Malware removal is not available in the trial version of Exterminate It!. To enable malware removal, you need to activate Exterminate It! with an activation code, which is provided after you have purchased a license for the application. For information about purchasing Exterminate It!, click the link in the Payment area of the Update screen.
Free exterminate it activation key
Most times you use the Undo screen to restore files. From this screen, you can also permanently erase the files from the temporary repository if you want to free up space on your computer.
In my time in IT I have seen several cleanup services/apps that cause as much problems as the software they claim to remove. Has anyone here used exterminate-it.com product? If so, please share your experience and opinion of the products.
A Full Scan with Exterminate It (offered free working download), claimed to find 2 Tracking Cookies -As I pressed the Exterminate tab, I was given a Pop-up that I must pay for removal ! ! ! For Tracking Cookies ??This function is available only in the activated version of Exterminate It ! Please activate your copy of Exterminate It !.
Anyway, I exterminated all but a couple of the cookies I know I use all the time. Now when I do a search almost nothing shows up except cookies. However, once in a while an adware or malware program will show up but McAfee still doesn't seem to find it. I do know that McAfee locates and stops a lot of stuff from being downloaded and will always warn me about certain sites.
The only problem I'm having with Exterminate-It is that I have to continually ask for the activation code to be reset on the server. This occurs every two or three weeks on each of 3 computers for which I purchased the program. If they could only correct that problem and have the program permanently activate the code for the duration it would be a great product. Just sayin......
I purchase the software for three computers. I like the way it finds really hidden malware, etc., but dealing with the activation process can be mind boggling at times. I have activated the software on my 3 computers but the program asks me to activate every two or three weeks. However, the original code does not work and you have to try and get the company to re-activate the code, something I've had to do several times. Now they have sent me a new code which does not work. They are in Denmark and that makes it a real problem if you're in the US. If I had it to do over I'd simply get some of the free malware software and save my money.
...Now they have sent me a new code which does not work. They are in Denmark and that makes it a real problem if you're in the US. If I had it to do over I'd simply get some of the free malware software and save my money.
To me that is the *practical side* of GNU's "freedom 1". And SysV init is definitely the most hackable of the alternatives discussed here -- all its baroque clumsiness notwithstanding (no, I'm no fan of SysV init, but in the presence of the attitudes of the proponents of systemd and upstart, it still seems the best choice. Not technically, but socially). systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 24, 2012 20:41 UTC (Tue) by hazeii (guest, #82286) [Link]
I would say rather that these are fixes to real problems affecting real desktop users -- the old ifup scripts could not handle switching between wireless networks all the time, and init was slow as a dog and (as much as we all grew to know and love it) really did involve deep magic to manage.The point of pulse was to manage sound across multiple users and applications smoothly. There were some apps *cough*flash*cough* which would routinely hijack the audio system, and I remember often having to reboot just to get my music back. Pulse, after the first few versions of Fedora anyway, has never given me that kind of crap.In my experience, I've always resisted these changes at first, then after a year or two, started to love them. Because after the early bugs were worked through, they really were technically superior to the old systems, and often more configurable and more flexible. Since they're new, they tend not to be so discoverable or well-documented, which I think is what most "I loved init like a child!" posters here are actually complaining about.For example, I still can't figure out how to use NetworkManager from a command-line, so I don't. (As a result, I need to do all sorts of ugly crap when moving between networks, crap which no end-user should be required to deal with. But no end-user -is- required to, as long as they install a DE, so this is fine.)This stuff is all open-source and freely licensed, so there's no reason for other distributions not to use it. If this is Red Hat's strategy, it's pretty stupid, since it amounts to working for free for the competition.To compare, consider the changes Ubuntu makes. In my experience, these start out as irritating, then transition to unusable. (After Unity, I threw in the towel, and stopped using Ubuntu anywhere) so I have no idea what they've been up to in the last few years. Upstart was crashy and confusing, hard to configure and poorly documented. Unity is a complete gong show. It looks like garbage, is non-discoverable and unusable, doesn't work on most computers, depends on high-end video drivers (which are mostly proprietary), and involved special tools and BINARY BLOBS to configure. The Ubuntu attitude has always been "our way or the highway", and this attitude has gotten worse, as they deviate further and further from the mainstream, in the WRONG DIRECTION, for NO REASON.I had technically illiterate family members using Ubuntu. At first (around the 6.06 era) it worked great. Then they started breaking things in weird ways. For a while, I was able to work around their crap, apologize profusely and insist that I was "talking to the developers" about this "completely unprofessional" behaviour. Then Unity came around, and X stopped starting, and when I went to poke around, found the system internals completely trashed. Stuff was renamed, deleted, replaced, whatever, for seemingly no other reason than to be different. Since half the stuff couldn't be configured over SSH, and I had literally no clue what the UI looked like (even though it was a stock UI), this involved me physically travelling around to maintain these computers. In the 20th century.After dicking around for a few hours, I said "go to Futile Shop, buy a $250 refurbished computer with Windows on it".I didn't mean for this to be a rant about Ubuntu. My point was simply that I would not blame Red Hat for being hostile and uncooperative with the community. And I would absolutely accuse Canonical of this. systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 7:58 UTC (Wed) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link]
Some "communities" (as far as LWN is a community) are different; on e.g. GNOME you can disagree/agree as much as you want, but it is not a free for all.Suggest saying the same as you do here in real life / conferences such as GUADEC/FOSDEM. You'll see that some communication methods just don't get you much further. systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 27, 2012 2:36 UTC (Fri) by cas (guest, #52554) [Link] 2ff7e9595c
Comments