time removing them, when I missed that box conveniently positioned, coloured, sized ect &amp; already ticked for me. I do not   delegate all blame to those caught out, assuming reasonable caution had been taken, ( note there has rarely if ever been an action between parties where responsibility for the outcome is totally one sided!), but look for solutions, of which the first step is trying to understand the why, the how Adobe  &amp; others do it, such as for subsidies for example ( sorry if it wasn't clear).   As previously stated I spend time advising family, friends &amp; even enemies how to avoid, remove it, performing such tasks if asked, (except for enemies who can wipe their own crap off!)The majority of people have interests other than technology, &amp; it is to this significantly larger market that manufactures address, competing on price, which crapware lowers through subsidy (as customers often only look to specs &amp; price for value judgments). These people also fall prey to the download traps, such as Adobe's so how to stop it? 1. Education, advise use of alternatives &amp; warn of sneaky download techniques.  Adobe's Flash Player is hard to avoid as past popularity has produced lock in on the Web &amp; they've also appeared to make it difficult for other flash players to develop. Any one know of another player/plug in?2. Do not use flash, use HTML5, flash blockers ect, the Steve Jobs solution, wasn't there a big argument against him doing this, from Techrepublic, ZDnet &amp; others?3. Legislate to ensure there are alternative flash players in competition. Introduce regulations that make disguised concealed download approval illegal. If people had to tick the box to load rather than having it pre ticked as now.   This has to be the last one to try If all else fails, as it has the least chance of success due to powerful political lobbies, international boundaries and an admission of the failure of a free open market.     I'm afraid discussing, calling Adobe &amp; each other names here will not stop these obnoxious practices.  To understand the problem is essential, but to change it is the point. That  first change being with ones own habits, then convince those close to you, and so change cascades out as they do the same, and the power of organic growth does the rest.I will leave the opportunity to reply open (assuming the web page allows), I value interest, criticism (thank you andyvphil), alternative opinions &amp; offer solutions.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3700818]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nitramd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:45:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Malware called Google]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3699986]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I hav absolutely no problem with reasonably disclosed tie-ins or sponsorships. I just want an OBVVIOUSLY well disclosed option not to agree to the tie in. To my memory, Im have found various google malware installed on my computers for as long as I have been aware of Google. It has been installed without me even seeing a box (checked or not) on the installation of the software that I wanted. Along with that, my home page was changed EVERY SINGLE TIME without my choice. I call that type of corporate behaviour bordering on criminal! I have posting these complaints for several years now. You would think that they would contact me to see why I hate them so much.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3699986]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[curtisneal@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 05:44:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What Adobe is doing is obnoxious.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3699923]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The idea that I should accept their repeated attempts to sneak crapware onto my computers as the necessary price of their product and blame only myself if they succeed is obnoxious too.I'd be perfectly happy if Flash didn't exist since practically everything it is used for makes my browsing experience worse. But I want the websites that demand it to be functional and the course of least resistance is to keep updating it... though I'm considering cancelling that and seeing how long I can get away with an unupdated product. But Adobe always claims to be addressing a security issue that they've previously introduced. In  any case, the idea that it's some free goodie that I should be willing to pay a considerable price in inconvenience and vigilance for is insane.I'm here because I was looking for some way to diable the Google toolbar rather than uninstall it. I've many times before declined to accept it, but this time it slipped through. Why anyone could think this malware behaviour is ok is completely beyond me. Adobe is slime, and if you think what they do is ok then you're probably pretty slimy too, whether you realize it or not.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3699923]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[andyvphil@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:48:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Totally disappointed]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3699615]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes, I am slightly surprised that Adobe decided to &quot;bundle&quot; the Chrome browser, but I'm even more surprised at the reaction of the article writer. I find on my 2008-era system with Vista, that Google Chrome works significantly faster than IE on most of the pages I work with. In addition, I am able to DISABLE flash and DISABLE advertising junk without Chrome bleating at me each time a plugin has been blocked. Chrome just blocks it, and that's that. Whereas IE moans each and EVERY time I strike a out-of-band 'transmission'. Frankly I'm on the opposite side of the fence from Tony - I hate IE, and won't use it unless it's the only option.That's just my two cents worth. Please Mr Article Writer, do rewrite this article. It is not professional, even if it is intended as a pure opinion piece.Regards, The Viking (Eric Gillespie)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3699615]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[brickviking@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:32:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I'm not defending them.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698983]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm lumping them with others and saying it's all wrong.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698983]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mattohare@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2012 05:22:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Google srtealthy installations]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698748]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I also came up with this totally unwanted stealth installation. As i use the automatic updater, I was not even given the checkbox. This is Google's constant attempt to takeover people's computers. They have been doing this whenever and whereevewr they could for decades. I have many issues with Google and their total disregard for users. I could go into grat detail about their ubnderhanded and inconsideerate tactics. My most critical criticism is that they have no way to recover an hijacked gmail account wher the hijackers changed both the android phone number and secondary email account. The automated system only allows you to use those 2 items to recover the account. With no customer support that can bypass the automated system, I lost all of my calandars which I rely on extensively because of disablilties.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698748]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[curtisneal@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:19:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Fake Chrome installations]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698508]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Also Google Chrome installing itself in Windows users directory's, not program's as other browsers do.That means few users per Windows machine can install few independent Chrome installations. I understand this helps to customize Google search results to each user on one machine. But I wonder if the price of Google shares depend on such fake &quot;popularity&quot; of Chrome.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698508]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ManlyElectronics]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:35:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yeah, no.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698512]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Are you mad that you didn't have one of those CheckBox choices for Internet Explorer when you installed Windows?  Isn't it unfair how we're supposed to PAY ATTENTION and ACTUALLY READ THINGS that might possibly be INSTRUCTIONS or CRUCIAL CHOICES during installations?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698512]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[WayTooSerious]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:33:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Tried clicking links yet?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698506]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since uninstalling Chrome, have you tried to click on any web shortcuts on your desktop or any links in Outlook?Not Good.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698506]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[teef_au]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:55:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Do No Harm]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698447]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think the slogan is intended to go a bit deeper than worrying about if they create a minor annoyance for inattentive downloaders.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698447]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Fairbs]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 11:53:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ninite]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698382]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ninite takes care of the whole issue. When I get a notification that there is an update for Flash (almost weekly at this point), Reader, Firefox, etc., I don't use their software to download it. I pull out the Ninite installer I downloaded a year ago, and let it do the work. It makes sure that any of the little &quot;bonus prizes&quot; that get included are ignored, and checks all the other software I've indicated for updates as well, all without me having to do anything other than start it. Oh, and it's free.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698382]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jhaliotis@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:13:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree, I hate all forms of flashers - nt]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698364]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[nt]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698364]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:09:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Grammar!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698380]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Well the points you make appear to be valid, if somewhat heated, admittedly in the same &quot;my way is best&quot; arrogant manner used by the original article. I must ask though, did not your English teacher show you the difference between there and their? Makes it hard to read, or is that reed?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-394429-3698380]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[arp@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:07:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

