Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
devblogs.microsoft.com
Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
1–10 of 556 posts
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#2Any time I see a Microsoft link with a cheeky title, I assume it’s a great Raymond Chen deep dive. Haven’t been wrong yet!
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#3And today I learned that Windows supports running Javascript as shell script. huh
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#4Installing / uninstalling / updating software should be a service provided by the OS. Letting vendors do it themselves just gives them an opportunity to mess it up, and they frequently do.
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#5[flagged]
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#6interesting investigation and js. Though I'm wondering why does windows rely on the software to uninstall itself?
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#7...or maybe Windows should just offer an API for marking a file for deletion once it's not in use anymore (I understand unlink semantics may not be possible, but that's not what my suggestion above is saying)
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#8...or maybe Windows should just offer an API for marking a file for deletion once it's not in use anymore (I understand unlink semantics may not be possible, but that's not what my suggestion above is saying)
[deleted]
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#9I had never heard of detours before, but I guess it isn’t any different that a good old fashioned LD_PRELOAD
Re: Any sufficiently advanced uninstaller is indistinguishable from malware
#10Installing / uninstalling / updating software should be a service provided by the OS. Letting vendors do it themselves just gives them an opportunity to mess it up, and they frequently do.
This makes me think of the recent changes to pip on Arch Linux that recommend installing modules with pacman.
Pacman is ok, but I recently destroyed the Ruby installation on a computer while trying to use Vagrant and other Ruby packages. I still haven't figured out how to fix it. Lesson learned, stick to AUR and pacman repo.