Didn't count, but it were many. Ranging from XML Editors over resource management software, network sniffers, scripting language implementation (do you know how many Python implementations are out there?) to computer algebra systems.
Depending on the functionality and the results ranged from seconds till weeks (long term testing).
Well, what do you think? Collecting information, testing on a test machine, careful analysis, and potentially long term testing.
F.e. Wehntrust, and ASLR implementation for Windows, breaks about once in
10000 processes. Now if your shell script is spawning one process for each 500 files, iterating over 2 mio. files...
Doubtful. "the author" is singular, not plural. So why the hell should I care for the author of an ad-ware supported software if other authors write free and better alternatives?
Why should I? It's a matter of definition.
Agobot/Gaobot
Anyway, even without any example it would be generally true.
Ad-ware is not legitimate software. Unless you want to stick with your unreasonable definitions.
Since ad-ware is not legitimate, you can't reasonably expect it to not bypass your filter. In fact, even if you're coming up with your strange redefinition this expectation doesn't change at all (thereby debunking your definition).
Even further, any sane implementation of ad-ware will disable the associated software if it can't download the advertisement.
It is. Trivially.
Because it's entirely different. And, as I told you, "layered security" is a common buzzword for selling an entirely different concept than "defence in depth", but trying to inherit the good fame of the latter by simple confusion.
That's what I should tell to you. But then again, you're a d*****ad. A d*****ad who doesn't even consider to inform himself what defense in depth actually means and how it's different from the buzzword "layered security", even though he has been pointed on his misconception.
Huh? Obviously quite the contrary. I do expect very much that the stupid has done something stupid, does something stupid and will do something stupid. You're suggesting that adding software that actually supports his stupidity would help him. Unless we made a damn huge improvement in AI recently, this is obviously nonsense. At any rate, there's no chance that whatever the stupid user is thinking would be suitable for a reasonable definition, or that redefining his stupid behaviour into reasonable usage criteria would be productive in any way.
Sorry, but if you're running with admin rights and then install malware you're hosed and it's simply your fault.