[wirefloss]

1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well. Let me know if you need it. 2) No source indeed. 3) Privacy policy is stated in the EULA. I'll repeat it here: "No info is gathered, no connections to outside servers, except for a standard WINE repository".

[pyre]

> 1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well.

I think that the parent was more concerned with the lack of 64-bit (x64/AMD64/x86_64) support. The parent also takes issue with the usage of x32 to refer to 32-bit.

[cbd1984]

What assurances do we have that you'll live up to your privacy policy?

[wirefloss]

I'm afraid there is no such thing. Even open source products have critical security bugs as you may very well know. If you do just a bit of research you can find who I am, and where I live. Code is not obfuscated. This is the best I can do.

[cbd1984]

> Even open source products have critical security bugs as you may very well know.

Except they get fixed without someone threatening to disclose them.

> If you do just a bit of research you can find who I am, and where I live.

What do you expect me to do with that information? I'm being honest: I don't really get what that information would do for me if I found your code was doing something wrong, unless I thought it was worth my time to file a lawsuit.

> Code is not obfuscated.

We have very different definitions of this term.

> This is the best I can do.

Examples exist which show this statement to be wrong.

[cbd1984]

Downvoting me doesn't make my comments less true.

[cbd1984]

Without source why should we trust the privacy policy?

[pyre]

Presumably the crowd that a packet editor is targeted at knows their way around something like WireShark, and could easily monitor the software for phoning home. That's a pretty strong incentive to not do it.

[wirefloss]

One would think so. I'm certainly curious how much people use the tool. Wouldn't you? However in anticipation of security concerns the software doesn't gather any info, and makes no external connections. Auto-updates were implemented, but later disabled for the same reason.

[cbd1984]

OK, how do we know it doesn't install something that will phone home when nobody's using the program? A little cron job or something similar.

[cbd1984]

So now I have to keep tabs on the behavior of my tools, in addition to everything else I have to keep tabs on?

[pyre]

I was stating that within the crowd of people that such a tool is targeted at, someone will run a packet sniffer against it. The likelihood of this happening is high. This is a severe disincentive for someone to 'phone home' if they plan to keep making money from said group of people. As soon as someone runs a packet sniffer and finds something suspect, the whole thing falls apart.

But no, you don't have to keep tabs on it, because you don't have to use this tool. If you do choose to use this tool, you can play the probabilities and more than likely be fine.

[wirefloss]

You'd have to make an intelligent decision without access to full information. Isn't it often like that in life? As an engineer myself, I'd respect any decision you make.