Battle Process Explorer vs Process Hacker

[ocsi]

Which is more useful?

 

[Littlebits]

HeffeD you are still not understanding an important fact:

When a code is written from scratch, that means all of the ideas of that code were all new ideas from that developer, not based on or modeled after another code.

For example:
Windows Task Manager> written from scratch.
Sysinternals HandleEx and DLLView> written from scratch inspired by Windows Task Manager to add new features.
Sysinternals RegMon and Filemon> written from scratch inspired by Windows Task Manager to add new features.
Sysinternals Process Monitor> modeled and coded from Sysinternals RegMon and Filemon (not written from scratch).
Sysinternals Process Explorer> modeled and coded from Sysinterals HandleEx and DLLView. (not written from scratch)
Process Hacker> modeled and coded from Sysinternals Process Explorer (not written from scratch)
Comodo Killswitch> at least modeled and inspired from Process Hacker (not written from scratch).
System Explorer> modeled from Sysinternals Process Explorer (original coding)
Almost all similar process management applications at least use modeling after one of the name programs or is inspired by one of the name programs (not written from scratch).

It doesn't make a different how Comodo wrote the code, it was not original code that they made themselves from scratch. They used Process Hacker as their model, if there was no Process Hacker, then they would have been no Killswitch.

I'm sure Comodo didn't just use a stolen code, they either got permission, paid money to use the code or reconstructed their own code using PH as a model.

For Comodo to claim that they wrote Killswitch all by themselves without using any type of models or other information available is ridiculous since Killswitch is identical to PH is more than just GUI, almost all features and options.

You can't tell me that Killswitch wasn't inspired by Process Hacker, Process Explorer and many other process management tools before its time. Not even Sysinternals Process Explorer was written from scratch.

Comodo acts like they come up with new ideas that have never been used before in other programs. I'm sorry but that's not the way it is.

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 178]

I'm sure Comodo didn't just use a stolen code, they either got permission, paid money to use the code or reconstructed their own code using PH as a model.

From what i heard long time ago, Comodo had the permission of PH's developers to use their code then an issue happened between both of them.

 

[HeffeD]

I think your concept of 'from scratch' is different than the norm. If I follow a recipe to cook something using base ingredients, this is considered making something 'from scratch'. This is what it has always meant. I don't think you'll be able to find anyone that only feels you've made a pie 'from scratch' if you invented the recipe.

That's a bit beside the point though.

I never said that Killswitch wasn't modeled after Process Hacker. I said that Comodo wrote the code for the current incarnation of Killswitch.

 

[Littlebits]

I think your concept of 'from scratch' is different than the norm. If I follow a recipe to cook something using base ingredients, this is considered making something 'from scratch'. This is what it has always meant. I don't think you'll be able to find anyone that only feels you've made a pie 'from scratch' if you invented the recipe.

That's a bit beside the point though.

I never said that Killswitch wasn't modeled after Process Hacker. I said that Comodo wrote the code for the current incarnation of Killswitch.

HeffeD my guess is your not into program developing.
Program developing and cooking are two different fields.

When a programmer writes a new program from scratch, he only uses his ideas and his own coding, no models or inspirations from already developed programs. He starts with a blank drawing board and creates a new program. Like I said it is very rare for any developers to write programs from scratch now days, they usually use models, modify other available codes, steal and hack close-source codes then modify them, etc.

In my opinion license copyrights hold back technology but protect developers work. That's why there are so many legal battles involving technology most products are closed-source.

Let's say a new security product comes out and is almost an exact copy of Comodo Internet Security with a little GUI changes but the developer says no we coded this product from scratch, knowing CIS is closed-source would you believe them?

Good day.

 

[Prorootect]

HeffeD wrote:
'I think your concept of 'from scratch' is different than the norm. If I follow a recipe to cook something using base ingredients, this is considered making something 'from scratch'. This is what it has always meant. I don't think you'll be able to find anyone that only feels you've made a pie 'from scratch' if you invented the recipe.'

If I understand this scratching story - the best example is here:
Western Spaghetti by PES : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBjLW5_dGAM

So this spaghetti is made from scratch .. or not?..:huh:

PS. I use Process Hacker v2.23 (because ancient System Information window I prefer) : http://processhacker.sourceforge.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1369&sid=f612e11bb53948421d9a5e74876b79af

 

[HeffeD]

Let's say a new security product comes out and is almost an exact copy of Comodo Internet Security with a little GUI changes but the developer says no we coded this product from scratch, knowing CIS is closed-source would you believe them?

I beg to differ on the 'from scratch' part, but that's irrelevant. I'm the one that used the term, not Comodo.

As for whether or not I would believe someone who had a product that looked nearly identical to CIS had written it 'from scratch', I couldn't say because I don't know the original source code well enough. Jumping to possible erroneous conclusions definitely wouldn't help anyone. I'd definitely say, that looks similar, but I'd leave it to the people who wrote the original code to decide whether or not their code was stolen.

 

[Littlebits]

Let's say a new security product comes out and is almost an exact copy of Comodo Internet Security with a little GUI changes but the developer says no we coded this product from scratch, knowing CIS is closed-source would you believe them?

I beg to differ on the 'from scratch' part, but that's irrelevant. I'm the one that used the term, not Comodo.

As for whether or not I would believe someone who had a product that looked nearly identical to CIS had written it 'from scratch', I couldn't say because I don't know the original source code well enough. Jumping to possible erroneous conclusions definitely wouldn't help anyone. I'd definitely say, that looks similar, but I'd leave it to the people who wrote the original code to decide whether or not their code was stolen.

Sometimes you don't need to examine a code to tell how a product was developed, when a product is almost exactly identical to another there is "NO way" possible that program's code was written from scratch. At least the code had to be modeled from the other code. If a product came out almost exactly identical to CIS then there is no way that product wrote their code from scratch.

I'm sure if Comodo didn't licensed out the code to that developer, they would take them to court, you don't have to examine to code to take legal actions. Even if the code was different, still they could fill "stealing intellectual properties" charges against that developer if the products function were determined to be too similar and not original work.

Of coarse Comodo does sales their license, as the example of the rogueware program Shield Firewall

The first time I saw this program was an ad on MajorGeeks, I thought they had stolen the technology from Comodo. Months went by and finally Comodo admitted that they sold them license to use their firewall knowing that they were a rogueware distributer. I can remember many Comodo users were making accusations against PCSecurityShield thinking they had stolen the technology from Comodo. When Comodo admitted that they actually did business with them and sold license to re-brand their firewall, many Comodo supporters were outraged. The Shield Firewall is still available for purchase $19.99. Shield Firewall 5.0 is an exact clone of an older version of Comodo Firewall, the only differences is the name branding and is not free. After receiving complaints from Comodo supporters, Comodo removed the Trust Certificate from pcsecurityshield.com and WOT gives the site a bad red reputation. Many security products block their site and the site is listed in several host file blocklists. Still pcsecurityshield.com targets novice users with ads using licensed Comodo technology.

Thanks.