If your comment concerns how people may use a piece of software in ways you don't like and how that's retarded, I agree. I agree.
That's the boring part I don't really care about and is dumb drama. Merely mentioning it is not approval or meant to argue against that.
I care about off-hand technical claims that aren't backed up. I cannot see where those were derived from in such a short time unless there is some previous context I am missing.
>>8810086>they JUST SAW IT'S FUCKING SPYWARE YOU FUCKING NIGGERThey? Whose they?
The only post besides yours which mentions spyware is
>>8809867 and they don't specify HOW it is spyware. I want to know, legitimately, because I am not seeing it.
I will say I have NOT checked out the compiled binaries, just the source code. I would not use those binaries for that reason alone without a checksum. The source code is a pretty easy read, so PLEASE tell me if there are some lines I'm missing. If I had the .NET framework on Linux I'd even try build the thing to do a hashcheck, and I'd be happy if someone else gave it a shot compiling so it can be compared.
>>88101261. I don't give a shit about numbers. I care about people claiming something is malicious when the source code appears clean. That gets my goat, and I WANT to be informed if I'm not seeing something, because I like to learn.
2. It's not some sort of private project, the source code is literally on github, free to review, checkout, and disseminate regardless of my comment on it. Real talk, report it to github if you think it violates their ToS. Sincerely, just as a random sysadmin who can script decently. That's how you cut if off at the source (lol).
