Therefore if you want someone vetting the code, go and pay someone to do it instead of complaining to the internet. All the mods have a source code that shows what it does. You yourself can read the source code and figure out how it all works. Did you bother to find someone to “vet” how safe each and every opensource stuff you use? Or did you yourself examine each and every line of code? The same thing applies here. That same rule applies to all random open source software and libraries you get off github or whatever other open source repository. The few “mods” shown in the screenshot don’t offer anything of value for me others may praise Windhawk for the effort. It would be difficult to show a cause-effect relationship between “heavy duty” modifications and Windows errors, but my guess-hunch-intuition says, “The more one modifies the Windows base system, the more problems he/she is going to have later with updates and upgrades.” Wise to issue a caveat that exempts Windhawk from any “malicious” mods or damage to a user’s system.įrom reading many posts in the past, what I’ve sensed is users who modify heavily modify their systems tend to complain about issues with Windows Updates and Windows in general. Select “accept risk and install” to go ahead with the installation, or cancel to stop it.”
#Userscript google book downloader install#
Worst case? “A click on install displays a warning that ‘modifications may damage the system,’ violate privacy or do other harm. In the “best case,” it could turn into a huge marketplace of mods, similar to browser extension stores or userscript repositories.
Who will be vetting the new mods? Anyone? Nope, haven’t tried Windhawk–rather doubt I will because of obvious privacy and security issues.
0 kommentar(er)
