What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
57 Comments
- ActivitY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35it's reputable?
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35"This is not adware at all," he said. "Like every search engine, Browzar has sponsored advertising."
so it's Soft*ware* with *ad*vertising
hmmm, I can see now that it's not adware. - mozzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25The minute I read it was an IE shell, there was no need to download.
- opita, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19you mean taught...not tought
Stop blaming digg for your lack of good judgment. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Confusing Spyware and Adware is the problem. Google's Ads don't 'do things' when I visit other websites. They don't rewrite Amazon links for example to make them affiliates of the browser -- the common asshat Spyware trick and this product.
Adware should stay in its little ad space. It shouldn't do anything else. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Congrats, Yeshua...it takes a lot to get buried on digg when you are mindlessly attacking Wondows and Sony. You figured out the best way to do it is to post ridiculously untrue *****, and then think that you are clever by writing Winblows.
If you are going to be a lemming, at least be craetive and truthful.
Oh, and if you took 2 minutes to secure it, Windos is penty secure. I guess you are just not smart enough to know how. - merwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Do they tell you on their website or anywhere in the app that they are redirecting search results to only paid sponsors and not to actual legitimate search results?
If not, then I consider it 100% adware. - chrisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Browzar does *not* allow for private browsing. IE writes its cache to the disk as usual and browser then deletes the files (NOT overwrites - deletes). Browzar is so buggy at its sloppy attempt at privacy that it does not delete all the files, it leaves the HTML page itself behind and sometimes cookies.
I think this app has been quickly thrown together simply to put adware on peoples machines to make money, the bugs are evidence of this.
If anyone wants a real private browser, use Firefox which I think Browzar has not used because of the GPL. It can be configured not to use a disk cache at all, or you can get a portable version which will run entirely from removable storage that does not rely on an insecure MS engine. - hmniq, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How's about we discuss whether Browzar actually allows for private browsing, seeing as to how it's an IE plugin?
- madinga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11How about we stop discussing it? We're just helping them, after all Browzar LOVES all of us arguing about it and endless articles in the BBC
= FREE ADVERTISING
They have some great PR people, that's for sure. Shame their product is a load of old guff. - Mousefinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8From the BBC article:
"Browzar's developers say they are examining the feedback but strongly deny that it is adware. Mr Ajaz Ahmed, founder of internet service provider Freeserve and the man behind Browzar, told the BBC News website that he thought people were misusing the term.
"This is not adware at all," he said. "Like every search engine, Browzar has sponsored advertising." Adware is typically a piece of software that generates advertising on a user's computer.
The Browzar website states the application contains "no malware, no spyware and no adware". '
So it begs the question: if you use a "Search Engine", does the inclusion of "paid sponsor links" count as Adware/Spyware? Hrmmm...I think what some people are piss about (and rightly so) is that (i) it's just an IE shell, (ii) searches are redirected without permission, (iii) it really doesn't do what they claim (or doesn't do it well).
There is also this from the BBC article:
But Mr Ahmed says that users are under no obligation to use the Browzar search engine. "You can use whichever search engine you want with Browzar," he said. "Just type in the address and you can use Google, MSN, Yahoo or Ask." - xr56n44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8browzar's claim that it's not adware is even more laughable than the idea that IE could even remotely be considered "secure" or "private." plus, any search that goes thru overture will be exploited to the Nth degree... so much for any idea of "privacy."
but, still if he objects to being called adware, fine, i won't call it adware, i'll just call it ***** instead... since he's splitting hairs and all. - Anjow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yeah like the Sony rootkit DRM news was free advertising...
- caffeinelover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I don't know, vaga - do you install craigslist on your computer before you can use it? Because adware gets installed.
- blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8A homepage you can't change and a search bar that will only search Browzar's own search engine, which just so happens to return results that are by and large sponsored links.
- diggeasytiger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It is very good. But when it comes to tech news, they need to hire someone new.
The tech news is abysmal. - Strangers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Mr Ahmed said at the time of its release: "Although it's possible to delete history folders and empty cache with existing internet browsers, the majority of internet users worldwide don't have the time or expertise to do this."
Yeah, ctrl-shift-del is a two hour operation... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Was there ever a story here that even hinted that Browster was a worthwhile download in the first place?
- SuperSunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5IMO, anything that changes the normal typical way of writing a word into a modified version with the letter "Z" is ***** in my book.
For example, Browzar should be spelled "***** Ad-on to an already ***** Browzar!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah and it's so hard to type www.google.com.
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BBC News is a very well respected broadcaster, however, as I frequently say: do not believe technical articles in non-technical publications.
- dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4a program that small (on their site they advertise that fact) is obviously just using an internet explorer active x control as the actual browser. that makes this just a thin adware wrapper around an insecure browser.
- Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's a distinct difference between talking to your base, dumbing down, and flat out reporting erroneous and incorrect information as truth.
It should be unacceptable. period. - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I reckon he should have used the Mozilla active X thing instead of using IE.
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought everybody knew when it was release that they'll be making money off of ads, i know I did.When alot of people hear the term adware they think of bonzi buddy and coolwebsearch,ect.Which this isnt AFAIK.
- Anjow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Because firefox doesn't seamlessly enter sponsored search results inbetween the real ones.
- paulstringer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2because the bbc are idiots when it comes to technology reporting..
- Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Browzar does not by any stretch of the imagination do what it's proponents say it does.
Although my view is that of a technophile, I would still say that, from the viewpoint of the average person, it is simply a blatently ineffective product with rather sophisticated and illusive integrated sponsorship.
Sure the search sucks, but overture is a sophisticated product, and to see it integrated into such a crude product leads me to believe that getting overture closer to the user is the intended purpose of browzar.
This disparity between the efficacy of the actual content (the browser plugin itself), and additional sponsored content (in this case I am reffering to how effective it is at delivering ads to you when you search) leads me to believe, ocne again, that this is nothing more than an attempt to get ads closer to the user under the veil of a legitimate product.
The difference between google and such, is that the efficacy of the original content is high and delivers while clearly marking advertising, while the efficacy of this software is low and the advertising is purposely hidden under the veil of legitmate search results. - clokwise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did anyone notice that when you use the searchbar in FireFox, mozilla.org gets a cut of any ads you click? Pretty much the same deal. So why isn't anyone screaming about FireFox?
- blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Because that is done seamlessly, with absolutely no inferences made about things like that NOT happening. Browzar's search bar redirects you to *THEIR OWN SEARCH SITE* which is *LARGELY MADE UP OF SPONSORED LINKS*. If they had the same deal that Mozilla does nobody would complain because it in no way hampers normal browsing. It's also not underhanded *****.
Browzar makes claims that it contains no adware, spyware, or malware. Obviously, at least one of these claims is entirely false. - diggeasytiger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you run it in linux under wine it uses the mozilla control :p
http://belfast.no-ip.info/apache2-default/browzar.png - bensales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I cannot see why this IE wrapper is getting so much press. It's a very average browser with no extra functionality than has already been out there for years.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3just use firefox and not worry about it.........
- inactive, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Browzar doesnt install itself. It is a self contained .exe
Next? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Isn't Browzar just a shell on top of IE or at least uses IE's browser engine? How is that more secure?
- Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another issue that this brigns up is the warranties and liability that the software maker that provides free software is actutally held to.
If this software package were to clearly state it's intentions somewhere deep in the EULA like Sony did with it's rootkits (simply an example since I haven't keep up with recent rootkit spottings), whos to say that they have to give out a legitimate product.
Are bonzai buddy, whenusearch, and the like, truely accountable to anyone for their QA since they are free? Specifically, if they say that they provide an internet search but are rather ambiguous in the details, should they be held to accoutn for the results that their little search demons spit out? - blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2chrisu: Umm... why would the GPL do anything in regards to Browzar's ability to use Firefox (more accurately, Gecko) as a base? Write a wrapper and you're not generating any code under the GPL.
- PoserOfAllTrade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Although it's possible to delete history folders and empty cache with existing internet browsers, the majority of internet users worldwide don't have the time or expertise to do this.
"There is no free method that offers the freedom to surf the web privately that is as simple and easy to use as Browzar.
"It doesn't keep copies of pages that have been visited or retain details that have been entered into online forms."
Because, you know, it's SO HARD to set your history to "0 days" and your internet cache to "0 MB".
And it's also so incredibly difficult to find free utilities that clean up such cache. (like CCleaner)
Somebody please go choke the dev. Thanks. - Bamborzled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even if you clear the cache, even if you clear the history, Internet Explorer will still store some info in "index.dat" files.
- baaj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, i don't really understand where the demand is. Firefox is ad free and fully configurable. If you need privacy, you can configure it for that as well.
- diggeasytiger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think a lot of the problem is (and the reason it got some much mainstream airtime) was due to that freeserve ***** putting up the money.
It's a featureless scam and they need to be taken down. Also the BBC need to fire their technology editor. It's insane how long that article went on for. - rogerka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, you have to admit it's quite remarkable that this company manage to build a nice web site, write press releases, get a lot of media attention and create a nice looking user interface for the program, but fails to add an option to change your home page. And surprise: the hard coded home pages shows sponsored links. Seems like they are focusing more on revenue than on their users.
Here's how to change the homepage to google.com:
http://rogerkarlsson.com/blogs/misc/change-browzar-home-page/ - grimfandango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2cmon guys, lets bury this Browzar loser. It's clearly adware and they're piggybacking people like us to get more publicity. get the word out, Browzar is BAD NEWS.
- Goosemaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1agreed.
the BBC is the biggest offender though:P - diggeasytiger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Stop taking it seriously. It is a pile of software poo. I recall writing tabbed browsers using the IE control when i was 15 (before i got a proper operating system). That app they have prob took an hour to make at most.
- paulstringer, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3Dummyuninformed technology reporting again by the BBC. The guy states that other browsers like Safari require you to get rid of your history, cookies, etc manually. I've already told them the story is innacurate, in Safari for instance you just choose Private Browsing. Did they update it no, in fact they've gone on to let the guy state further innacuracies by saying "There is no free method that offers the freedom to surf the web privately that is as simple and easy to use as Browzar." Well Safari -> Private Browsing is free and I think a little easier for a Mac user than buying a pc and installing a skin for IE. I'm pretty sure you can get something that does exactly the same thing for free for Firefox.
BBCs technology reporting totally sucks as always. Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/ for a laugh. Consistently it condescending out of touch and dumbed down to the point of uselessness. This is the one and only technology programme I know off the BBC doing and it's a joke, "Kate Russell looks at websites about origami" f*ck off! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1browzar is gay... you can write something like this in Visual Basic 6 in a flash... and add in your own customizable features
- cbeach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good point - and interesting to see how this vital detail has been forgotten amongst all the Firefox OSS hype and the various grassroots campaigns to propogate the browser.
- Chetters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This needs to be buried. Browzar is a waste of time. Lets move on. It runs on IE and all the searches are hijacked and return trash. Not even non savy people will be tricked into using this because the search hijacking makes the browser useless no matter how "secure" it claims to be.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 