Hello all,
Wednesday, September 5, 2007, George M. Menegakis wrote:

> I concur. Development of freeware plugins faces imminent danger if developers
> have to pay. And there is more. Even if a developer choses to pay from his
> pocket, his plugin may uses a third party dll that is not signed! You see the
> problems? I don't think that use of "signed only plugins" worth it.

> But this problem could be solved easily. You could implement something like
> the signed windows driver, the user can select wether he trusts an unsigned
> plugin or not. Why don't follow this approach ?

this sounds OK for me, I am asking early because we can discuss it here. I
am not against certificates, but development of some useful plugins was
cancelled already and I do not see aby reason they should open development
to implement certificates and pay for them, if they provided them free of
charge. I see it from development's POV, even I am not developer ;-)



Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!

Using the best The Bat! 3.99.24
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
with MyMacros,XMP,AnotherMacros, NOD32 Antivirus plugin and AntispamSniper v

Notebook Toshiba, Core2 Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM



Reply via email to