On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:56 +0400, Torokhov Sergey wrote: > On Sunday 25 of March 2012 03:14:56 Rob Weir wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Marc Sanders > <marcsander...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > Rob Weir <robweir <at> apache.org> writes > > > > > > > The MO is typically to install adware, not viruses. Virus writing is > > > > not a business model. Some anti-virus apps report adware, some don't. > > > > > > > > But if you don't see anything, that might be a good sign. After all, > > > > > > > > adware that you can't see is not a business model either. > > > > > > > > When I get a chance I'll try installing on a virtual > > > > machine and see what I get. > > > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > > Installing on a virtual machine--great idea. Let > > > me know what you get. > > > > Tried on an XP SP3 VM. DIfferent results that you had, and different what > > I saw on the website last week. Now it appears to offer the full 150MB 3.3 > > download, as signed by Oracle. Evidently some cat & mouse going on. > > > > In any case, the safest way to download is always via > > http://download.openoffice.org. > > > > -Rob > > > > > Thanks! > > > -Marc > > It seems they change their site. It's now look different from that was befobe > to my mind and now download links lead to > http://download.services.openoffice.org > (does it still official download link ?) > while curently on official site http://openoffice.mirrorbrain.org download > link is > represented for me. > > Maybe they saw this discussion? It look suspiciously :\ > If they curenly supply the Official builds and wiil not change download links > > to any different from official mirror when it looks like some advertising > resource. > > But the page: > http://www.downloadadmin.com/consumers/general-uninstallation-instructions > confuse me. What Advertiser’s Software is question? > So it is realy safest to use officeial site to dowbload, as Rob said, at > least > while the owners of that resouce contact with AOO developers. > > There is no any contact information on their page but only the form for > question is there.
I do not know that this has any relationship to why they changed but I did call the owners, the day after the subject came up on the mailing lists. The phone call was short, it was polite and it was in the tone of one person speaking to another, representing only myself. I appealed to their sense of fairness. //drew > > >
