| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Rob
USA
2615 Posts |
|
|
Mertsch
9 Posts |
 Posted - 04/30/2015 : 11:25:04
|
| This is really awesome, thank you sooooooooo so so soooooo much for continuing to develop this great application. |
 |
|
|
Mertsch
9 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2015 : 11:44:02
|
By the way are you going to update the OSS version on GIT?
If you start to compile with VS2013 I would like to try that, too (I was not willing to go back to 2010)
and btw^2 is there any reason why you release unsigned versions of the application?
and btw^3 Would it make more sense to restructure this post to put the x64 signed installer as first download, since it is the most reasonable choice to download in 2015 |
Edited by - Mertsch on 04/30/2015 11:45:49 |
|
|
|
Rob
USA
2615 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2015 : 11:55:50
|
Well, since I'm kind of active again with S+, no I'm not keeping git current. The reason being that, while only once, a company purchased a license for S+, which was nice to actually make a little bit of money for the hundreds of hours spent on development.
I released the source because I lost all motivation to be involved, and I promised if that time came that I would OSS S+. So unless that happens again, I'm keeping it private in the off chance that someone wants to buy the updated source. Of course, not much has changed at this point so I doubt it. Another thing I don't want to do is manage an OSS project or anything, I don't have the time nor patience for that :)
There is a signed version, but not using a real certificate authority as that costs (last I checked) hundreds of dollars and has to be renewed. Again, I don't make much in donations to be able to justify the expense. If someone wants to buy the cert or something, sure!
Yea, I should probably reorder the downloads, I copy and paste from each previous post, so it's just a matter of laziness. |
|
|
|
Mertsch
9 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2015 : 12:54:08
|
I can totally understand that, I created this tool https://launchbar.codeplex.com/ and I barely work on it anymore, for the simple fact that it has everything I personally need.
What I meant is, that you provide a version with a self-signed cert and it works great so far, why would you want a "less secure" version without any certificate. Just an Idea to reduce the maintenance cost of maintaining this (IMHO redundant) version
If you want I can do the posts reordering for you (to at least give back something) :D |
|
|
|
Rob
USA
2615 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2015 : 12:57:47
|
Some people like the idea of a truly portable app, which includes not installing a certificate in the system. Plus, if you're running Win XP, a signed version provides no benefit. In the end, it's just options for people :)
My build process isn't hindered by this, I hit build four times and the rest is all batched out and automated. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Version 2.8.3.2
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
