I’m not sure if comparing Windows malware to a useful developer tool on OS X that discloses what it is doing to the user is a proper comparison at all.

It’s true, they aren’t but road to hell is paved with good intentions. I love Unsanity, but the one thing that has stood out for me during this series of postings and rapid flash comments, is that I’d rather have Unsanity argue for what’s right (which they did mention, briefly), which is that developers using their product always explicitly gain consent; then for them to argue who’s wrong in their statement against Unsanity. I feel that the issue is about consent; and again Rosyna makes good points that their are a number of large developers that violate user consent, Adobe being just one of them.

Obviously, Unsanity, feels defensive, maybe I’m out of the loop, but I just don’t feel like acting defensively does much good in this situation. Correct misconceptions sure. But Unsanity has some brilliant products, including haxies. I also think Unsanity stands the test as a “trusted” developer for most. I know they make my short list of developers I trust.

But reading these posts have made me depressed that there obviously exists the need for them to feel so defensive. I went back through the original post by bbum, as well as Daring Fireball, and it seems that they both went out of the way NOT to implicate Unsanity of any wrong doing (because there was none); but that the constant arguments and nitpiking by Rosyna seem to imply more and more that the issue was Unsanity; and then comments started becoming more about Unsanity and the SCR rather than, the very legitimate concern of “what care should developers take to keep their users aware and informed.” “Explicit consent” is key. Without it, every developer, would be developer, hacker, cracker, or stalker can argue that they were doing something of benefit, regardless if you agree or not.

Apple and the Mac OS has built a great community of developers. Most go out of their way to stay on the good side of their users; and I think Macintosh users trust and rely on that. So even if one “trusted” developer does something wrong, accidentally or without forethought, and hopefully without malice; it still effects the entire community. I think Karelia’s response was thoughtful, and a good step—we were wrong, we will change it, wouldn’t it be nice if…

I wish that people would read carefully, and not get up and arms and adamant and force developers in defensive stands. But I’d also wish for a 100 million dollars, better coding skills, a longer attention span, and a kick-a** vocabulary. I’d rather not hear people trashing developers and running for the hills, but I do want to hear about mistakes, errors in judgement, debates of right and wrong. Why? Because for me, it’s how you handle your mistakes that defines your trustworthiness. But also, life is full of slippery slope issues; and its easy to let things slide.

Without Gruber’s reminder, I would have never paid much attention to the issue—probably because I had already decided that Smart Crash Reporter had merit and had installed it independently. I may have thought, its a good app with a good purpose, what’s the problem. Sometimes vision becomes too focused. It’s never alright to install something “silently”. NEVER. And that is important, and its worth users standing up for, and even more so, its worth good and great developers to stand up for as well.

I think this kerfuffle is a bit overdone. I had the same reaction when PathFinder 4 installed SCR, but I just dumped it and ran a terminal command as well. I think it was bad form that Cocoatech did this *without* informing the user, but since their application is so good I think they deserve a break.

So, how about we measure our contempt for the InputManager folder based upon the usefulness of any software that needs it?