Re: I'm torn on this one...
> For instance, imagine Windows on a dual-boot machine suddenly saying "Windows detected the 'Linux' malware on another partition, and erased it. You're welcome." Using this to be anticompetitive really should be prohibited.
Funny you should mention that as an example, because Windows already does something fairly similar. Who here has installed a Windows update, then booted to the desktop and had a popup along the lines of “$APPLICATION is not compatible with this version of Windows and has been uninstalled”?
Which drives me mad. Firstly, it’s the unearned smugness of it. “We did you a favour and messed up your workflow!”
Secondly though, define “not compatible”. That could be anything from “immediately crashes and takes down the whole system” to “works perfectly unless you try to print to a hard copy” (in which case, a perfectly reasonable response by the user might be: “I know, I don’t even have a printer anyway, and I need this old app to (access old financial records, photos, whatever)”. Or it might be that the app in question is installed on C: but is only ever run under WINE from the dual-boot Linux partition.
Either way, my point - if I have one? - is that applications shouldn’t be uninstalled without the clear consent of the user.
I’m NOT siding with Enigma here. What I have read here and elsewhere makes me inclined to never, ever let their software anywhere near my systems. And Malwarebytes aren’t automatically uninstalling it; they’re just flagging it as a PUP. To return to my analogy, if Windows simply popped up with “hey, $APPLICATION might not be fully compatible with this version of Windows, click here for details” - that would be a lot more acceptable.