Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code

[Jonathan Pierce]

=) With the assumption everyone here is an american
We have made no such assumption. There are international piracy and libel
laws as well, and we are aware of and can prove both CJ and Nak's
identities.

Jonathan

 

[Bobby Wietzel]

HA!

Wow, well you just have everything covered then don't ya!

 

[Bobby Wietzel]

No known bugs?!

Well! I guess you've done it.. You've invented the perfect software!

Well done!

 

[Guest]

Try these files:
http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/examples/InitializerDemo.cs.txt
http://www.remotesoft.com/salamander/examples/LiteralTest.cs.txt

 

[Guest]

I've posted some links with code examples above, hope this helps.

 

[Guest]

Original: [assembly: SecurityPermission(SecurityAction.RequestMinimum,
Assertion=true)]

Reflector: [assembly: SecurityPermission(SecurityAction.RequestMinimum,
Assertion=true)]

Decompiler.NET: not working.

This is not about prohibiting access, it simply doesn't work.

Decompiler.NET also fails to open .NET Compact Framework assemblies.

Decompiler.NET doesn't work on Whidbey assemblies either.

You say "no known outstanding bugs", well maybe you just dont have any users
reporting them?

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

Thanks <a> for identifying these obscure test cases that Salamander uses.

I've posted some links with code examples above, hope this helps.

Out of almost 200 messages in this thread, this it probably the first
focused reproduceale technical issue. As I said, we fix any bugs as soon as
they are reported so that we can maintain our status of having no
outstanding known bugs. You have identified two very minor bugs related to
formatting constant value doubles and nested arrays. We'll fix these in the
next day or so and post an updated version. By the way, we do have a
completed version with Whidbey support but it relies on the 2.0 runtime, so
we haven't shipped it yet. It does decompile assemblies from 1.0, 1.1, and
2.0 versions and we will be releasing it soon as a beta version since it
relies on the beta version of the framework.

We will post an updated version in the next day or so that fixes these
issues that you have idenitified. We've reported more than 20 bugs to our
competitors about their products, so it's nice to get one reported to us.

Jonathan

 

[CJ Taylor]

Out of almost 200 messages in this thread, this it probably the first

focused reproduceale technical issue.

Because that was why the thread was started?

Last I checked this wasn't news.junglecreatures.net and certainly not
alt.junglecreatures.support.

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

CJ,

This thread is supposed to be about issues with decompiler capabilities as
they relate to the .NET Framework. I didn't start the thread, but I
centainly should respond to posts that directly reference our product. Since
our product is mentioned in the title of the thread, you probably don't need
to keep reading it if you are not interested in it, but the non-techical
comments that you keep posting to this thread wastes the time of anyone who
is generally interested in the topic. I will be happy to discuss technical
issues with you, but please stop posting derogatory and inappropriate
non-technical messages that waste the time of everyone here and distort the
accurate perception of our products and company.

Jonathan

 

[Shawn B.]

see it as tying to a specific machine. What happens if you go out of

That won't happen. We're also only charging $500, not 5 million. There is as
much of a risk that you may get hit by a bus tomorrow and won't need the
software anymore.

How do you know that won't happen? Because you don't want it to? There
have been many many 3rd parties and small software vendors and large ones
that have come and gone. I'm not saying that will happen to you, but I'm
saying the possibility exists. For as long as the use of the software
depends on the existence of the vendor, that software has a very high risk
of becoming useless in the unfortunate case that the vendor dissappears.
Again, I'm not saying it will happen to you, but there aren't many software
vendors that don't eventually go the way of the do-do bird without becoming
the largest entity in the niche you are targeting or being purchased by a
larger company. Who's to say that larger company will continue to support
the product?

If the licensing didn't require such a strict lockdown, it wouldn't be a
problem. But because the ability to use the software depends on a
particular companies existance, it is a very high risk for me to purcahse
*any* product that follows suit (not just yours). Alos, with new laws being
passed every day, you could become outlawed and thus, out of business, or
arrested, or whatever, for providing a tool that can potentially be used
maliciously for whatever reason the media/software industry decides is
harmful to them... they have a powerful lobby, how powerful is yours?

The point is it is a risk to spend any money on software that depends on the
vendors existence to continue usage. A risk that it too great for my pocket
book. Nothing personal.

We spent over two years writing ours. I imaging that two years of your time
is worth more to you than the $500 we charge for a license which our
costomers feel is a tremendous value to them.

I don't doubt you spent 2 years on this. My time is worth more, but then
again, since I only occasionaly review the System.* namespaces, $500 isn't
worth it to me. If I was going to look at some proprietary code other than
System.*, perhaps it would be. But if I was going to do that, I would just
create my own version and learn how to imitate a feature and learn from it,
rather than "cheat" and take the easy way out. Of course, since I'm
dependant on the System.* namespaces, I have no problem examining something
when I'm not sure about the documentation. Would I pay $500 for that? No.
It isn't *that* important. With Reflector, it is a convenience that I
exploit. Nothing more.

There's always Mono, but I'm much less inclined to actually look at GPL code
(I generally avoid it for reasons I won't discuss in this thread). Besides
that, Mono may not be programmed exactly the way that the System.* classes
are.

You are not if you don't replace your motherboard or machine itself. Tivo
doesn't even let you move your lifetime subscriptions to newer hardware that
they themselves sell.

I don't use Tivo so I wouldn't know. But we're not talking about hardware
here, we're talking about software.

Pirated copied cause vendots to raise their prices for their software since
their target market is cannibalized. Locking down licensed copies to
hardware reduces the amount of software piracy and therefore does keep
prices lower that without it.Although you may feel that $500 is high, we
intenitionally priced our product much lower than the cost to develop it to
make it accessible to small developers like yourself who might benefit from
it. If Reflector also charged $500 and there weren't any free choices
available with relatively good decompilation capability, you would probably
feel differently towards our product and be glad that a product like it was
available to you instead of having to invest the two years yourself trying
to write your own decompiler that works as well.

Name one commercial product that every lowered its price because they got
piracy under control. No, what actually happens is they complain more and
then justify the higher prices because they have to spend more money on R&D
to contantly come up with new anti-piracy measures. Now that they have the
average user inconvenienced and have thwarted "casual" sharing, prices
aren't any lower than they were previously. But the true pirate still has
no problems getting around it.

Again, if Reflector wasn't free, I agree, I wouldn't be using it. I
wouldn't be purchasing any tool to do the job, anyway. I can read IL, I
would be inconvenienced, but I can do it (I program in it sometimes, probly
because I program Win32 in assembly also) but, if I wasn't "restricted" to
my initial machine which changes often and "dependant" on a vendor, I might
consider it.

But since we're going in circles here, there's no more point in elaborating
why I don't purchase your product or any other that causes me to be
dependant on them and screwed, blued, and tattoo'd if they go out of
business. You obviously feel justified and confident in your product and
licensing terms, and I obviously feel like it creates a severe financial
risk for me to use the product and nothing is going to change that. If the
entire software industry follows suit, I'll use less software or will
eventually move to Free software (free as in beer, free as in speech)
because I just happen to refuse dependance on any particular non-Microsoft
software vendor. It has nothing to do with you, it has everything to do
with my freedom and getting value out of my hard-earned money.


Thanks,
Shawn

 

[Nak]

We have made no such assumption. There are international piracy and libel

laws as well, and we are aware of and can prove both CJ and Nak's
identities.

LOL, And if push came to shove Jonathan I could probably prove who put my
personal information on this web site without my prior consent. Thus
breaking the data protections act, which may I inform you, works for you
Americans also.

I can't believe your still on your high horse about something that didn't
happen. *I* appologised for upsetting you *and* your product, but you carry
on thinking you have won some great battle! Jonathan, listen, there was no
battle, there was no law suite, get over it!

Nick.
(without predjudice)

 

[CJ Taylor]

Happy V-[M.P.D.L.V] Day!!!

LOL, And if push came to shove Jonathan I could probably prove who put my
personal information on this web site without my prior consent. Thus
breaking the data protections act, which may I inform you, works for you
Americans also.

I can't believe your still on your high horse about something that didn't
happen. *I* appologised for upsetting you *and* your product, but you carry
on thinking you have won some great battle! Jonathan, listen, there was no
battle, there was no law suite, get over it!

Nick.
(without predjudice)

 

[Guest]

Please stop twisting the facts as you need them.

It doesnt matter if you fix those bugs or not - Decompiler.NET not needed.

It is simply a $500 piece of mediocre software that is lightyears behind the
Reflector.

It was definetly a mistake to report those bugs...

 

[Guest]

Thank you for admiting that your product has serious issues with scenarios
that competitive
products have been able to address. Your competitors have been so kind to
release those
very important examples on their websites but you have been completly unable
to address
them in your product. Your customer support is not even aware of those
issues and your
company seems to be unable to ensure quality of the existing products by
hiring testers.

[...]

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

Please stop trying to distort the perception of our product. You have
identified two tiny bugs which we have already fixed. We now once again have
no outstanding known bugs. On the other hand, we have reported over 20 bugs
and reproduceable code snippets to Reflector's author and have assisted him
by confirming his fixes and testing his intemediate versions before some of
his public releases.

We do not actively search our competitors web sites looking for their test
cases, but we do notify them directly when we identify issues in their
products. We also fix any issues in our products as soon as we detect them
or they are reported to us by our customers or our competitors, or in this
case from you. We test and fix all bugs as soon as we are aware of them, but
we can't fix bugs that we don't know exist. Our product is tested on itself
and other large assemblies with every release and we ship recompiled
versions of code produced by decompiling the product with itself with it's
obfuscation feature enabled. Our competitor's products, like ours, are
developed by very small companies or development teams. These including
RemoteSoft's Salamander, Lutz Roeder's Reflector, and Borland's Spices.NET.
Our customers agree that our product is the only one that produces code that
compiles and runs correctly for all of the assemblies that they have tried,
and that they were not able to do the same with any of our competitors
products on the same assemblies.

It is not a mistake to share information you have about known bugs. We do
this for our competitors to improve the overall quality of all products in
this market, and compete with them based on the quality of the code we
produce, both in correctness, and it's high-level, and with features that
they do not offer in their products.

Thank you again for reporting these minor bugs to us. Please let us know in
the future if you identify any more so we can fix them. Please do not make
false general claims about the existence of lot's of bugs that you are
unwilling to discuss as reproduceable test cases, since we have many
customers who use our product with no problems, and statements that you make
that cannot be backed up by examples only serve as libelous knowingly false
attempts to discredit our products and distort the market perception of them
with inaccurate information that is a disservice to developers who need
them. If you don't like our product, don't use it, but stop posting spam
messages that waste everyone else's time since they only serve to generate
further publicity about the usefulness and completeness of our product which
is apparently not one of your goals.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Thank you for admiting that your product has serious issues with scenarios
that competitive
products have been able to address. Your competitors have been so kind to
release those
very important examples on their websites but you have been completly
unable to address
them in your product. Your customer support is not even aware of those
issues and your
company seems to be unable to ensure quality of the existing products by
hiring testers.

[...]

Thanks <a> for identifying these obscure test cases that Salamander uses.



Out of almost 200 messages in this thread, this it probably the first
focused reproduceale technical issue. As I said, we fix any bugs as soon
as they are reported so that we can maintain our status of having no
outstanding known bugs. You have identified two very minor bugs related
to formatting constant value doubles and nested arrays. We'll fix these
in the next day or so and post an updated version. By the way, we do have
a completed version with Whidbey support but it relies on the 2.0
runtime, so we haven't shipped it yet. It does decompile assemblies from
1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 versions and we will be releasing it soon as a beta
version since it relies on the beta version of the framework.

We will post an updated version in the next day or so that fixes these
issues that you have idenitified. We've reported more than 20 bugs to our
competitors about their products, so it's nice to get one reported to us.

Jonathan

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

It is simply a $500 piece of mediocre software that is lightyears behind

the Reflector.

This is your own opinion. Our customers feel differently and we have sold
several copies this week to customers who have told us that the code we
produce is far better both in correctness, and it's high level than the code
that Reflector produces for them. We have also just added a browser user
interface to our latest version, have finished our development of our
version that supports Whidbey, and will be releasing Visual Studio
integration features soon. We also include obfuscation features which
Reflector does not have, and a Refactoring Add-On option that provides
automatic refactoring and analysis capabilities not offered by Visual Studio
alone.

We appreciate continuing these discussions with you since your posts assist
us by creating further opportunities to provide accurate information about
how our products can assist developers and serve those developers interested
in the subject of decompilation and obfuscation in these newsgroups.

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/
Email: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

No known bugs?!

Well! I guess you've done it.. You've invented the perfect software!

Well done!

Thanks Bobby for the compliments regarding the quality of our software. We
continuously test our products on themselves and fix any issues that we are
aware of before we ship each release.
Known bugs are defined as bugs that we are aware of either by discovering
them ourselves of having them reported to us by customers and trial users of
our product. We fix all bugs as soon as we are made aware of them. We never
said that the software was perfect, only that all of our customers and trial
users are able to use it 100% and have no outstanding issues or have not
reported them to us. If you have any specific issues to report to us, please
send them to us via email at (e-mail address removed) and we will release
a new version to address any concrete issues that you identify immediately.

Jonathan

 

[CJ Taylor]

Please stop trying to distort the perception of our product. You have

identified two tiny bugs which we have already fixed.

Isn't that a matter of perspective? tiny to you... perhaps could have cost
a business money... Not too small to them is it?

We now once again have
no outstanding known bugs.
Whoo!!!!

On the other hand, we have reported over 20 bugs
and reproduceable code snippets to Reflector's author and have assisted him
by confirming his fixes and testing his intemediate versions before some of
his public releases.

Him... must be why everyone on *here* says your product is inferior. Sure
you talk about how great it is. But I would figure some high level
programmers, especially in VB would be frequent members of the microsoft
newsgroups and perhaps may even come to defend your product. But the only
thing we have seen in defense of your product is this character Vortex Soft
and yourself. I would just figure *more* people would tell myself and Nak,
"Hey, I've really put this thing through the ropes and it's a great
product". I would secede to that. But I haven't. I just hear the same
speech over and over about how many bugs you've reported to other companies,
and how you have no bugs outstanding?

So does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. There are probably MANY
bugs in your software that your not aware of. That's software. Which makes
coming on here and bragging about 100% kinda foolish. After all, aren't
there known bugs within the framework itself, which you yourself admit to
using? Particularly the reflection namespaces? In order for your software
to be perfect it would mean Microsoft's software would have to be perfect.
Windows would have to be perfect and every other dependency you have on
other modules (whether its windows, the framework, or anything else you do
not have direct control of, INCLUDING hardware) in order for you to be
perfect? Can you guaruntee that 100%?

That's a pretty tall order...

We do not actively search our competitors web sites looking for their test
cases, but we do notify them directly when we identify issues in their
products.

Why not? I would get as much info from my competitors as I could!

We also fix any issues in our products as soon as we detect them
or they are reported to us by our customers or our competitors, or in this
case from you.
We test and fix all bugs as soon as we are aware of them, but
we can't fix bugs that we don't know exist.

Our product is tested on itself
and other large assemblies with every release and we ship recompiled
versions of code produced by decompiling the product with itself with it's
obfuscation feature enabled. Our competitor's products, like ours, are
developed by very small companies or development teams.

Microsoft is 55k+ strong... they dont develop perfect software (NOR come on
here defending it like teenager with something to prove). That's more minds
than your shop. Wouldn't you be more prone to making mistakes?

Also do you test *every* assembly?

These including
RemoteSoft's Salamander, Lutz Roeder's Reflector, and Borland's Spices.NET.
Our customers agree that our product is the only one that produces code that
compiles and runs correctly for all of the assemblies that they have tried,
and that they were not able to do the same with any of our competitors
products on the same assemblies.

And vise versa...

It is not a mistake to share information you have about known bugs. We do
this for our competitors to improve the overall quality of all products in
this market, and compete with them based on the quality of the code we
produce, both in correctness, and it's high-level, and with features that
they do not offer in their products.

Thank you again for reporting these minor bugs to us. Please let us know in
the future if you identify any more so we can fix them. Please do not make
false general claims about the existence of lot's of bugs that you are
unwilling to discuss as reproduceable test cases, since we have many
customers who use our product with no problems, and statements that you make
that cannot be backed up by examples only serve as libelous knowingly false
attempts to discredit our products and distort the market perception of them
with inaccurate information that is a disservice to developers who need
them. If you don't like our product, don't use it, but stop posting spam
messages that waste everyone else's time since they only serve to generate
further publicity about the usefulness and completeness of our product which
is apparently not one of your goals.

*clap**clap*
*clap*
*clap*
*clap**clap*
*clap**clap*
*clap**clap*
*clap**clap*
*clap*

Oh... sorry... Every time I hear a long winded speech with absolutly no
substance to it except for the same thing written *over* and *over* again I
instantly think I have to start clapping at the end. Kinda like
televangelists or anything by John Kerry...

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures.com/

Thank you for admiting that your product has serious issues with scenarios
that competitive
products have been able to address. Your competitors have been so kind to
release those
very important examples on their websites but you have been completly
unable to address
them in your product. Your customer support is not even aware of those
issues and your
company seems to be unable to ensure quality of the existing products by
hiring testers.

[...]

Thanks <a> for identifying these obscure test cases that Salamander uses.

<a> wrote in message I've posted some links with code examples above, hope this helps.



Out of almost 200 messages in this thread, this it probably the first
focused reproduceale technical issue. As I said, we fix any bugs as soon
as they are reported so that we can maintain our status of having no
outstanding known bugs. You have identified two very minor bugs related
to formatting constant value doubles and nested arrays. We'll fix these
in the next day or so and post an updated version. By the way, we do have
a completed version with Whidbey support but it relies on the 2.0
runtime, so we haven't shipped it yet. It does decompile assemblies from
1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 versions and we will be releasing it soon as a beta
version since it relies on the beta version of the framework.

We will post an updated version in the next day or so that fixes these
issues that you have idenitified. We've reported more than 20 bugs to our
competitors about their products, so it's nice to get one reported to us.

Jonathan

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

Isn't that a matter of perspective? tiny to you... perhaps could have

cost
a business money... Not too small to them is it?

Our customers test their own software. If they encounter any code generation
issues related to using our product, they would contact us and we would
resolve the issue by releasing an updated version that corrects the issue.
The small issues that you identified such as your nested array
initialization example resulted in generated code that would expose the
issue at compile tiime. Since noone reported it, the issue either didn't
affect them, or they fixed the generated code manually and didn't tell us.
Either way, it couldn't have cost them any money and I'm sure none were
aware of it since our customers enjoy the support that we provide to them
and would not hesitate to let us know if they detected any code generation
issues.

Him... must be why everyone on *here* says your product is inferior.

The people shouting on here are you, Nak, and <a>. None of you are respected
by anyone in this group, you only post intentionally malicious messages
designed to create controversy, and have been reprimanded by several others
in this thread besides myself. All of you attempted to remain anonymous, and
continue to post intentionally false statements about our company and
product. You have even commented that you are intentionally looking to start
up non-technical arguments just for your own entertainment at the expense of
the time that you continie to waste for everyone else still reading this
thread who is really interested in decompilation technical issues. Since you
are not, you and your friends should probably leave since you are not
interested anyway in our products, and you are wasting the time of the
entire developer community reading this thread because they are interested
in the technical content that it contains and have not yet given up trying
to filter out your spam messages.

I just hear the same
speech over and over about how many bugs you've reported to other
companies,
and how you have no bugs outstanding?

You read this thread voluntarily.Since you aren't interested in our
products, and noone else wants to read your non-technical posts, then why
don't you just stop reading the thread since it's title indicates that it is
related to our product which you are not interested in. Your false negative
statements about it serve no purpose except to waste everyone's time
including your own. You and your friends should stop attacking our company
and others in public newsgroups if you goal is to not give those companies
additional exposure, but we must respond to defend our products each time
one of you posts inaccurate and misleading information that interferes with
the success of serious developers who are genuinely intersted in the
technical topics that our product addresses.

There are probably MANY
bugs in your software that your not aware of. That's software. Which
makes
coming on here and bragging about 100% kinda foolish.

We are not bragging. We are asking you to support the false claims that you
make about fiicticious bugs and negative user experiences using our
products.

After all, aren't

there known bugs within the framework itself, which you yourself admit to
using? Particularly the reflection namespaces? In order for your
software
to be perfect it would mean Microsoft's software would have to be perfect.

Again, we didn't say anything about perfect, you did. If we use a 3rd party
library or part of the framework, we adapt our implementation to avoid it
and report it to Microsoft or the vendor involved. We have posted several
Whidbey related bugs to the 2005 feedback center that were confirmed and
fixed for newer builds of the 2.0 framework.

Why not? I would get as much info from my competitors as I could!

We do the best we can any anyone concerned will let us know if they become
aware of any actual problem in our software as opposed to the fictitiuos
statements that you and your friends keep making here. Instead of spending
so much time creating false propaganda, you could help the developer
community by posting real bug reports that you detect in the framework or
our products.

Oh... sorry... Every time I hear a long winded speech with absolutly no
substance to it except for the same thing written *over* and *over* again
I
instantly think I have to start clapping at the end.

You should be apologizing to everyone else here whose time you keep wasting
by posting these spam messages to this technical forum that require us to
respond and defend our products against your false claims. For our benefit,
yours, and everyone elses here, please stop posting messages that continue
to waste the time of all of us here. Go ahead and lurk if you like and
contact us offline, but I don't want to continue to assist you in filling up
these newsgroups with non-technical arguments that everyone has to filter
out to find the technical information that they are looking for. I probably
should never have responded to any of you in the first place, except that
your attacks on us and our products require us to respond to defend
ourselves and diffuse your intentionally misleading statements.

In short, please write us privately if you feel it necessary, but leave
these groups to technical discussions that developers here are interested in
reading. Some of the other people here have spoken up to discourage your
inappropriate behavior here, and you have probably scared a few people who
don't want to have to waste their own time arguing with you, but I'm sure
that the majority of the people in this newsgroup and the ones reading this
thread would like you, Nak, and <a> to just go away from this thread, this
group, and any news server that they are interested in for it's technical
content.

Jonathan

 

[CJ Taylor]

Wow... a trolling we will go I see...

Our customers test their own software. If they encounter any code generation
issues related to using our product, they would contact us and we would
resolve the issue by releasing an updated version that corrects the issue.
The small issues that you identified such as your nested array
initialization example resulted in generated code that would expose the
issue at compile tiime. Since noone reported it, the issue either didn't
affect them, or they fixed the generated code manually and didn't tell us.
Either way, it couldn't have cost them any money and I'm sure none were
aware of it since our customers enjoy the support that we provide to them
and would not hesitate to let us know if they detected any code generation
issues.


The people shouting on here are you, Nak, and <a>. None of you are respected
by anyone in this group, you only post intentionally malicious messages
designed to create controversy, and have been reprimanded by several others
in this thread besides myself. All of you attempted to remain anonymous, and
continue to post intentionally false statements about our company and
product. You have even commented that you are intentionally looking to start
up non-technical arguments just for your own entertainment at the expense of
the time that you continie to waste for everyone else still reading this
thread who is really interested in decompilation technical issues. Since you
are not, you and your friends should probably leave since you are not
interested anyway in our products, and you are wasting the time of the
entire developer community reading this thread because they are interested
in the technical content that it contains and have not yet given up trying
to filter out your spam messages.

You read this thread voluntarily.Since you aren't interested in our
products, and noone else wants to read your non-technical posts, then why
don't you just stop reading the thread since it's title indicates that it is
related to our product which you are not interested in. Your false negative
statements about it serve no purpose except to waste everyone's time
including your own. You and your friends should stop attacking our company
and others in public newsgroups if you goal is to not give those companies
additional exposure, but we must respond to defend our products each time
one of you posts inaccurate and misleading information that interferes with
the success of serious developers who are genuinely intersted in the
technical topics that our product addresses.

We are not bragging. We are asking you to support the false claims that you
make about fiicticious bugs and negative user experiences using our
products.

After all, aren't perfect.

Again, we didn't say anything about perfect, you did. If we use a 3rd party
library or part of the framework, we adapt our implementation to avoid it
and report it to Microsoft or the vendor involved. We have posted several
Whidbey related bugs to the 2005 feedback center that were confirmed and
fixed for newer builds of the 2.0 framework.

We do the best we can any anyone concerned will let us know if they become
aware of any actual problem in our software as opposed to the fictitiuos
statements that you and your friends keep making here. Instead of spending
so much time creating false propaganda, you could help the developer
community by posting real bug reports that you detect in the framework or
our products.


You should be apologizing to everyone else here whose time you keep wasting
by posting these spam messages to this technical forum that require us to
respond and defend our products against your false claims. For our benefit,
yours, and everyone elses here, please stop posting messages that continue
to waste the time of all of us here. Go ahead and lurk if you like and
contact us offline, but I don't want to continue to assist you in filling up
these newsgroups with non-technical arguments that everyone has to filter
out to find the technical information that they are looking for. I probably
should never have responded to any of you in the first place, except that
your attacks on us and our products require us to respond to defend
ourselves and diffuse your intentionally misleading statements.

In short, please write us privately if you feel it necessary, but leave
these groups to technical discussions that developers here are interested in
reading. Some of the other people here have spoken up to discourage your
inappropriate behavior here, and you have probably scared a few people who
don't want to have to waste their own time arguing with you, but I'm sure
that the majority of the people in this newsgroup and the ones reading this
thread would like you, Nak, and <a> to just go away from this thread, this
group, and any news server that they are interested in for it's technical
content.

Jonathan