101–110 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-problem. Linux will run on x86 hardware till the end of time.
Professional developers have to write code that runs on their customers' systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can extract files to paths of more than 260 characters, without any extra tools or registry hacks, on any version of windows (even xp). Winrar cannot. As a bonus, 7zip can also delete folders with file paths that are over 260 characters from its file manager ui. It has been one of the only programs to be able to do so for many years.
Amount of times this has been an issue with using Winrar for 15+ years : zero. I'm amazed at all the comments calling for 7zip as the one and only. winrar works just fine so does windows zip function. If you have an edge case, yeah then you need something that can handle it.
> We think that revoking certificates based on questionable data discredits the certification system. It's hard to dispute this imo. There are many good reasons certificates should be revoked, but the reasoning should be 100% public information, for both the vendor and users who may have trusted the original certificate. I'm building a desktop app, and the process to even get a certificate is absurd. Each CA has thei…
Let's Encrypt's argument for why all the fancy features that CA's offered boiled down to "These are more complicated ways of proving that you own a domain". So by automating the verification of ownership of a domain you could essentially run a CA for pennies per certificate, and give them out for free. Looking at application development I think a similar thing could be done, but what would we pin identity to? I don't…
How about domain name?
Whenever I install (Windows) software I rarely care about the mailing address or D.B.A. name; I look at the website address listed.
> We think that revoking certificates based on questionable data discredits the certification system. It's hard to dispute this imo. There are many good reasons certificates should be revoked, but the reasoning should be 100% public information, for both the vendor and users who may have trusted the original certificate. I'm building a desktop app, and the process to even get a certificate is absurd. Each CA has thei…
The other consideration is that verifying identity is pointless , because malware authors don't actually use their own identities, they just pull a code signing certificate from the 1% of their already-infected users who have one. Then they go out and infect a million more users with it and get 10,000 more code signing certificates. If all you're after is some kind of rate limiting then forget about identity verifica…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. People who don't know any better alternatives continue to use it, and continue to recommend it to other people. So the cycle continues. Heck, WinZip still makes new releases so I'm sure people still use that too.
> People who don't know any better alternatives continue to use it Genuine question: what are the better alternatives?
It is particularly ironic that so many people in this thread are recommending 7-zip in response to a cert problem with WinRAR when 7-zip has no code signing at all and presents the scary yellow "unknown software" screen when you try to install it.
Do anyone pays attention to this? There is a lot of legitimate software you can't install without clicking through. 7-zip is just one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
The WinRAR post doesn't say that the file was submitted to VirusTotal, only that the CA said it "looked like a file used by hackers". Either there was no VirusTotal record for it or there was and WinRAR omitted that fact because it weakened their argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe their customers just like the product, as in the GUI and feature and don’t care that another compression algorithm can shave off a few extra megabytes. If I recall correctly WinRAR can make self extracting archives pretty easily. If you use that feature it might be easier/better to just continue using WinRAR. I love the fact that small software companies like RARLAB can still exist.
> Or maybe their customers just like the product, as in the GUI and feature and don’t care that another compression algorithm can shave off a few extra megabytes. First of all, I very much doubt that the people who use winrar even notice the UI. They could switch to 7zip and feel right at home. People are used to UI changing drastically all the time, both from Windows itself, and from websites. Some of them complain…
Nope. 7-Zip feels very clunky. WinRAR is a lot smoother. People would notice that something feels "off", even if they couldn't tell you what specifically was wrong.
> You say this as if the alternatives are all big software companies. Last I checked, 7zip is still a one-person software.
Does that person make enough to live on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t used WinRAR in ages, but what makes 7zip (which I use as well) better?
It can extract files to paths of more than 260 characters, without any extra tools or registry hacks, on any version of windows (even xp). Winrar cannot. As a bonus, 7zip can also delete folders with file paths that are over 260 characters from its file manager ui. It has been one of the only programs to be able to do so for many years.
This is the biggest joke of win32 system, how on earth after so many decades of breaking things this is still default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are not recommending 7-zip in response to the cert problem but rather to someone directly asking for a superior alternative in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24284253 Regardless, 7zip does not have as much of a need for a certificate because it is foss so you do not need to trust the creators, in comparison to winrar which isn't and you need to trust them.
The fact that it is FOSS makes it _easier_ for someone to compile it with a backdoor or trojan. I would say the need for a certificate is _higher_ there. You don’t need to trust the developers, you need to be able to trust the people who have built the executable.