Installation monitor and uninstaller

[milon]

If a process creates another process, they should be in parent->child relationship, thus you know what is created by installation and what is not. Or does that apply only to *nix? Also there's this thing that seems to do what this topic is looking for.

A running process is different than files sitting on the harddrive or registry entries. The main conern isn't with a running process, but any files or registry entries made by the process over its lifespan on the system.

[Black_Fox]

I meant only the installation, but the using of the program could be the same - you can trace disk accesses (FileMon) and the registry access probably too. I would argue with you, however, that the running process is the most interesting to us in this case

[milon]

If you mean during install time, then I agree. I thought you meant during the life of the application on the operating system.

[Black_Fox]

I meant both, it should be still possible (though I'm not sure to which extent computationally feasible) to watch it even after installation, you could watch for e.g. C:/some/sort/of/path/to/binary.exe to start and then follow what it does.

[Haos]

This doesn't scale too well. Imagine more than few apps being observed, while any other I/O operation ongoing, this would affect your OS just as another antivirus, if not worse.

[DOSGuy]

This really seems like paying for an armed security guard when a dog would do. There are free uninstallers that provide "good enough" leftover junk removal, but we're entertaining the idea of a resource-eating system monitor to catch that one last file or registry entry that might be missed? Unless we're expecting ReactOS to be used in nuclear plants or NASA or something, in some hypothetical system where the OS can never be reinstalled to restore lost performance/stability without lives being lost, it hardly seems necessary to be that obsessed with every single file and registry entry that an uninstalled program leaves behind. Of course, in such a situation, each program would be run in a sandbox or VM, and you would simply delete the VM to completely uninstall the program. I guess what I'm asking is, who would have a legitimate need for this feature?

[Black_Fox]

I don't know if it slipped past, but I'll mention again that there already is that Ashampoo Uninstaller 5 that does (or says it does) exactly this thing we are talking about.

Glitches aside, compared to the previous releases, we noticed that the speed of the install operation has been greatly increased thanks to the new real-time monitoring method. If monitoring is not enabled, the program lets you select the executable setup file and logging will start automatically. Ashampoo UnInstaller’s functionality is not reduced to the programs whose installation it oversees. On the contrary, it can be used for any application already on the system, if you want a more thorough removal procedure.

[fred02]

This really seems like paying for an armed security guard when a dog would do. There are free uninstallers that provide "good enough" leftover junk removal,

Totally agree.

Unless we're expecting ReactOS to be used in nuclear plants or NASA or something, in some hypothetical system where the OS can never be reinstalled

And I really hope nobody plays with installing/uninstalling software on such systems anyway.

[PurpleGurl]

Unless we're expecting ReactOS to be used in nuclear plants or NASA or something, in some hypothetical system where the OS can never be reinstalled

And I really hope nobody plays with installing/uninstalling software on such systems anyway.

That sounds like a legal disclaimer we should throw in that I've seen before. Something to the effect of, "I understand that this software is not designed for life support or missions critical systems and that the publisher assumes no liability for any injuries, damages, or loss of life or property related to use of said software for such purposes."

[Aeneas]

Welllll.... I doubt that would be necessary, but the project shall get its own advice and decide itself. They, after all, SAY that ReactOS is in alpha status and not reliable. - Generally, putting some legal thingy somewhere without fully understanding what it does is not all too advisable. - (And when you produce an exception, it means that the general rule might be inclusion, or why else do you put in an exception? - And should your exception not "work" or be successfully challenged, you hava, abracadabra, the inclusion.)

[DOSGuy]

A statement disclaiming liability for damage caused by software in ANY situation is standard legal cruft in the license of almost every program I've ever installed.

[fred02]

Unless we're expecting ReactOS to be used in nuclear plants or NASA or something, in some hypothetical system where the OS can never be reinstalled

And I really hope nobody plays with installing/uninstalling software on such systems anyway.

That sounds like a legal disclaimer we should throw in that I've seen before.

No, my thought was that in general nobody modifies such systems by themselves, whatever OS/system/controller it is running.

Something to the effect of, "I understand that this software is not designed for life support or missions critical systems and that the publisher assumes no liability for any injuries, damages, or loss of life or property related to use of said software for such purposes."

A statement disclaiming liability for damage caused by software in ANY situation is standard legal cruft in the license of almost every program I've ever installed.

Indeed, GPLv2 sections 11 & 12 pretty much take care of this already.