Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "David B." Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,uk.comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Optimising performance with EtreCheckPro and Ulbow Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2025 18:54:57 +0100 Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <0vycnWMgC6A0yAr1nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@supernews.com> Reply-To: boaterdave@hotmail.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net Lfooc5mvcxag84ktg2SaigMqivi3eiT750vFW80c5roQPRq5hW Cancel-Lock: sha1:dh44d81mE2DV7/jHo0F+CaZ3MBk= sha256:WhZXBzJaLbsX2dl5h3OIa8Pfq0zbTLOVGJZVtXbgxdA= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <0vycnWMgC6A0yAr1nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@supernews.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:136381 uk.comp.sys.mac:181615 On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote: > On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" wrote: > >> On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote: >>> On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" wrote: >>> >>>> If you, or anyone else, can explain why: >>>> >>>> No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work, >>> >>> Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records". >>> >>>> There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends, >>>> despite requiring Full Disk Access, >>> >>> Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is nothing wrong >>> with it. >>> >>>> …then by all means, enlighten me. >>> >>> Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are answering your >>> questions. >>> >>> OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the answers to >>> your "questions". >>> >>>> Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same >>>> question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask. >>> >>> You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been answered MANY >>> TIMES. Drop it and move on. >> >> >> Hi Tyrone, >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found >> nothing wrong. > > Why don't YOU mention the people who HAVE found ANYTHING wrong with EtreCheck? > YOU are the one making the allegations. It is up to YOU to prove them. > Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way > around. > > Don't you think that people at Apple have looked into this? Don't you think > that people at the various Apple support forums (where you have been banned) > have looked into this? Why else would EVERYONE recommend EtreCheck? Even your > former hero Howard Oakley. > > You are the ONLY person questioning EtreCheck. Over and over and over. You > are obsessed with it. Yet you don't question any other software. You don't > know any of the people who wrote any of the software you use daily. Yet you > presume all of that software and all of those people to be innocent. > > Why is that? Just because an innocent person (the author of EtreCheck) is > avoiding a stalker (you)? > > AGAIN, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way > around. Tyrone, I’m not asking anyone to “prove guilt” — I’m asking for verifiable facts. If “lots of people” have audited EtreCheck, then please name those people, link to their findings, and make their methodology public so others can confirm. Without independent, transparent sources, saying “everyone recommends it” is just an appeal to popularity — it’s not the same as a technical audit. That’s the whole point: clear, documented evidence would settle the question far better than personal assumptions about my motives.