Talk:Dotfuscator

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs)

Untitled

Superior protection? That is biased right there. I demand that phrase be replaced and competing products be listed somewhere on this page. 68.236.176.23 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reader demands it! We should probably do it then! OR ELSE! 148.70.194.2 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the reader, but WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT arguably come into play. It needs to be improved. At the very least, the contested claims need to be surrounded by language making it clear that they are the manufacturer's assertions, not objective, universally agree-on facts. And the or else is that the page could be AfD'ed. 66.32.67.203 17:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page, I believe it's NPOV enough to remove the advert block, more updates to come at a later time. MLetterle 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to msdn verifying inclusion. Should the reference block be removed. Gmt767 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article looking for information. I found just an advert. I went to the talk page to see why, and it is apparent. As to the suggestion to remove the advertising, I disagree that the edits above are enough: the whole article still reads like an advert because it does not say what Dotfuscator actually does. It does not way it really is, other than a tradename for a product. It is this that distinguishes this article as advertising. It needs a section added explaining what it does. If this cannot be done, the article should be removed under WP:ADVERT. 3 years is long enough to wait for the above promised updates. 79.135.110.169 (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing this spam

Just made a crappy stub that reads like a blog post. Do what you want, but please don't allow Preemptive employees spam it again :(

109.173.135.185 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again. Please don't delete the page under your glorified guidelines or you-know-who will recreate it as spam. 2001:470:600D:DEAD:0:0:0:42 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "free" edition available to Visual Studio owners doesn't do much else than name mangling.

"doesn't do much else than name mangling."? Sounds very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.226.1 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't sound professional, but according to this http://www.preemptive.com/products/dotfuscator/compare-editions it does sound like the only features available to the community edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.226.98.208 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still Advertisement?

"It analyzes applications and makes them smaller, faster and harder to reverse-engineer."

Excuse me if I am mistaken, but among the cited references is no direct mentioning of a significant speed gain through Dotfuscator and the article itself does not give any information how this speed gain would be achieved. /January 16th 2014, GMT 00:09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.110.47 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

buzzword removal again 20141006

As per last revision, remove general impression of buzzword-laden advert card:

- no strings are encrypted to begin with

- "pruning" has no tech meaning, did someone copy paste from PR?

- linking what? do you mean unauthorized distribution?

- analytics in the context mean "accounting", e.g. "CPU time accounting", "logged-in time accounting".

- patent entry has no relevance, except as advert/PR.

- factually wrong feel-good PR, like "Microsoft's need for obfuscation of their .NET framework inside Visual Studio.". MSFT CIL assemblies aren't obfuscated by _any_ means!

- the linked-to MSDN source even has "PR" at the end of the address.

-deever (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dbvaughan (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC) I request that the article on the PreEmptive Dotfuscator product, which has been marked for deletion, not be deleted as the product is clearly notable. Dotfuscator ships in-the-box with Visual Studio and is on millions of desktop computers. Regards, Daniel Vaughan[reply]