Littlebits said:
HeffeD, surely you don't believe this, unless you have been brainwashed.
Nope, not brainwashed. But I do believe it.
Why? Here is my logic.
Why was it originally based on Process Hacker instead of writing their own code to begin with? Because that advances the development cycle by several weeks. Why start from scratch if you can hit the ground running?
That's why so many applications use common .dll's. Why bother to take the time to write a function call or subroutine, when someone has already made a pre-written library available? Even if it's something simple, you're obviously going to speed things up if you don't need to code absolutely everything. It's not that the programmers who use the .dll's couldn't write the same functions, it's just a time saver.
Lets use a little more logic...
Do you
really think the Comodo developers would be stupid enough to say they rewrote the code, when they did not? They
knew it was going to be questioned by
basically everybody after previously basing their application on Process Hacker!
There is simply too much at stake for them to lie about this. They're a computer security company and a certificate authority! They
know it would be trivial for wj32, (or for that matter, Microsoft/SysInternals, as people have also accused them of stealing code from Process Explorer) to examine the code. Why would they put their reputation on the line for something like that?
But as it stands, nobody that 'knows better' has come forward to say otherwise!
So I guess we need to ask ourselves which is more logical? To accept the fact that
nobody with any stake in the issue has said there is any truth to the rumors, or to assume Comodo are idiots and jump on the conspiracy theory train that accuses Comodo of code theft?
Yep. The GUI looks similar. I guess they figured, why change a format that people are comfortable with?