Why is it so hard for addon devs to not alienate customers?

[SteveW 1,792]

...but due to historic reasons we have acquired apps that come from the XP era and they put user files in the wrong place, the program files folders. And so we have to worry about it, a little, not much, just one little checkbox makes that folder XP compatible. I'm very pleased when I receive and install properly designed apps to test that can work as a user. It's not quaint, it's correct.

 

[harrry 322]

Just as with domain registries with resellers which charge different prices or the same product  there are about 10 actual providers and people deal with their resellers.  The certificates provided are comparable and there are two applicable types OV and EV certificates. EV certificates are really only needed for drivers.

https://ksoftware.freshdesk.com/support/home

provides exactly the same level of certificate as you mentioned (except for some reason you specified driver level certificates.  The cost for an OV code signing certificate with them for 4 year is as I specified $288.

Unless things have changed in the last 20 years (as I have done little actual development since retiring) the way it works is the CAA certifies the developer who uses his signature to sign a bundle whether it is an installer or active code.  All Windows does is check the application was packed by an identified certificate holder and that certificate has not been revoked for malpractice etc..  Hence the one certificate is used on all applications of that developer.  

Edited November 8, 2018 by harrry

[WarpD 824]

A code signing certificate is a feel good process... it's not nearly as safe and secure as you've been led to believe. Might want to research a bit more about what those certs can and can not actually do.  Here... read this: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/67663/how-do-systems-protect-against-a-stolen-code-signing-certificate-after-the-certi

[SteveW 1,792]

This kind of instruction is usually sufficient:

"The installation program has to check your FSX installation and may appear suspicious to your security software. The security program does this as a precautionary measure to guard against malware, please choose to continue the installation."

[Captain Kevin 586]

15 hours ago, harrry said:

Yes I am, all computer products interact with other products.With flight sim products the range is not that big.  Many of these failed handlings are known to the developer at the time of sale.  None of these are generally disclosed.

This statement is far from accurate. On my computer alone, I am running the PMDG Boeing 747-400, 747-8, ActiveSky, REX Sky Force, REX Airport Textures, various sceneries from FSDreamteam, FlyTampa, Flightbeam, Taxi2Gate, LatinVFR, Drzewiecki, Pacific Island Simulations, ImagineSim, ORBX, and whatever sceneries fall under the Aerosoft title. You also have UK2000 and several others out there. All of what I've just listed is all payware, and that doesn't even touch any of the freeware stuff that's available. Is an aircraft developer like PMDG supposed to test for every possible combination? If so, who's paying for all those sceneries for them to use, and how many different combinations are there to test for.

Here's an example. Last September, FSDreamteam's GSX 2.0 was released. There were people, myself included, who were having issues with textures becoming blurry and not being able to recover, in addition to CPU usage hitting 100%. Not only were the ground textures completely blurry, but in my case, the textures for the Boeing 747-400 that I was flying didn't display properly, either. Is that something that PMDG should have accounted for? The issue was reported to FSDreamteam, but they weren't able to reproduce the problem....until somebody from FSDreamteam who happened to have ORBX ran it and was able to reproduce it. The problem turned out to be nothing to do with GSX 2.0 itself, but rather a single code of line within FSDreamteam's Add-on Manager. That faulty line of code had been in there, but up until GSX 2.0, which allowed the use of the highly-detailed SODE jetways, there weren't any issues before. It wasn't until the use of the detailed jetways that pushed the computers to their limits.

[SteveW 1,792]

13 minutes ago, Captain Kevin said:

This statement is far from accurate. On my computer alone, I am running the PMDG Boeing 747-400, 747-8, ActiveSky, REX Sky Force, REX Airport Textures, various sceneries from FSDreamteam, FlyTampa, Flightbeam, Taxi2Gate, LatinVFR, Drzewiecki, Pacific Island Simulations, ImagineSim, ORBX, and whatever...

I didn't think he did mean the inexplicably vast and wide range of differing addons, but rather the range of possible ways of interaction within the system.

Remember that when we start an app with elevated privileges, as we do when we run-as-admin, then in general other apps communicating with that app, (not talking about file permissions here) will also require they too are running as admin, depends on the choice of functions used between the apps. There's not many.

[n4gix 4,947]

17 hours ago, WarpD said:

Sorry... won't be groveling prostate... already married.

Amazing the difference in meaning due only to a missing "r", eh?

[harrry 322]

You do have to watch your rrrrs

 

[SteveW 1,792]

That was a funny one.

...Let's say the aircraft textures are system files, which they sort of are and also they are in the program files folder. Writing to program files folders requires write enabled which is acquired by admins when needed, nice and safe from exploits.

So we make an app that updates the paint. That app elevates when we choose the 'update paint' button. The app does not require run as admin and might even be confused if started as Admin from the icon..

If we want to, say, edit the cfg in Notepad and simply double-click it, we can set the Modify-Allow on the Users group, on that folder or parent, the fix for apps that write there during user mode - Maintaining a secure system.

Remember I said that access to write to program files is acquired by admins, well they don't acquire access to any private folder they wish unless you are the user that made it at the time. Not just the correct user name. So often I've had calls on this kind of problem. Therefore I've been able to design and provide various software free from all that pizzazz and so far pays of with a very low support rate.

[SteveW 1,792]

...and the paint update? Well after setting modify permission for the individual or the logged on group the Users, we notice that the 'elevate to admin OK box' no longer appears...

It's great when you know what you are doing around there and so that's why I maintain the pressure. Thanks for all the kudos on the forums guys!

Edited November 8, 2018 by SteveW

[John_Cillis 2,406]

With my freeware programs I avoided installers altogether, and avoided registry entries, which needlessly bloat the registry.  If needed I would include a basic cfg file in the program's folder and I left it up to the end user to decide where to put the program, although I suggested a place, it was not mandatory.  Landclass Assistant is one example of my approach.  In contrast, my commercial employers used the registry and installation programs which invariably did not remove everything, including registry entries.  We did this to enforce support rules on our clients, and in the case of one employer I made it clear to them it was not needed and just confused the clients as to what they could customize and what they could not.  I made it clear my disdain for the "we do it to make support easier" philosophy. 

Fortunately the owner of that company backed my opinion since it gave the clients a perceived flexibility in how they could use our product.  When I was a WAN admin I had strict support rules but that was because we had internal employees whose job was not to play all day or browse the web all day.  We did allow them use of the web during breaks but when I arrived at that job I found our employee's computer riddled with viruses that our virus software could not keep up with. 

I did have a policy not to remove or reformat to combat viruses and I could defeat them all, although I would rather not say how since the method still works and I do not want virus or malware writers to learn of the loophole that defeats all but a boot sector virus, for which there are other tools out there that handle them.  Most virus writers do not want a system to go down that they infect, they want code there to propagate the virus on a WAN or throughout the Internet, usually using the computer owner's email address book.  Most virus writers simply want to do denial of service attacks, or bloat systems with malware/adware.  The dangerous ones are the ones that hijack a system for ransom, which happens more easily on cell phones than personal computers these days.

John

[SteveW 1,792]

Off-the-shelf installers are not up to much especially when it comes to FSX and P3D. Devs must write their own installer/uninstaller. Simple exe apps and such can be dropped in a folder and double clicked with as you say a support file of some kind rather than using the registry as there is really no need. The registry, of course, houses essential setup information in a speedy DB that would bring the system to its knees in text files.

Edited November 8, 2018 by SteveW

[WarpD 824]

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

Amazing the difference in meaning due only to a missing "r", eh?

I was not the one who dropped the 'r'... I simply responded to it accordingly. LOL

[SteveW 1,792]

There's a thing about registry cleaners I notice coming up a few time. Some are using a cleaner instead of the supplied setup app (usually located in add/remove apps) to uninstall the software.

It's OK to rant about the build up of data in a DB but how bad is it? I've mentioned before about binary searches. If anyone recalls the story of the grain of rice on the first square of the checker board, then place two on the next, four on the next eight on the next. Well that's 4.2 billion after the 32 square.

And so as it can be seen it's not too hard to find the information in the registry, 32 iterations can find something in 4 billion.

That is amongst all those entries that Windows puts in when you double-click that simple exe app whatever supplied with the text file to avoid the registry filling up. Another amusing note of irony gleaned from supporting this stuff.

 

[SteveW 1,792]

...Oh and using the registry cleaner removes the installer key and other values and locations left deliberately so that the re-installation of the software can continue with less  fuss...