I agree. It's harder, but what we're doing. On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Leandro de Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>: >> 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? >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Growl Discuss" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Growl Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en. > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
