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 ;-) -- Bye Marek Mikus Czech support of The Bat! http://www.thebat.cz 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 2.6.1.2 Notebook Toshiba, Core2 Duo 1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM ________________________________________________ http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
