The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:I'm making this post because a friend pointed the thread out to me. I haven't lurked around here for years, but this needs saying.
It's amazing how many believe everything they read on the Web.
And I suppose that, by definition, that would include what you have written here.
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:You want something advertised, just put it in the hands of the Web's Chinese Whispers machine.
That includes promulgating a poor reputation. WOT is used very nicely to that end in many cases besides the company in question. I also recall a very much dirtier campaign run inside our own sainted Mozilla walls some years back. It stank, and this one is starting to smell not nice too.
I am not running a campaign of any kind, and if there is any stink, I would have to say it is coming from your post. I have responded with what I consider to be a suitable warning to anyone who might consider installing any kind of cleaning program (automated or not) on a Mac. While I have not used Machanic, I am well enough informed to know that most cleaning programs range either from useless to quite harmful. Because one would have to trust that Machanic would not delete critical system files or even important user data, I would never let this kind of thing loose on my Mac. This program costs $39.95 and there are free programs which can duplicate most of its functions, should one really need to do that. I have already mentioned
Onyx, which can run any number of tasks (but must be used with care), and for regaining drive space there is
OmniDiskSweeper, which will allow one to inspect where possible data bloat exists. But another caveat: unless one knows enough about OSX system level processes, ODS (which can also be used to inspect for duplicate files) should only be used to remove dispensible user data. Machanic purports to remove unwanted applications and related files. The fact is that there are many applications which can simply be removed by trashing them. Their related files are usually negligible in size and don't warrant removal. But those too can be removed manually. There are app removal programs, but they are not to be trusted, not only because they may miss related files, but because they may possibly delete important or critical files, especially in shared libraries. However, if one wants to remove those related files, they can be found and removed manually from a search using
EasyFind (free) or
FindAnyFile (shareware.) However, another important caveat: programs which had made system modifications, especially kernel extensions, should not usually be removed manually. If an uninstaller is not provided, one would want to contact the developer for instructions. This is where automated cleaning programs can probably do the most damage, since, in that area, they really don't know what they're doing.
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:It's fairly clear that the OP has some emotional investment in apple, but nothing else of fact is evident in their post, except that they consider themselves knowledgeable enough about their own system. Kudos to them.
I have zero emotional investment in giving advice about not using a cleaning program. If anyone has any kind of emotional investment here, I think it would be you.
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:However, I'd suggest that before participating in the destruction of a valid business (however a person views their practises, they aren't breaking any law) a contributor to this forum at least installs and inspects in some detail the workings of the badmouthed products in question. Also, by association this criticism will begin to smear Maone too, however the OP may not mean to, so due diligence is double important when a user of NS wants to speak out so forcefully.
If by that you mean that I am intent on destroying NoScript, that is the furthest thing from my mind. I have been a NoScript user for many years and have donated to NoScript. It is only because I have such respect for Giorgio's integrity and his devotion to making NS the excellent program that it is that I reacted with dismay to finding that such a program would be advertised here.
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:Without any prejudice to Maone, I'd like to suggest that the typical new installer of NS may well have found themselves at a point where their system is clogged to the eyeballs - why else would a person voluntarily put themselves through the drudgery of coming to grips with the Web as shown through the NS whitelisting method?
And thus this user, coming to grips with controlling access to their system by genuine crims would very likely appreciate any help they can get with any kind of system cleanup.
I've been down the novice road, tried and discarded automated system fixers, learning from each one as I learned to look after my system myself. I don't however look down my nose at others who may be starting from ignorance and say that I know best for them.
I am not looking down my nose at anyone who may be tempted to buy such a program. But I do think that many who will be tempted might not be sufficiently informed in this area to make a knowledgeable decision. In that regard, I highly recommend
The Myth of the Dirty Mac as required reading. (Although I would disagree with the recommendation to keep a minimum of 10% drive space free. That might have made sense years ago, when drives were tiny, but it makes no sense to keep 200GB free out of a 2TB drive, for example. Apple recommends that OSX needs a minimum of 9 GB to operate properly, and to be on the safe side, I would probably recommend keeping 20-25GB free, as a ballpark.)
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:How the Maone business model stacks up is nobody's business but his. He is fully free to host ads out the wazoo.
I've done due diligence with NS and Maone. Both meet ethical standards just fine. I hope Maone is profiting hugely from advertising for others, especially because he doesn't resort to click fraud like so many advertising setups do; all he does by obscuring the url is make sure for the ad company that the novice kind of user actually visits the site advertised It's no crime. If Maone says he's investigated the relationships of his advertisers then he has.
I see nowhere that Giorgio has actually used or vetted this program. Of course, Giorgio is quite free to host ads on his site. I never said anything to the contrary.
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:My vote goes with those who would preserve NS as a free and openly available code, without any third-party connections or licensing (outside the Open one, that is) at all. It's getting rarer and rarer on the Web these days. I donate. Often. Lots of places. I also restrict scripting on most sites, even though I'd like them to get revenue from ads, precisely because many webmasters don't do the right thing like Maone does.
I was never for a single minute suggesting that Giorgio should switch to a pay for license model. I too would prefer that NS remain free. What I was saying was that if Giorgio is so strapped for revenue that he needs to allow advertising from a source as dubious as this, and if it's a question of NoScript not being able to survive otherwise (again, I would refer anyone reading this thread to the WOT comments, not necessarily the rating, about Uniblue
https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/uniblue.com), then, and only then would I rather see NS become pay for license.
The Grumpy Old Lady wrote:TLDR? You don't like a product or its methods? Don't use it. There's no fraud, or even any bad advice, going on here.
Mods should bury this stupid thread in the General Forum. Too many will read the first post and the heading as gospel.
Hi Guardian, btw. Come and turn this rubbish off please
The shrillness of your post is beginning to make me wonder if you are not a shill for Uniblue.
