stop this now

[Birgir]

I've just removed Growl for probably the 4th time from my computer. I
would surely never install it knowingly. I really don't care what it
does, or how it gets distributed, I am not going to read your page for
explanations on frameworks or how this happens - just stop fucking
doing whatever it is you do that makes this thing get into my computer.

[Nicholas Sanders]

And a Merry Christmas to him too!

-- 

Nicholas J A Sanders
___________________
semiotek

+44 [0]7092 153 409
n...@semiotek.org
___________________

[Richard L. Hamilton]

It never installs itself; some other application that
you installed wanted to use Growl and installed it
without telling you. Nobody likes that situation;
even the folks that created Growl don't seem to be happy
about it, but I don't think there's anything they can do
about it other than what they have: contact those that have
released software that installs Growl without the end user's
permission, explain what's happening (and what products
are known to do this), and provide an easy way to remove
Growl.

AFAIK, there is no way to prevent some future
product from ever doing the same thing to you all over
again (because the application doing it may not use Growl's
installer and might therefore ignore any magic cookie left
around as an attempt to communicate your desire to never
have Growl installed again). However, your best chance of
keeping it from happening again is to read the short page at

http://growl.info/thirdpartyinstallations.php

follow the instructions with regard to known applications
that install Growl without your permission, and
download and use the uninstaller.

Note: Dropbox in particular will re-install Growl everytime
it's launched, unless you turn off the Dropbox preference
Show Dropbox notifications (using Growl)

Please realize that if you refuse to read the page and follow
the instructions, you'll keep having the problem, and there's
not a thing anyone can do to change that.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to growld...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to growldiscuss...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
>

--
eMail: mailto:rlha...@gmail.com
Home page: http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil/
Facebook, MySpace,
AIM, Yahoo, etc: ask

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 17, 2010, at 04:24:41, Birgir wrote:
> I've just removed Growl for probably the 4th time from my computer.

Dropbox is reinstalling it. The page you're referring to also has instructions on how to make Dropbox stop doing that.

http://growl.info/thirdpartyinstallations.php

We are not doing it. We hate as much as you do that Dropbox is doing it.

[Chris Forsythe]

Responses like this do not help. Please refrain from this in the future. 

[Nicholas Sanders]

Well Chris, if you're going to teach me manners, perhaps you should practice what you preach - I do not need to be publicly reprimanded, thank you.

On 17 Oct 2010, at 23:18, Chris Forsythe wrote:

Responses like this do not help. Please refrain from this in the future. 

-- 

Nicholas J A Sanders
___________________
semiotek

+44 [0]7092 153 409

n...@semiotek.org
___________________

[Steve C]

A little constraint on the language would be nice.. This is a public group  and I'm sure can we express ourselves better a 2 year old.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to growld...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to growldiscuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.

--

Life is a musical  ride!!

Best regards and luv,

Steve C.

[Steve C]

A little restraint on the might be nice..  This is a public group.  I'm sure we can  all express ourselves better than a 2 year old.I think an apology to the group is in order. Also I would like to know how get on your system without your when you have Administrator privileges.  Dom't you have to okay the installation of any system software?  Please let me know because I had to install Growl independently by downloading it from the "Growl" page. Best regards,
 

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Birgir <birg...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to growld...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to growldiscuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 17, 2010, at 16:49:07, Steve C wrote:
> A little constraint on the language would be nice.. This is a public group and I'm sure can we express ourselves better a 2 year old.

Remember that the person you're replying to is not a regular member of the group. They probably are also angry enough about Growl being installed on their system (and persistently reinstalled) that they don't really care what language restrictions you would put on them.

All of the regular members of the group are better behaved than that, with the possible exception of Chris, who gets as pissed at being repeatedly accused of being a malware author as the users are who accuse us.

Everyone who uses nasty words and sentences in these threads is doing so out of anger. We would all do well to remember that, and try to defuse the anger.

We've seen where the thread leads when that doesn't happen. Responding in kind *does not help*.

If you really, really want to respond in kind, like you feel like you're going to explode if you don't, write it up and then mail it to nob...@example.com. That way, you get it out of your system, and no harm is done on the list.

> Also I would like to know how [Growl could] get on your system without your [knowledge/permission] when you have Administrator privileges. Dom't you have to okay the installation of any system software? Please let me know because I had to install Growl independently by downloading it from the "Growl" page.

There are some applications that install Growl without the user's permission.

We, the Growl developers, don't approve of this. We hate it as much as users do.

Complete information is at the page Birgir alluded to and I linked to:

http://growl.info/thirdpartyinstallations.php

[Chris Forsythe]

I'm not going to have this contest of wills with you. Be a nicer person, take a walk in this guy's shoes, and realize that he's rightfully angry, just directing it at the wrong person. 

I will not warn you again Nicholas. Do not respond to these people in this manner again. If you do not believe you can do this, please unsubscribe yourself. If you do it again, I'll unsubscribe you. I'm tired of receiving threats directly due to actions like the one you took. 

[Nicholas Sanders]

Chris

I am sorry that you have to suffer as you describe, but it does not help that you then resort to threats yourself - I am not your enemy, and I have never for one second entertained any ill will towards you.

On the other hand, it is clear that he who prompted my childish response has entertained such, however much it may have been misplaced. I feel now that you are taking out your frustration on one who is guilty of no more than a minor misdemeanour, and that only according to the specific standard you seek to impose.

In the last couple of weeks or so, the level of language on this list has on occasion deteriorated to a rather low level, and not only on the part of the "rightfully angry". But I have done no more than resort to mild sarcasm to relieve my frustration, and receive lecture and threat in response.

Not only are you unjust here but counterproductive too, while it seems you need all the friends you can get. I made a mistake in allowing malice to bother me momentarily, but I am not the criminal party in the case. To be frank, I now find myself to be justifiably angered by your own misdirected anger.

If I were a wiser man, I would simply swallow my pride and let the matter drop. But, unlike you, I know where my own shoes walk and that I am already the "nicer person" you exhort me to be. But, unfortunately, I am not one able to accept without complaint another's injustice or…

There is another word on the tip of my finger, but I am at least wise enough to know its employment would be inexcusably provocative. But please Chris, don't mistake your friend for an enemy, and don't treat him like a three-year old.

A "contest of wills" - surely OTT, no?

On 18 Oct 2010, at 02:41, Chris Forsythe wrote:

I will not warn you again Nicholas. Do not respond to these people in this manner again. If you do not believe you can do this, please unsubscribe yourself. If you do it again, I'll unsubscribe you. I'm tired of receiving threats directly due to actions like the one you took. 

-- 

Nicholas J A Sanders
___________________
semiotek

+44 [0]7092 153 409

n...@semiotek.org
___________________

[Christopher Forsythe]

It is not right to provoke people who are already angry. They come to
us for help, however they phrase it. You responded in a childish
manner, which is not acceptable. My anger at you is not misdirected, I
have received lawsuit threats from previous interactions just like
that one. I'm tired of this whole thing, I'm tired of the things we
cannot control. But the thing I'm tired of the most is people who say
they are on our side, but make things worse.

Please just don't reply if you can't help these people. If I see
another response from you in this manner, to any person in a similar
situation, I'm removing you from the list. This is not their fault,
they get stuck in a situation that's awful, and you want to try to
make things better with sarcasm? That's just awful.

My anger at you is not misdirected.

[Nicholas Sanders]

Chris

So let me get this straight. I wish somebody a merry christmas and receive offence and threats from you - the person who was friendly enough to suggest a sexual union with you and your colleagues gets a pat on the back. I annoyed you with a trivial remark but without any intent so to do, while he who employed offensive language with the clear purpose of causing hurt is excused because he was "rightfully angry".

Only he wasn't - nobody has the right to be offensive, whatever the cause. For my part, I don't believe I was so, but I am happy to apologise as many times as you like for the upset I have caused to you or anyone else on this list. I am not, however, willing to accept your offence and threats without complaint.

I can understand that this issue is causing you a great deal of stress, but has it not occurred to you that you are not the only one offended by the real abuse? Do you think that I am not hurt by it, even if I cannot claim that it is actually directed at me? Can you not understand that messages of the kind that initiated this discussion give offence to every reasonable list member? I have made no claim to be "on [y]our side" - indeed,  I don't accept a model of the relationships described by this list that is characterised by sides - but I joined this forum with the intent to become better informed, not to have to witness the abuse that is all too frequent from those you have described as "rightfully angry".

Let us note that I have not defended my early seasonal wishes, nor sought to justify them in any way. All I have done other than advance them and then to apologise for so doing is to complain that you have responded out of anger, have insulted and offended me in an effectively open forum, and have raised quite unnecessary threats against me. Then in our dialogue on this subject you have variously *instructed* me to "[b]e a nicer person", to "take a walk in this guy's shoes", and to "not respond to these people in this manner", all of which remarks you might usefully have addressed to yourself before striking out at the nearest available scapegoat.

And what about Steve C who offered the clearly offensive "I'm sure can we express ourselves better [than] a 2 year old" and yet received no rebuke from you at all. Not that I would pretend to sit in judgement on him, but I am astonished that one who did no more than employ light sarcasm and then admit his error should be the butt of your ill humour while has made no apology and yet remains free of your ire. Even your colleague Mr Hosey remarked that "the regular members of the group are better behaved than that, with the possible exception of Chris, who gets as pissed at being repeatedly accused of being a malware author as the users are who accuse us" - unfortunately it is the behaviour of that same Chris which must now stick in my memory of this incident, if not in my craw. 

 

I will still not call you what you might be rightfully called, hoping yet that your sense will get the better of your 

intransigence. I have admitted my failing - can you not do the same?

With best wishes - Nick

On 18 Oct 2010, at 14:26, Christopher Forsythe wrote:

It is not right to provoke people who are already angry. They come to
us for help, however they phrase it. You responded in a childish
manner, which is not acceptable. My anger at you is not misdirected, I
have received lawsuit threats from previous interactions just like
that one. I'm tired of this whole thing, I'm tired of the things we
cannot control. But the thing I'm tired of the most is people who say
they are on our side, but make things worse.

Please just don't reply if you can't help these people. If I see
another response from you in this manner, to any person in a similar
situation, I'm removing you from the list. This is not their fault,
they get stuck in a situation that's awful, and you want to try to
make things better with sarcasm? That's just awful.

My anger at you is not misdirected.

-- 

Nicholas J A Sanders
___________________
semiotek

+44 [0]7092 153 409

n...@semiotek.org
___________________

[Richard L. Hamilton]

How about just having a standard authorized text of a reply
for these sorts of things (which I would personally prefer
should have a sentence that politely encourages courtesy
on the part of the complaining person, since two wrongs don't
make a right)? Then whoever saw
it first could just paste that and hit send, since apparently
some of the complainers are too stubborn to click on a URL
without receiving some explanation as to why that's their
best starting point.

I see that google groups is getting rid of welcome message
support. It's not clear to me whether that means that
existing ones will simply be frozen, or will eventually go away
entirely. If the latter, I imagine the noise level here will only rise.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:20:31, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> How about just having a standard authorized text of a reply for these sorts of things (which I would personally prefer should have a sentence that politely encourages courtesy on the part of the complaining person, since two wrongs don't make a right)? Then whoever saw it first could just paste that and hit send, since apparently some of the complainers are too stubborn to click on a URL without receiving some explanation as to why that's their best starting point.

We do, but I'm not sure how to find it. It was in one of the previous threads.

> I see that google groups is getting rid of welcome message support. It's not clear to me whether that means that
> existing ones will simply be frozen, or will eventually go away entirely. If the latter, I imagine the noise level here will only rise.

That's what I'm expecting, too. Dammit, Google Groups, we were using that. :-(

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 18, 2010, at 08:47:33, Nicholas Sanders wrote:
> I wish somebody a merry christmas …

It's pretty clear that you weren't wishing him a merry Christmas any more than he was wishing us one. If you were, that wasn't clear.

I'll admit: I enjoyed it. But Chris is right: We all need to hold stuff like that back, or email it to nobody instead of the group. Sending pretty much anything but The Link does not help the user.

> … I am happy to apologise as many times as you like for the upset I have caused to you or anyone else on this list.

Problem solved, as far as I'm concerned. Just remember—as we all should—not to send messages like this.

I like humor, but when you're dealing with somebody who is *pissed off* because they think we've invaded their hard drive, that isn't the time. The first order of business is to calm them down and as quickly as possible get them the information they're after. Anything else is only going to anger them more, and we *really* do not need that.

> And what about Steve C who offered the clearly offensive "I'm sure can we express ourselves better [than] a 2 year old" and yet received no rebuke from you at all.

His (second) message was a bit more than that, attempting to address the actual problem. I think he might have decided to expand on it after seeing your and Chris's initial exchange. Also, even his “offensive” remark was also good advice.

Your message, conversely, had nothing but the “merry Christmas to him, too!” remark.

Anyway, you've apologized for it, so as long as you don't send something like that again (and the same goes for everybody else here, of course), problem solved.

[Nicholas Sanders]

Not quite, I'm afraid - I still want to see something that is neither offensive nor threatening from Chris. It is all very well for you to respond, but it is not you who has abused me unreasonably and wholly unnecessarily - try as I might, I cannot see this as a trivial matter.

On 18 Oct 2010, at 19:13, Peter Hosey wrote:

Anyway, you've apologized for it, so as long as you don't send something like that again (and the same goes for everybody else here, of course), problem solved.

-- 

Nicholas J A Sanders
___________________
semiotek

+44 [0]7092 153 409

n...@semiotek.org
___________________

[Christopher Forsythe]

Every time I started to type this email, I found myself not being able
to complete it, so I stepped away. I think you aren't reading what I'm
saying how I'm thinking it in my head, so I'm going to reiterate it in
a different manner. After this, this thread needs to die. If you are
confused, reread this. I will be as clear here as I am ever going to
be.

When I thought about what kind of user you are to our community. I
came to the conclusion that you are verging on being a poisonous
person. Please see
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645# if you
have not seen it already, it's an excellent talk about the type of
person I think you are verging on becoming.

The reason I say this is due to a pattern in responses which have no
value, other than to be annoying. Here is a small list I found by just
searching for about 3 minutes, I stopped looking once I hit 4 emails:

http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/a19a2ff6a84ebdd8
http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/872c304048d33e0a
http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/74b285e15eb9ebf2
http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss/msg/be17f47730a0cc5f

Some common themes here are:

- Lack of useful responses
- Sarcasm verging on starting a heated discussion on a thread
- Short responses

This all said, you do provide some great feedback.When I found you
provided the best feedback it was about your specific problems though.

You responded to this user first. The user does not have a way to
differentiate who represents the project, and who is merely a member
of this mailing list/discussion group. As such, you represented this
entire group. You did so in a very sarcastic manner, with none of the
following:

- No quality control.
- No useful information to help the end user
- No helping at all

All of this to what end? No good one as far as I'm concerned. So no, I
do not believe you were wishing him a Merry Christmas. I know you were
in fact being a prick. Which is why I'm angry at you. You basically
just gave us a worse name to this user than we already had to him.
Which isn't a good place for us to be in, seeing how this can all be
avoided very easily.

Now, instead, you could have taken these actions, and not come across
as someone who is simply out to make himself feel good for 2 seconds
for a childish act:

- Responded with the link to the article about this issue
- Responded saying you understand, and providing details about how
dropbox is actually doing this, and then how to remove Growl
- Not responded at all

These 3 responses at the very least would have been more beneficial
than the response you chose to make.

Since you decided to send your sarcastic email to the list publicly, I
decided to reprimand you publicly. I will reiterate what I said
earlier. Do not respond to end users in this manner. They do not
deserve to be treated like this. We don't either, but their anger is
just, only not justly directed. You however have no right to be angry
about it, since it is not affecting you at all.

I spent more time today thinking about this one thing than anything
else. I have a six month old son who is better behaved than you are on
this list. I'm not going to sit here and baby sit you, you need to be
an adult here. I also want this thread to end, unless the original
poster requires more assistance. However, since this thread was
derailed, I've already started a direct email with him so he doesn't
have to continue to deal with this.

I have concluded that this is not acceptable behavior to tolerate for
these issues. If you respond to another user in a sarcastic manner
such as this, I will ban you. If you continue to make me have to
respond to you after being very clear in this email, I will also ban
you. If you choose to email me or any other member of the Growl
project directly to complain about this, I will ban you. Basically,
drop the issue, move on, and don't be a prick in the future, and we're
all set.

As far as I'm concerned, this should not have been how this user was
handled. You made us look bad. You need to own up to that, and learn
from it. I don't want to think about it anymore.

Chris

[Nicholas Sanders]

Chris

While I don't entirely agree with you, I have tried to understand what you are saying from your perspective - an impossible but worthwhile aspiration in any circumstances. It is always interesting (if often painful) to learn how others see one, and you clearly have a long memory for my defects.

But if I try to see the world from your side, I think it only fair that you try to see it from mine. For one thing, it is crystal clear that you have no inkling at all as to why a mere subscriber might take offence at attacks on the authors of the software, or that the use of certain terms might pain a reader, whoever they are used by and at whom directed. Where I see a world I only inhabit, you apparently see one which you want to control - no room there for diversity of comprehension, sadly.

Whatever of that, I have at no time attempted to defend, excuse or justify my mistake - I have freely admitted it, and apologised for it. What is causing me the problem here is that I feel that I am being insulted and bullied, and I don't like it. The validity of your case (which I in no way dispute) is maligned by your rudeness and your threats, when the most I needed from you was your gentle reminder that my sarcastic one liners do not in fact help anybody's cause.

I am at least two people - one of them wants simply to apologise and promise to try never to do something of the kind again, while the other is possessed by the need to assert that this is not because of being threatened. The anger which you hold makes resolution of this dichotomy impossible for me.

You say that I have no right to be angry about the kind of post that initiated this thread, but I am not. I don't think you actually mean "right" here but, in any case, it is not anger that I have felt or feel now. Rather is there here another human who has his own life experience (clearly very much longer than yours, as it happens), and for whom the issue is rather one of hurt. And this human feels he has every "right" to be hurt - by the original poster, by your intemperate words, by your bullying behaviour.

I have no clear idea as to why you think you will improve a situation by using threats and offensive language but doing so is your choice, just as it is my choice to continue to discuss the matter in spite of my risking being banned by doing so. I don't want to be banned, but neither do I want you or anyone else to think that I accept your threats as a valid basis for my behaviour choices.

My closing position is that you are right that my action was childish (I believe I was the first to say so) and you are also right that I have erred in similar style in the past (which fact may indicate a personality defect similar to your own, although I believe we differ on which is actually poisonous). You are not right to bully or threaten me, not least because to do so is as ineffective and pointless as my childish remarks, and contradicts your own exhortation to be a nice person too.

I have already apologised for causing the upset - I do so again now, without reservation. I will not enter into any contract not to fail in the same manner again as long as my doing so is conditioned by fear of the result, nor is there any need for me to do so since I have at no time attempted to justify this kind of action anyway and wouldn't perform it if I thought first. Your threats are empty, not because you won't carry them out but because they cannot achieve your purpose.

If I have anything further to add to the thread, I will do so direct to yourself - notwithstanding that you have warned me against doing that too.

Anyhow, it's late for Eid and early for Thanksgiving - tomorrow is the Birthday of the Bab so I wish all readers the most sincere greetings for that.

Nick out…

-- 

Nicholas J A Sanders
___________________
semiotek

+44 [0]7092 153 409

n...@semiotek.org
___________________

[Christopher Forsythe]

My apologies for Nicholas taking up a large portion of time and
distracting everyone. He is now banned, as stated in the last email if
he continued on this thread.

Chris

[Tarun Nagpal]

Chris,

To get back to the issue: Would it be reasonable to block apps that
install Growl surreptitiously? There wouldn't be much of a point of
Dropbox installing growl if Growl no longer accepted Dropbox
notifications. Obviously they haven't responded to a serious issue and
it seems that this sort of punishment would get their attention. Yes
it would hurt users, but the long term benefits should be there as
they clean up their act.

[Christopher Forsythe]

This sort of thing makes me uncomfortable.

What wouldn't make me uncomfortable is if we had a way to just kill
notifying if a user uninstalled before, and our pkg installer wasn't
the thing that reinstalled Growl. But I don't know of a good way to do
that without other problems we've discussed previously on the list.

Chris

[Richard L. Hamilton]

I can't see anything that's a really good solution to _existing_
apps installing Growl. However, a license change that simply
requires apps to ask the user prominently* before installing GrowlHelper,
GrowlMenu, or extras that act as plugins to already installed apps
(applied to the next release of Growl, say), could give you the
means to demand that app developers behave themselves. At least
it would mean that as the existing version ages out of circulation,
the problem would start to go away.

* by prominently, I mean something that defaults to not installing,
not something where one may have the option but has to do something
more than keep clicking "continue" to exercise it.

Actually...you might have something to hammer the evil app developers
with _now_, without a license change. It seems to me that they're
probably weaseling on one or both of:

> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 3. Neither the name of Growl nor the names of its contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> without specific prior written permission.

insofar as they make no effort to make their compliance if any with
(2) visible to the user; and conversely, Growl, being intentionally
visible, is sort of self-promoting (esp. when it asks about an
auto-update). Thus, the real point of (3), allowing you to retain
control of your good name, is affected even if one could argue that
the literal terms of it maybe aren't violated.

Clearly I'm not a lawyer, and no doubt a real one could tear that theory
up in seconds. But it makes the point that they're being seriously
thoughtless if not quite malicious, which might still be enough to
get some of them to change their conduct.

--

[Christopher Forsythe]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Richard L. Hamilton
<rlha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't see anything that's a really good solution to _existing_
> apps installing Growl.  However, a license change that simply
> requires apps to ask the user prominently* before installing GrowlHelper,
> GrowlMenu, or extras that act as plugins to already installed apps
> (applied to the next release of Growl, say), could give you the
> means to demand that app developers behave themselves.  At least
> it would mean that as the existing version ages out of circulation,
> the problem would start to go away.
>

We can't change the license now.

[Christopher Forsythe]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Richard L. Hamilton
<rlha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can't see anything that's a really good solution to _existing_
> apps installing Growl.  However, a license change that simply
> requires apps to ask the user prominently* before installing GrowlHelper,
> GrowlMenu, or extras that act as plugins to already installed apps
> (applied to the next release of Growl, say), could give you the
> means to demand that app developers behave themselves.  At least
> it would mean that as the existing version ages out of circulation,
> the problem would start to go away.
>
> * by prominently, I mean something that defaults to not installing,
> not something where one may have the option but has to do something
> more than keep clicking "continue" to exercise it.
>

My email was sent a bit early.

We cannot change the license now. We've had far too many people
contribute to Growl with very specific opinions about the license
being bsd 3 clause. We're not going to modify our license and then
have to go back and try to get in touch with them, and all other
things.

Long and short of it, is I meant more along the lines of some kind of
kill switch.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 20, 2010, at 19:05:50, Tarun Nagpal wrote:
> Would it be reasonable to block apps that install Growl surreptitiously?

This is addressed on our page about the matter:

http://growl.info/thirdpartyinstallations.php#itcameback

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 20, 2010, at 22:04:58, Christopher Forsythe wrote:
> Long and short of it, is I meant more along the lines of some kind of kill switch.

I have been thinking of implementing an internal, hard-coded banlist. Any application on the list would be disabled by default when it registers. It would appear in the Growl prefpane (with the Enabled checkbox unchecked), so that the user could enable the application if they want.

If the user enables the application, Growl adds its name to a list of banned applications so enabled. Ideally, we'd make it as difficult as possible for an application to add itself to the enabled list. Suggestions on this are welcome (but remember that it's impossible to fully solve, since there's no secure per-application storage and permissions are by user, so any process running under the same account Growl runs under can write to anything Growl can write to).

This could only benefit on-purpose users, though (I mainly thought of it as an answer to applications like Adobe's that use Growl to display ads). The CS5 installer and Dropbox both install a old version (1.2), which wouldn't know about the banlist.

[i.aten...@gmail.com]

Surely an external banlist, host on growl.info eg. would be better than a hard-coded list, as you could update as apps were identified?

Anyway, I’m not entirely sure this would end up helping terribly much; I can envisage it frustrating users who actually want the notifications.
Also, I seem to recall a large proportion of the users who have come to us so far seem to only have become ‘aware’ of growl upon seeing the growl update notification, which presumably would not be on your blacklist ;)

The update notification side of things should be mitigated by the transition to Sparkle, so that’s already sorted.

I would suggest for the fresh install side of things, that perhaps all that may be needed is a first-run “Welcome to Growl” window?
This could be used to explain what Growl is, and run quickly through how to configure notifications and displays. For example reference, the first thing i can think of is a new iTunes install (well, the _first_ thing i thought of was quicksilver, but not everyone has that).
Anyway, benefits of this approach would be that:
1) Users are immediately made aware of Growl when it is first run, thus more likely associating it with whatever else they happen to have just installed that bundled it.
2) The first thing they see of growl is a friendly window telling them what it is for, which should reduce the amount of knee-jerk ‘what the hell is this’ reactions.
3) Users are instructed on the basics of how to control growl, and ideally given the opportunity right there and then to configure it.
4) No-one gets shafted. Not even the ill-behaved developers.

I admit it won’t help with the dropbox re-installing it problem, but at least off the bat after the first time it installs, users are made aware of it so it doesn’t come as a surprise later on.

Thoughts?
Josh

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 21, 2010, at 03:41:32, i.aten...@gmail.com wrote:
> Surely an external banlist, host on growl.info eg. would be better than a hard-coded list, as you could update as apps were identified?

Anyone running Little Snitch would be alarmed when Growl seemingly tried to “call home”.

> Anyway, I’m not entirely sure this would end up helping terribly much; I can envisage it frustrating users who actually want the notifications.

Yeah, we'd have to document it.

> Also, I seem to recall a large proportion of the users who have come to us so far seem to only have become ‘aware’ of growl upon seeing the growl update notification, which presumably would not be on your blacklist ;)

True. Like I said, the main target I had in mind was Adobe's ad notifications.

> I would suggest for the fresh install side of things, that perhaps all that may be needed is a first-run “Welcome to Growl” window?

> …

>
> I admit it won’t help with the dropbox re-installing it problem, but at least off the bat after the first time it installs, users are made aware of it so it doesn’t come as a surprise later on.

I would expect even louder “WHAT THE F IS THIS S” screams here on the list from users presented with a “Welcome to Growl” dialog shortly after removing Growl.

[Chris Forsythe]

On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Peter Hosey <p...@growl.info> wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2010, at 03:41:32, i.aten...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Surely an external banlist, host on growl.info eg. would be better than a hard-coded list, as you could update as apps were identified?
>
> Anyone running Little Snitch would be alarmed when Growl seemingly tried to “call home”.
>
>> Anyway, I’m not entirely sure this would end up helping terribly much; I can envisage it frustrating users who actually want the notifications.
>
> Yeah, we'd have to document it.
>
>> Also, I seem to recall a large proportion of the users who have come to us so far seem to only have become ‘aware’ of growl upon seeing the growl update notification, which presumably would not be on your blacklist ;)
>
> True. Like I said, the main target I had in mind was Adobe's ad notifications.
>

Which is gone in some updates already

>> I would suggest for the fresh install side of things, that perhaps all that may be needed is a first-run “Welcome to Growl” window?
>> …
>>
>> I admit it won’t help with the dropbox re-installing it problem, but at least off the bat after the first time it installs, users are made aware of it so it doesn’t come as a surprise later on.
>
> I would expect even louder “WHAT THE F IS THIS S” screams here on the list from users presented with a “Welcome to Growl” dialog shortly after removing Growl.
>

[Phoenix]

Why not putting a small config file next to the .plist when
uninstalling, which is not being removed with that action. That way,
Growl would see that it had been previously uninstalled and a re-
install would prompt Growl to explicitly prompt the user, who if he
declines adds another line to never ask, but automatically declines
the re-install from that point onwards. Of course, such applications
like Dropbox can erase that file again, but then they really preying
for trouble.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Chris Forsythe]

Unfortunately that won't work either. Dropbox doesn't have to read the configuration file at all and can just install by copying the prefpane over. Unless I misread this

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 21, 2010, at 21:07:31, Phoenix wrote:
> That way, Growl would see that it had been previously uninstalled and a re-install would prompt Growl to explicitly prompt the user, …

Dropbox doesn't install the latest version (0.7.110 installs 1.2), so it wouldn't install any hypothetical future version that checked for this file.

> … Of course, such applications like Dropbox can erase that file again, but then they really preying for trouble.

Applications such as Dropbox already abuse the user's trust when they install software without the user's permission. Making it more difficult doesn't change the morality of it.

[i.aten...@gmail.com]

On 21 Oct 2010, at 18:31, Peter Hosey wrote:

>> I would suggest for the fresh install side of things, that perhaps all that may be needed is a first-run “Welcome to Growl” window?
>> …
>>
>> I admit it won’t help with the dropbox re-installing it problem, but at least off the bat after the first time it installs, users are made aware of it so it doesn’t come as a surprise later on.
>
> I would expect even louder “WHAT THE F IS THIS S” screams here on the list from users presented with a “Welcome to Growl” dialog shortly after removing Growl.

That would no longer be a first-run, assuming we don’t delete the pref list in ~/Library on uninstall?

[Peter Hosey]

Ah, true. I missed that part; sorry.

That just leaves the problem that the guilty applications would not be installing a version that has this window, so only people who already know about Growl in the first place and installed it themselves would see it.

[i.aten...@gmail.com]

Yes :(
Certainly not a retrospective fix, but mindful of the future should any apps use growl after this proposed change…
I don’t see how the ban-list works retrospectively either, though? Dropping it in from an upgrade still requires the user to get past the upgrade, and would be disabling those apps for a lot of users who may want them?

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 22, 2010, at 08:11:37, i.aten...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dropping it in from an upgrade still requires the user to get past the upgrade, …

There are two things we're talking about here. The one that got the thread started was applications installing Growl without the user's permission; the one the banlist would address is applications sending ads through Growl.

It's unlikely that we'd ban an application just for installing Growl without the user's permission, simply because it would be so pointless. As you say, it wouldn't benefit anyone who got Growl installed that way; it would only affect users who installed a new enough version of Growl on purpose (i.e., aren't affected by the app's rogue installation) and, as you say, those who upgrade the Growl that was wrongly installed.

> and would be disabling those apps for a lot of users who may want them?

Possibly. Dropbox (which doesn't currently send ads) comes to mind. It's unlikely that users are going to want to enable an app that sends ads, though, and if they ever do, that's why they'd be able to enable it.

[Phoenix]

On Oct 22, 6:31 am, Peter Hosey <p...@growl.info> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 21:07:31, Phoenix wrote:
>
> > That way, Growl would see that it had been previously uninstalled and a re-install would prompt Growl to explicitly prompt the user, …
>
> Dropbox doesn't install the latest version (0.7.110 installs 1.2), so it wouldn't install any hypothetical future version that checked for this file.

Ah, ok. I was having the impression that Dropbox re-downloads and
then installs Growl. However, I recall that it was standing somewhere
that Dropbox uses a slightly modified version of Growl in order to
install it. So, that was a mistake on my side.

>
> > … Of course, such applications like Dropbox can erase that file again, but then they really preying for trouble.
>
> Applications such as Dropbox already abuse the user's trust when they install software without the user's permission. Making it more difficult doesn't change the morality of it.

Well. undermining people's trust is bad enough, overwriting a possible
safeguard would go one step further and undermines people's trust AND
give them a slap additionally for uninstalling Growl manually. The
morality would be changed, but not for the good, rather to the
bad. ;-)

On 21 Oct 2010, at 18:31, Peter Hosey wrote:
> I would expect even louder “WHAT THE F IS THIS S” screams here on the list from users presented with a “Welcome to Growl” dialog shortly after removing Growl.

As you already stated that it is not possible to insert such a thing
the following is just an idea for if it would have been possible:
The "Welcome to Growl" message might be altered at that point
including Dropbox to clearly distinguish who or what is currently
calling the installer. Just to make it clear to the user.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 22, 2010, at 21:06:31, Phoenix wrote:
> I was having the impression that Dropbox re-downloads and then installs Growl.

Nope. There's a copy of Growl 1.2 bundled inside it.

> However, I recall that it was standing somewhere that Dropbox uses a slightly modified version of Growl in order to install it.

Not that I was able to determine. As far as I could tell, it's the same Growl 1.2 we distributed.

> As you already stated that it is not possible to insert such a thing the following is just an idea for if it would have been possible: The "Welcome to Growl" message might be altered at that point including Dropbox to clearly distinguish who or what is currently calling the installer.

Dropbox isn't the only guilty application; we wouldn't want to finger it specifically if it wasn't what installed Growl. We'd need to be able to tell which application actually did it, and that's impossible, too—there's no way to tell what application wrote out a file.

[Phoenix]

On Oct 23, 5:21 am, Peter Hosey <p...@growl.info> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 21:06:31, Phoenix wrote:
>
> > However, I recall that it was standing somewhere that Dropbox uses a slightly modified version of Growl in order to install it.
>
> Not that I was able to determine. As far as I could tell, it's the same Growl 1.2 we distributed.
>

I see. Not sure from where I got the idea then. ;-)

> > As you already stated that it is not possible to insert such a thing the following is just an idea for if it would have been possible: The "Welcome to Growl" message might be altered at that point including Dropbox to clearly distinguish who or what is currently calling the installer.
>
> Dropbox isn't the only guilty application; we wouldn't want to finger it specifically if it wasn't what installed Growl. We'd need to be able to tell which application actually did it, and that's impossible, too—there's no way to tell what application wrote out a file.

Sorry, that I was imprecise. I did not mean to hardcode a specific
brand (like Dropbox), but rather meant to have a variable filled with
whatever called a program. So, if the user executes something, the
calling program would usually be the Finder, if a program launches
something, the calling program would be that program (be it Dropbox or
something else). So, I was hoping that it was possible to intercept
who was calling the installer and get a customized welcome message
like "Welcome to Growl installing by <program_name_here>" if it is not
the Finder.

However, as you pointed out, the Growl package is already bundled
within. So, it would not be possible to retrofit it with such a
functionality. Though it might be something to give some thoughts on
for a future release.

[Phoenix]

Sorry for the double-posting.

Another idea I just had, was for those downloading the uninstaller of
Growl to get rid of Growl:

The uninstaller (which you can update any time) could have a function
implemented to specifically look for known applications who re-install
Growl and either remove the package*) or at least give the user a
message they cannot overlook during uninstall to advise that an
application has been found (naming the applications name), which re-
installs Growl and give advice on how to disable it and/or link to
your website's red-banner-page.

With this, people who try uninstalling Growl do no longer get too
disgruntled as they just need to uninstall Growl once and not multiple
times without effect and get to know the real culprit right at that
point.

*) While I agree that this is a mean step, I would rather compare it
with a parent removing a toy from a child, when the child abuses it to
do some harm. However, that way you again gain a good control lever
to uninstall Growl without it coming back any time soon.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 24, 2010, at 01:38:48, Phoenix wrote:
> The uninstaller (which you can update any time) could have a function implemented to specifically look for known applications who re-install Growl and either remove the package*

Possible in some cases, but risky: Depending on how the application's Growl-installation “feature” is written, doing this could break the app. I don't want to get email that says “Dropbox installed Growl and I uninstalled Growl and IT BROKE DROPBOX!”.

> … or at least give the user a message they cannot overlook during uninstall to advise that an application has been found (naming the applications name), which re-installs Growl and give advice on how to disable it and/or link to your website's red-banner-page.

This is a good idea.

[Yves Boudreault]

I recently discovered that growl had installed itself on my computer
without my knowledge, and started annoying me with messages to either
update or reinstall it. I was seeing notifications appear, but as I
just installed MacPilot, I thought it was part of its tools. Now that
I finally investigated this, found a Growl system preference pane, and
shed light on this product, I am furious that I was fooled and my
computer violated. Even if I'd like the product, there is no way in
the world I'd want to use it now.

What would you think if I went in your house in the middle of the
night, and installed a hidden camera, or messed up with your computer?
I don't think you'd be very pleased. And I do not buy the "there is
nothing we can do about it". You are the developers of this product,
then fix it's installing protocols. Or maybe you are not very good
developers and should look for another job.

I know why you named your product Growl, because it's exactly how it
make me feel, growling...

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 25, 2010, at 13:23:31, Yves Boudreault wrote:
> I recently discovered that growl had installed itself on my computer without my knowledge, …

Growl doesn't do this. Some other program installed Growl on your system without your permission.

This page both lists the applications we have learned do this and provides instructions on how to remove Growl:

http://growl.info/thirdpartyinstallations.php

> What would you think if I went in your house in the middle of the night, and installed a hidden camera, or messed up with your computer?

Again, we didn't do this. Growl does not install itself.

> And I do not buy the "there is nothing we can do about it".

There *is* nothing we can do about it. It is impossible for us to stop a third party from installing something they have—including a copy of Growl—onto your system, and there is no way Growl can tell whether you installed it or whether something installed it without your permission.

If you can think of a reliable, undefeatable way to do that, we'd welcome a patch.

> You are the developers of this product, then fix it's installing protocols.

There is nothing for us to fix. Our installer, which asks you for permission, works fine.

Most of the applications that install Growl without your permission don't use our installer. The only one that does hacks around the permission check somehow; we're still not sure how.

You need to contact the developers of whichever program installed Growl without your permission. That is the program that misbehaved on your system and violated your trust.

[Christopher Forsythe]

This is like blaming the manufacturer of the cameras for the people
who broke into your house and installed the cameras.

We don't know who installed Growl, we don't like that it happened.
We're not responsible for their actions. But we'll gladly help you,
and try to figure out what app did this so that we can warn the next
person.

Frankly, every time I see one of these emails it makes me just groan.
You don't understand our position starting out, you just assume that
we're to blame. We get this constantly, and then we have to deal with
it.

Let's be nice and let's get things fixed up on your computer.

Chris

> I know why you named your product Growl, because it's exactly how it
> make me feel, growling...
>

[Leandro de Oliveira]

Hi,

It seems most people are discovering that Growl has been installed on
their systems after seeing a notification about a new version of Growl
and that they should update it. Maybe Growl could self-update in the
background like Google Chrome does?
I think Growl does not need a tray icon, it's already integrated with
System Preferences and the tray icon seems to be mainly a shortcut for
preferences. Maybe Growl should not show a tray icon by default?

These two things would "hide" Growl a little and people would just use
it thinking it's part of some app they installed, it would be better
if people would use Growl knowing about it but the reality is that
other apps will bundle it and there is little or nothing that Growl
developers can do to avoid it.

I'm not a Mac user so I'm sorry if I'm missing something.

2010/10/25 Christopher Forsythe <ch...@growl.info>:

[Christopher Forsythe]

I think self updating is a form of taking control away from the end
user. Since Growl is about giving control to the end user, that seems
a bit of a bad idea just from a design stance. It's a nice thought
though.

I have no opinion on the menu item. Myself, I don't use it, I could
see it going away or staying. We shouldn't change our first time
experience for users just because some apps decided to do things in a
way we don't like at all.

The sentiment to hide Growl though is well meant, but I'd rather take
on some hate email and get these people a bit more knowledgeable about
what is actually on their system, than to have it run on their systems
for years continually updating with no knowledge about Growl at all.

Good ideas though, keep them coming. Keep in mind that any change we
make isn't going to apply to any software package that bundles Growl,
since they'll continue to install the older version, but we should
prepare for the long term of this. I don't see this issue disappearing
overnight. Changes now may show up in later updates to these apps if
they decide to continue to ship Growl in this manner, so anything we
put into 2.0 could be a great bit of help.

Chris

[Leandro de Oliveira]

Maybe these ideas could be implemented in a library version of Growl
that's made to be bundled with applications like Dropbox. This could
shift the burden to third party apps because they would need a UI to
have all configuration options that Growl already does so when people
go to their forums asking for more configuration options and features
they can just point users to Growl website to download the version for
end users.
As a developer, I would prefer to use this library instead of having
to install Growl or ask the user to do so.

2010/10/25 Christopher Forsythe <ch...@growl.info>:

[Richard L. Hamilton]

If growl would only run if either given permission to store a token
in the keychain, or if able to retrieve it subsequently, then
each user would have to bless it running, and without actually
removing it (esp. if it was a multi-user machine, maybe they shouldn't
or can't remove it), be able to stop it if they didn't want it running.

That should happen _before_ the update check.

Is that possible? Or am I missing something?

[Leandro de Oliveira]

Since Growl is open source, any developer can build his own version of
it removing anything they don't like like this kind of protection.
It's better to work with developers instead of against them.

2010/10/25 Richard L. Hamilton <rlha...@gmail.com>:

[Christopher Forsythe]

I agree. It's harder, but what we're doing.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 25, 2010, at 15:35:26, Leandro de Oliveira wrote:
> Maybe Growl could self-update in the background like Google Chrome does?

Updating Growl silently in the background is just a different form of installing Growl silently in the background.

Moreover, Chrome's updater is not something to emulate. It is one of only a couple of updaters (the other one is Adobe's) that I've broken on purpose for being too insistent upon updating.

> I think Growl does not need a tray icon, it's already integrated with System Preferences and the tray icon seems to be mainly a shortcut for preferences. Maybe Growl should not show a tray icon by default?

I don't think it does. Maybe Growl for Windows differs from Growl for Mac in this regard.

> These two things would "hide" Growl a little …

Trying to hide Growl from the people who accuse us of slipping it onto their systems behind their backs would not help our case.

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 25, 2010, at 16:11:37, Leandro de Oliveira wrote:
> Maybe these ideas could be implemented in a library version of Growl that's made to be bundled with applications …

We've discussed this before, and the most recent discussion (which was, unfortunately, off-list for some reason) arrived at the conclusion that this would be a bad idea: Effectively, a version of Growl that users could not turn off or remove.

> This could shift the burden to third party apps because they would need a UI to have all configuration options that Growl already does …

This is exactly the problem. An application that isn't responsible about installing Growl, we cannot assume would be responsible about providing a UI to disable its built-in Growl.

> As a developer, I would prefer to use this library instead of having to install Growl or ask the user to do so.

That was a driving force behind the idea originally, and was why we were previously planning to do it. The change of perspective brought on by apps installing Growl without permission changed our minds on it: We now see anything that makes it harder for users to turn off or remove Growl (or Growl functionality) as an invitation to even more angry email.

[Leandro de Oliveira]

> Effectively, a version of Growl that users could not turn off or remove... we cannot assume would be responsible about providing a UI to disable its built-in Growl.
I'm thinking of just a library that is able to draw notifications
without much customization, no skin support, no application
registration, just enough for dropbox to show information that it
wants. The user would be able to download Growl as it's today to
customize dropbox notifications if he wants.

> We now see anything that makes it harder for users to turn off or remove Growl (or Growl functionality) as an invitation to even more angry email.

I think Growl is supposed to implement something that Mac OS does not
by itself but is useful to users, if so, then Growl functionality
would not be something that caused angry emails. End users would have
to make some effort (look in the dropbox forums for example) to know
that the app uses Growl and that he can customize notifications if he
wants to and the blame for not being able to turn off notifications
would be put on dropbox since now it's the one drawing notifications
because Growl is not even installed, and that's the right thing to do
because Growl cannot and shouldn't make the decision about showing or
not notifications on behalf of dropbox. Makes sense?

2010/10/25 Peter Hosey <p...@growl.info>:

[Peter Hosey]

On Oct 25, 2010, at 19:47:09, Leandro de Oliveira wrote:
> I'm thinking of just a library that is able to draw notifications without much customization, no skin support, no application registration, just enough for dropbox to show information that it wants. The user would be able to download Growl as it's today to customize dropbox notifications if he wants.

Yes. This is exactly what has been proposed before.

>> We now see anything that makes it harder for users to turn off or remove Growl (or Growl functionality) as an invitation to even more angry email.

> I think Growl is supposed to implement something that Mac OS [X] does not by itself but is useful to users, if so, then Growl functionality would not be something that caused angry emails. End users would have to make some effort (look in the dropbox forums for example) to know that the app uses Growl and that he can customize notifications if he wants to and the blame for not being able to turn off notifications would be put on dropbox since now it's the one drawing notifications because Growl is not even installed, and that's the right thing to do because Growl cannot and shouldn't make the decision about showing or not notifications on behalf of dropbox. Makes sense?

Yeah.

There are still a couple of problems with this, mainly in the area of workload.

First, we'd have to implement it. Splitting out a mini-Growl into a framework that preferably could be embedded in multiple applications without them stepping on each others' notifications on the screen (so they'd have to co-ordinate positioning in a distributed fashion) is non-trivial.

Then, once it's implemented and in use, it would complicate the troubleshooting. If we get a user who's angry about notification bubbles they can't seem to turn off, we have to figure out whether it's Dropbox (or whatever) having installed/persistently re-installing Growl *or* Dropbox (or whatever) displaying its own self-hosted Growl notifications.

Conversely, it's quite possible that some users would come to believe that Growl is installed on their system when it's really an application displaying the notifications itself using its embedded Growl Lite. As I mentioned, this would get us more angry email—something along the lines of “How can I be seeing Growl notifications if you claim I don't have Growl installed?!”, only with more swearing in it.

The simplest way, for us and for users, is for us to keep doing what we're doing: Maintain Growl as a stand-alone product that serves as a central notification-display facility when installed and is unavailable when not.

[i.aten...@gmail.com]

What if you didn’t have to maintain it separately? What if this was the standard Growl framework functionality?
I think the main problem (and reason for the bundling) for apps using Growl is that if there is no Growl, there are no notifications. So if an app relies on its notifications and wants to use Growl it has to either: write its own subsidiary notification system in case Growl isn’t installed, or make damn well sure Growl is installed.

Is there some way the framework can maybe contain GrowlHelperApp and do something like this on post:
Is Growl prefpane installed (to catch when Growl has been turned off)?
-Yes: post notification
- No: Is GHA running?
- Yes: post notification
- No: start GHA (bundled in framework)

This would rely on GHA being able to run independently of the Growl prefpane, so the minimal set of basic notification style etc. would have to be built in to that.
If the Growl prefpane is installed, then GHA could read its prefs from there, if not then it falls back to basic defaults.

Main problem I can see is different versions of the framework would have different GHAs, so this would make life complicated in terms of needing to maintain backwards compatibility (although I’m guessing this is currently also the case) and perhaps there would need to be some way if another app had a framework with a more recent version of GHA to kill off the older one and start the newer one.
But, since all apps essentially have their own copy of GHA, they are all able to post notifications regardless of whether Growl.prefpane is installed. Since they all check to see if an instance of GHA is already running before each post, they all share that GHA while it is running, so the display co-ordination and stuff works like it always has. Also, if the app containing the running GHA quits, next time another app posts, it runs its GHA. And finally (most importantly) I can’t think of a way this breaks any current installation of Growl…
Correct me if I’m wrong ;)