Code signing to help with Windows virus false positives

[Basile B. via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 15 August 2016 at 23:58:01 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Monday, 15 August 2016 at 20:43:59 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>
>> It's not trolling (unless you define trolling as "everything 
>> that goes againt my position"), I just exposed my arguments. 
>> I'm afraid to see people overreacting in front of a minor and 
>> temporary problem. It seems that 3 or 4 posts are considered 
>> enough to act but you (the "pro-certificate-ppl") do not try 
>> to see why 3 or 4 posts could be "not enough"), i.e you are 
>> biased. You are about to act just because of what's happening 
>> right now.
>
> Is there some threshold for a bug report to be considered 
> actionable? Aside from that, given that a small percentage of D 
> users actually post in the forums, four posts on the same issue 
> is something that ought to be taken as a problem. There's no 
> way to know how many have encountered it and just decided to go 
> elsewhere. It's not about being "pro-certificate", but about 
> solving a problem that's potentially damaging to the perception 
> of D.

Ok ok ok. It's been something like three hours I've been thinking 
to this.
Clearly I've exposed my **own POV** about some stuff I don't like 
about what Windows is becoming. But for the good of everybody 
(i.e I forget my own little griefs) that would be certainly nice 
to have a certificate for the D fundation. But it won't change 
the fact that once setup quitely thanks to the certificate...the 
language and standard libraries issues are still there ;)