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: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 22:24:41 +0100 Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <108i0dp$jt3r$1@solani.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net JhcgxB7p9Xni2PCNTqJjKQOhgX/rmpua+QkQbvcpkUqNcEf8un Cancel-Lock: sha1:0c56ZR2/6oBWCsQpfC4HFbgxBhg= sha256:6194kCmCg0RAAOlu9uRsDzlEHF03R2ngTFOx76r4ycQ= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:136844 uk.comp.sys.mac:181762 On 26/08/2025 22:21, Creon wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 07:31:04 +0100, David B. wrote: > >> On 25/08/2025 23:24, Gremlin wrote: >>> "David B." news:mh3i4uFd4ftU2@mid.individual.net Mon, >>> 25 Aug 2025 16:43:10 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>> >>>> Does anyone reading here actually *USE* the EtreCheck software and enjoy >>>> interaction with the developer? >>> >>> I'm not a mac person by trade, David. So, other than reverse engineering to >>> put your ill conceived theories about it containing or being malware, I have >>> not used the product, nor would I specifically need to do so. That program >>> is designed for people to assist end users (like yourself) via self support >>> forums. It's one of many tools of that kind. I've already explained this to >>> you, previously, several times, as well. It's in one ear and right out the >>> other one; since you clearly don't remember what you've already been told. I >>> have interacted with it's author on several occasions though. I've found the >>> individual to be friendly, responsive, and quite knowledgeable. It's a shame >>> that as another utility author that we have you in common. You've gone after >>> my program at one point in the past as well. FFS, You initiated email >>> contact with me, already lying your arse off about the reason(s) you >>> contacted me in the first place. It damn sure was not for technical support >>> for BugHunter. That was a ruse you crafted to interact with me. >>> >>> I *should have* ignored your emails that had nothing to do with supporting >>> BugHunter. Had I known as much as I do now about you, I would have ended our >>> comms the moment you first began to stray from requesting BugHunter >>> assistance. You're a stalking, nutjob, pile of shit. >> >> Do you deny that YOU once posted this? >> >> //Hmm, I've considered it. But, i have to be honest with you. i don't >> give a damn about most people; people to me are like insects, they >> deserve to be treated as cruely as I can possibly treat them. >> Notice, i said most people not all. Perhaps it's the way I myself >> have been treated in my short miserable life (ah **** it, go ahead >> cracky, nail me, wide open freebie). But, I was raised with the >> "nail me, nail you" concept. I've been nailed since I began >> breathing.. if I had my way, I'd long be dead... but, that's a >> different topic, so I won't bore you with my >> life story.// >> >> You, Dustin Cook, are the 'bad guy', not me! >>>> There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"! >>> >>> I've already reverse engineered two builds of this program and found >>> absolutely no malicious code of any kind present inside the binary or the >>> scripts. I reported this to you each time. You then proceeded to twist your >>> original accusation to 'How do we know it doesn't download malware later via >>> the internet?' - When I asked why you don't subject nearly every other >>> program, including OS(s), to the same question you avoided answering. Yet >>> here you are, yet again, inferring the program might contain or otherwise >>> will contain malware. It's a shame the author hasn't opted to pursue you via >>> legal channels at this point. >> >> Gremlin, >> >> You have stated that you have reverse-engineered EtreCheck. The >> software’s Terms of Use expressly forbid reverse engineering, >> decompiling, or disassembly. By your own admission, you have acted >> contrary to those terms. >> >> In light of that, any claims or assurances you make about the internal >> workings of EtreCheck are undermined by the fact that they stem from a >> breach of its license agreement. >> > > So he helps you out -- at your request -- and then you stab > him in the back. Surely you don't believe he was telling the truth? I had higher hopes for you, a fellow Linux Mint man. :-(