Comments on: PeerGuardian dismisses ‘malware’ claim

By: Neo

Neo — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:49:28 +0000

oops, once again, Open Source proves its usefulness. man, a Capitalist just can’t stomach something that is Freedom and something that cannot be bought. too funny. i love watching those pricks squirm!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:22:09 +0000

Of course the entertainement parasites doe s not like PeerGardian! If evry one was using peer gardian the RIAA, MPAA and their few attack dog such as media centry would be virtually kicked out of internet.
This is already partly the case and this is why they mostly sue people that are not even downloding music. The other one are protected by various means, one of this beeing peergardian. They download and they share but they can not be seen on the net by the entertainement industry. Keeping getting new ip adress as some of these companies does if extremly expesive compare to just added a new Ip adress into a text file. Once again the RIAA/MPAA parasites war against their customers is futile. Actually it give them a very good reason for not paying and not feeding the parasites:
This is your duty as citizen of the word, not to feed these parasites! It is your duty to put them out of their misery! Deworm and desinfect our societies!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:55:45 +0000

All this is, is some sort of pet peeve with the A/V company. Maybe one of their contributors is teed off about being blocked and this is ESETs method of protesting. Almost any company, especially datamining companies can buy off an Anti-virus company to not detect their particular signature by becoming an associated pardner by paying enough money. It’s sort of the way business is done.

But many of the freewares don’t play that game. Their not in it for the money or they would not be freeware. So they get to say what they will or will not detect without having to report to their shareholders that they turned down so much in free money or why they didn’t. Some of the more dodgey ones will not try to pay but instead take them to court to attempt to force them to remove the block.

PG has no malware. I’ve used it for years and Protowall before that. I much prefer Protowall, but that app has some bugs in that it wants it’s drivers to be top dog. That puts it in direct conflict with M$ who wants it’s net drivers top dog. With the changing of OSes, I finally gave up on Protowall as just being to tough to continue to configurations with the program. PG is a bit more forgiving on this part. So I sort of figure there is some behind the scenes stuff going on as a suspicion.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:42:09 +0000

I know for damned sure that it was, and never will be, malware.

It’s been a lifesaver, and if it was really malware, of any sort, than we would’ve obviously stopped using it. The fact that their source code can be downloaded should keep most people’s mouths quiet from shooting off allegations.