4 ms·

Ah yes, the closed-source proprietary black box antispy tool.

by majorchord 1mo ago

voidfunc 1mo ago
Right? Im not touching that thing with a 10ft pole.
- speed_spread 1mo ago
  I get the sentiment. But for the record, O&O has been around for a long time, they were known for their excellent defragmentation tool, which isn't so much required nowadays. Their business model was never close to Adware (to my knowledge). ShutUp has also been around for a while and always seemed to me like a O&O side project by someone who got really pissed at Windows taking the spyware tangent. The distribution model is still that of shareware / freeware (no source), because that's what O&O does. But as far as closed software goes, that's _probably_ as clean as it gets.
  - encom 1mo ago
    >defragmentation Windows has had built in defrag since at least WinXP. I can't remember if Win2000 had it - I think it did. It runs in the background and you don't have to worry about it. 3rd party defrag tools are snake oil, like registry cleaners and so on.
    - keyringlight 1mo ago
      I'm pretty sure some versions of DOS had a defrag tool, or at least windows 9x had a DOS mode equivalent where you could see the block map getting moved around.
    - speed_spread 1mo ago
      IIRC W2K didn't have one. Defragmentation can use different strategies which may impact the time it takes and additional perf gains if the right files are next to each other. The builtin defrag tool doesn't give any option. So "snake oil" I'm not so sure. Also, a watching a proper defragmenter run was an OCD soothing experience before we had stray kitten and powerwashing videos galore. I know I'm not alone with this experience.
      - encom 1mo ago
        I know for sure NT4 didn't have defragging built in, because I was a Windows server admin back in the primordial soup that was sysadmin'ing in the 90's. >OCD soothing experience I've always felt it was a certain kind of person who found amusement in watching a defragger work. I'm absolutely sure that 3rd party tools made sure to incorporate the equivalent blinkenlights to give the impression that their tool did something useful.
ryan_glass 1mo ago
Any recommendations for a FOSS alternative?
- askl 1mo ago
  Linux is a great FOSS alternative.
- popcar2 1mo ago
  Non-smartass answer: https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/winutil https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/winutil
  - sionisrecur 1mo ago
    You can also run ShutUp10 from winutil, so there's a bit of an endorsement there.
thenewnewguy 1mo ago
If you care about software being closed source or proprietary you probably aren't running Windows.
- DaSHacka 1mo ago
  Honestly, even as a Linux guy who doesn't use Windows (almost) at all anymore, I trust Microsoft to be generic and corporate in their spying. They'll spy on users usage habits, and likely backdoor their OS for the feds, but they won't individually exfil your browser cookies and steal money from your bank account. A random closed-source black-box "privacy" tool though? You have zero guarantees.
  - notabotiswear 1mo ago
    > They'll spy on users usage habits, and likely backdoor their OS for the feds, but they won't individually exfil your browser cookies and steal money from your bank account. What’s the difference between backdooring for the US gov’t and directly robbing/bugging you (assuming for the sake of argument that they don’t already do at least the latter)? Used to be that you’d only ask that question if you were brown and/or write your name from right to left. Doesn’t matter much whether you were from Svalbard or Sanaa these days…
    - majorchord 1mo ago
      I think they are making the assumption that if such a govt backdoor existed, it wouldn't be used for generic mass spying, but instead targeted at specific individuals they are trying to find/arrest. That may or may not be true, but I feel like the former would be a whole lot harder to hide, and the risk of having to reveal it in court would likely mean they aren't going to blow their cover over someone who wasn't worth it.
      - notabotiswear 1mo ago
        >Generic mass spying. Like PRISM, Boundless Informant, Stellar Wind, etc?
jjordan 1mo ago
Closed source doesn't mean not trustworthy. O&O has been making tools like these for a long time.
- Toynbeeidea 1mo ago
  >Closed source doesn't mean not trustworthy Yes, it does. >O&O has been making tools like these for a long time. Microsoft has made Windows for a long time. Longer, even.
  - SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
    The “million eyes” argument has massive exceptions, among the top of my head is OpenSSL’s HeartBleed, a critical and extremely popular security suite that had a simple overflow issue for a decade or longer. People don’t read the source. And chief among them, statistically, is you. Open Source is ideal but not a deal breaker.
    - Toynbeeidea 1mo ago
      True. And yet the possibility exists that one COULD. That's the difference.

Ah yes, the closed-source proprietary black box antispy tool.

voidfunc 1mo ago

Right? Im not touching that thing with a 10ft pole.

speed_spread 1mo ago
I get the sentiment. But for the record, O&O has been around for a long time, they were known for their excellent defragmentation tool, which isn't so much required nowadays. Their business model was never close to Adware (to my knowledge). ShutUp has also been around for a while and always seemed to me like a O&O side project by someone who got really pissed at Windows taking the spyware tangent. The distribution model is still that of shareware / freeware (no source), because that's what O&O does. But as far as closed software goes, that's _probably_ as clean as it gets.
- encom 1mo ago
  >defragmentation Windows has had built in defrag since at least WinXP. I can't remember if Win2000 had it - I think it did. It runs in the background and you don't have to worry about it. 3rd party defrag tools are snake oil, like registry cleaners and so on.
  - keyringlight 1mo ago
    I'm pretty sure some versions of DOS had a defrag tool, or at least windows 9x had a DOS mode equivalent where you could see the block map getting moved around.
  - speed_spread 1mo ago
    IIRC W2K didn't have one. Defragmentation can use different strategies which may impact the time it takes and additional perf gains if the right files are next to each other. The builtin defrag tool doesn't give any option. So "snake oil" I'm not so sure. Also, a watching a proper defragmenter run was an OCD soothing experience before we had stray kitten and powerwashing videos galore. I know I'm not alone with this experience.
    - encom 1mo ago
      I know for sure NT4 didn't have defragging built in, because I was a Windows server admin back in the primordial soup that was sysadmin'ing in the 90's. >OCD soothing experience I've always felt it was a certain kind of person who found amusement in watching a defragger work. I'm absolutely sure that 3rd party tools made sure to incorporate the equivalent blinkenlights to give the impression that their tool did something useful.

ryan_glass 1mo ago

Any recommendations for a FOSS alternative?

askl 1mo ago
Linux is a great FOSS alternative.
popcar2 1mo ago
Non-smartass answer: https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/winutil https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/winutil
- sionisrecur 1mo ago
  You can also run ShutUp10 from winutil, so there's a bit of an endorsement there.

thenewnewguy 1mo ago

If you care about software being closed source or proprietary you probably aren't running Windows.

DaSHacka 1mo ago
Honestly, even as a Linux guy who doesn't use Windows (almost) at all anymore, I trust Microsoft to be generic and corporate in their spying. They'll spy on users usage habits, and likely backdoor their OS for the feds, but they won't individually exfil your browser cookies and steal money from your bank account. A random closed-source black-box "privacy" tool though? You have zero guarantees.
- notabotiswear 1mo ago
  > They'll spy on users usage habits, and likely backdoor their OS for the feds, but they won't individually exfil your browser cookies and steal money from your bank account. What’s the difference between backdooring for the US gov’t and directly robbing/bugging you (assuming for the sake of argument that they don’t already do at least the latter)? Used to be that you’d only ask that question if you were brown and/or write your name from right to left. Doesn’t matter much whether you were from Svalbard or Sanaa these days…
  - majorchord 1mo ago
    I think they are making the assumption that if such a govt backdoor existed, it wouldn't be used for generic mass spying, but instead targeted at specific individuals they are trying to find/arrest. That may or may not be true, but I feel like the former would be a whole lot harder to hide, and the risk of having to reveal it in court would likely mean they aren't going to blow their cover over someone who wasn't worth it.
    - notabotiswear 1mo ago
      >Generic mass spying. Like PRISM, Boundless Informant, Stellar Wind, etc?

jjordan 1mo ago

Closed source doesn't mean not trustworthy. O&O has been making tools like these for a long time.

Toynbeeidea 1mo ago
>Closed source doesn't mean not trustworthy Yes, it does. >O&O has been making tools like these for a long time. Microsoft has made Windows for a long time. Longer, even.
- SV_BubbleTime 1mo ago
  The “million eyes” argument has massive exceptions, among the top of my head is OpenSSL’s HeartBleed, a critical and extremely popular security suite that had a simple overflow issue for a decade or longer. People don’t read the source. And chief among them, statistically, is you. Open Source is ideal but not a deal breaker.
  - Toynbeeidea 1mo ago
    True. And yet the possibility exists that one COULD. That's the difference.