Also some other privacy tools have silently broken/disabled domain administrator's access to computers. The tools are not necessarily tested in domain networks at all and for example in work environments that may cause time consuming issues to solve.
I tend to share this sentiment, or at the very least come from a reputable company such as O&O.
I personally tend to modify the Windows install image these days to not include offensive components, as well as disable offending features in group policy.
Look into unattended installs, the WIM format. I use NTLite, which is not free, but worth the money. There are other, free, tools which you can also use.
Some do but it's hardly universal. AFAIK that comes with its own security problems like each app having to bundle and update its own dependencies. Games aren't great either. I think Steam for example makes its application folder writeable by all users by default.
Each app already had to bundle and update its own dependencies. The WinSxS folder was created solely for programs who tried to install global dependencies -- it serves as a per-program "global" folder so each program can have its own "global" without getting in the way of others.
Cool, and? Then you're apparently not the target audience.
It's an unobfuscated .NET application that a bunch of folks seem to have built in their spare time. Did you use any of the widely available tools to decompile it and find anything egregious in there or is this just a lazy dismissal?
This really misses the point. There's a practical point, and a point of principle.
If you're making the point that disassembly is at least possible, you've already lost. Sure, maybe they haven't gone as far as they possibly could have in preventing us from inspecting the code's workings. Perhaps the licence is gracious enough not to try to prohibit such study. That's still not good enough.
These days it's pretty much the norm to release such freeware as Free and Open Source software. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why then haven't they done so? Why do they choose to deny the rights to study and improve the software?
Releasing the source is also a pretty good way of offering assurance of the absence of malware.
It's reasonable to be wary with admin privileges. Proprietary freeware comes across as saying You're not allowed to look, just trust me. I'll pass.
Sure, I completely agree with the point of principle, just found it odd to simply dismiss a project on it.
The norm for HN maybe just hasn't reached the authors yet given their home countries and the fact they seem to identify via Steam profiles, i.e. are likely more involved in a social circle of Windows based gamers instead of FOSS folks. We don't know anything about those authors, it's pretty unlikely that this came from a point of explicitly choosing to deny somebody any rights, for all I know this was made by a bunch of 15 year olds that simply didn't know any better. While I realize the fundamental difference between this tool and random webapps, products without disclosed source or incentives are cheered on by HN all the time, which is why I found "not open source. won't install, won't suggest." a rather lazy contribution.
If one of the authors had submitted this we could have had a conversation and suggest they open source it, like you've just done, which is absolutely fine. Passing on closed source freeware is fine as well but attribution of bad intentions or "closed source == bad" style comments are just plain unnecessary imho.
> I completely agree with the point of principle, just found it odd to simply dismiss a project on it.
I dismissed the project the moment I learnt it's closed-source, for the reasons I've given. A point of principle is a fine reason to dismiss something, even in the absence of a practical concern. Here we have both.
There are plenty of things I can shrug off about a software project, such as internal design decisions I disagree with, or using tools and languages that I dislike, or even using a Free and Open Source software licence that I dislike. Choosing to make it closed-source is bigger than that.
To be clear, I'm not a FOSS purist (I'm writing this from Firefox on Windows 10), but for a tool like this in particular, it should either be FOSS, or direct from Microsoft.
> The norm for HN maybe just hasn't reached the authors yet given their home countries and the fact they seem to identify via Steam profiles, i.e. are likely more involved in a social circle of Windows based gamers instead of FOSS folks.
This doesn't change my assessment at all. If the developers are beginners/hobbyists and are, bluntly, of such low calibre that they aren't aware of the advantages of Free and Open Source software, I don't see how that's reassuring.
> for all I know this was made by a bunch of 15 year olds that simply didn't know any better
Then I'm glad I was quick to dismiss the idea of giving their code admin rights on my machine!
> I found "not open source. won't install, won't suggest." a rather lazy contribution
You're right that detay's reply didn't explain their dismissal, yes.
> attribution of bad intentions
I mean, they are denying us the rights to study and improve the software. That's what closed-source software means. Was the decision to go closed-source the result of bad intentions? Perhaps not, as you say they might not be deliberately setting out to deny rights that people value, but my strong reservations remain justified.
> "closed source == bad" style comments are just plain unnecessary
In the context of software of this kind, closed source is bad. I think I've justified this position.
> It's reasonable to be wary with admin privileges. Proprietary freeware comes across as saying You're not allowed to look, just trust me. I'll pass.
I agree with this completely, and I extend it to the operating system itself. I'm at the point (at home) where I no longer need a proprietary, closed source OS for work or for play. Linux and OpenBSD do essentially everything I need in my home office, and at work I've shifted most of my day-to-day over to my Linux workstation. The systems I maintain do of course still run Windows 10 out of necessity for our accounting software, but if we ever switch that over to a hosted solution we will only need one workstation with Windows, and it's not a critical role. The company president has already greenlit working in whatever OS I am most comfortable with, as long as it doesn't hinder my duties, so he's at least open to moving everything over one day.
