Sandboxie-Plus v1.0.11

Or, how about we all just shut up and be thankful that SBIE was continued at all. How about we leave the software development to the software developer and stop telling him how things should be done.

 

LOL! I have definitely been entertained by this thread!

 

@n8chavez I agree kinda sorta. David has asked for suggestions. Ask and you shall receive.

 

Hi Ty. Usually that message means incompatibility. So, it probably means the program you are trying to install in the sandbox is not compatible with Sandboxie. Keep in mind, not all programs are compatible with SBIE. The more complicated the program is, the lesser the chances that it will install successfully sandboxed.

Bo

 

Yes, afterwards I saw that your image has become visible in the meantime. All o.k. now.

 

Peter, you used Sandboxie for a long time, it is hard to believe that after all this years you still don't get the meaning of what the X and dots mean. You need to make sense of them . What this functions mean now should not be changed.

IMO, David should not have gotten rid of this functions in the Plus version. From my POV bringing them back would be an improvement to Plus.

Bo

 

If you'd told me that it had installed fine, and that the apps fired both before and after the snapshot, that would have been worse news, as it is it's just news

I'm sorry to hear it took you that long to test it though, I can't think what the problem could have been, I literally just did a vanilla install of Sandboxie then right clicked on the trial exe, Run Sandboxed, chose DefaultBox and it installed fine, it was only after the snapshot that I had problems; so 3 installs, 3 different outcomes!

Thanks for taking the time to try it out though, I appreciate it.

Anyone else fancy trying for a different outcome?

 

Open source software often inspires a community of users and developers to form around it. That's not unique to open source; many popular applications are the subject of meetups and user groups. But in the case of open source, the community isn't just a fanbase that buys in (emotionally or financially) to an elite user group; it's the people who produce, test, use, promote, and ultimately affect the software they love.
source: https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source

 

Yes but if you want more potential donors, you shouldn't be alienating the newcomers and return users who gave up a while ago and want to try again. I look at the Plus UI with fresh eyes and it's like: so what do I do now? Can be a little intimidating, even to ask a question on this thread.

A good step in the right direction was algol1's renaming the "disabled" to "pause" forced programs. Why do you need the word "rules" after that? There are other examples but a wall-o-text is an unwanted thing. Is there a suggestion-box somewhere?

 

Ok. So you've broadened the definition of "inspires" to included complaining and bothering by people that include no actual code? Bottom line, we get what we get and we get what the developer chooses to give up. Nothing more. Considering that there is no cost for this atm, I don't feel I have the right to complain or suggest anything, regardless of licensing model. If I or others don't like it don't use it.

 

This discussion was created from the release v1.0.11 / 5.55.11
https://github.com/sandboxie-plus/Sandboxie/discussions/1622

 

https://github.com/sandboxie-plus/Sandboxie/issues
I forget where I read this:
"When you really want to support and help improve a product, the criticism received are more important than the praise."

 

Sounds like you're perfectly fine with Classic. It gets fixed and you can stay with it "forever"!

 

++100

 

Except that I wouldn't deem the broad call for leaned-down, as-basic-as-possible versions an enhancement-oriented suggestion. What these people strive for is already there and they don't even have to pay for the perceived surplus-functionality nor are they forced to make use of it.

 

Well, "Peter 123", I'm with Plus now for a long time and it's been quite a while since I have witnessed the behavior of the classic-tray-icon - but IIRC it's rather been the other way around. I think I've seen the empty tray-icon but then had to acknowledge that the box still wasn't empty or could not have been emptied successfully.

That would suggest that the red dots always meant actively running processes within the box and the lack thereof no active processes accordingly. Whereas the red X would always indicate deletion of contents in progress. Not sure though if the tray-icon did show a different view if that (auto-)deletion-process had failed in the first place.

 

Well, there may be some truth to that. But if you (can) take the time to look a bit deeper into the new UI-structure you will find it not only to be more complex and perhaps intimidating - but to be much better organized and streamlined as well. In particular since DavidX has completed implementing the "checkbox-regime" next to the options. It therefore has become much easier now to experiment with or test a certain option or de-/re-activating a certain template-option by just un-/re-checking the corresponding checkbox, even on a temporary basis, instead of 1. deleting, 2. remembering and 3. re-declaring that option or path from scratch again.

Thank you. The only intent behind my suggestion was to be more precise after I had fallen for a mis-interpretation of that very option myself. And to really be precise those "forced programs" aren't paused either as they never have been disabled by this option in the first place, are/have they?

The additional word "rules" on the other hand broadens the column of the right-click-tray-options further while being clearer. But what is actually paused is the acute forcing of the folders/programs in that list. So my final (shorter) suggestion would have been "pause program forcING" - but who am I to decide? So, if DavidX decided to go with "Pause Forced Progams Rules", longer but equally precise, I can certainly live with his thoughtful decision and considerate willingness to accommodate for this clarification.

 

I tested it once more and the installation did not succeed again (same error message as described above). Perhaps the difference is in some entries in our ini.file concerning the "Global Settings"? I saw that in my case there are obviously some remains from former times when I had used Sandboxie (e.g. since a long time I do not have an Operabox any more; the same applies to the existence of Norton Interet Security on my computer). Here the "Global Settings" of my ini-file. If you want you can compare them with yours:

Spoiler: Global Settings

[GlobalSettings]

Template=VirtualDesktopManager
Template=RpcPortBindings
Template=WindowsRasMan
Template=Microsoft_MSMQ
Template=7zipShellEx
Template=OfficeLicensing
Template=AdobeAcrobatReader
Template=WindowsLive
ProcessGroup=<InternetAccess_Operabox>,opera.exe
ActivationPrompt=n
TemplateReject=NortonInternetSecurity
TemplateReject=Microsoft_Security_Essentials
FileRootPath=\??\%SystemDrive%\Sandbox\%USER%\%SANDBOX%
SeparateUserFolders=y
KeyRootPath=\REGISTRY\USER\Sandbox_%USER%_%SANDBOX%
IpcRootPath=\Sandbox\%USER%\%SANDBOX%\Session_%SESSION%
NetworkEnableWFP=n
EditAdminOnly=n
ForceDisableAdminOnly=n
ForgetPassword=n
EnableObjectFiltering=y
EnableWin32kHooks=y

_____________

I did not doubt about this. I only regard it as non-intuitive / misleading and therefore not userfriendly. So I thought that the planned general "revival" of these symbols could have been a good opportunity to reverse the meaning.

 

Hi, i'm using Sandboxie-Plus V1.0.11.

re.. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/sandboxie-plus-v1-0-11.444070/page-4#post-3068629

 

I tested with your global settings and it installed fine!
When you installed it to your main system did you have to allow it with whatever security system you have in place? I don't know whether running it under the supervision of Sandboxie (an approved program) would automatically allow the installation, or whether the act of running it sandboxed is getting in the way (and so it's essentially blocking it, because it can't ask you permission) but I'd suggest it's something like that.

You could try disabling any security software you have; failing that a clean Sandboxie install may help, just remember to backup (or rename) the Sandbox folder under C:\ and your configuration file 'C:\Windows\Sandboxie.ini'.

 

O.k. So we clarified that this cannot be the reason for the different installation experiences.

No, nothing like that. Outside of Sandboxie it was a smooth installation. (Moreover my security system - apart from Sandboxie, of course - is simply Windows Defender.)

Oh no, no. It is strange to see that (on my computer) the installation fails within Sandboxie. But as anyway I would not install any software within Sandboxie, it is only a theoretical issue for me. For this purpose I would not change something in Windows Defender.

I made that too [as all experiments of course under the protection of "Shadow Defender"]. Same failure, same error message.

 

I was only suggesting to disable it temporarily to get to the bottom of the problem; you shouldn't need to change anything if you're using Windows Defender as that's what I'm using too, through Hard_Configurator.

Ah well, who'd be a Windows application developer with so many environment nuances to work within, I'm surprised it works at all

 

Any chance you could include SandMan.exe.sig in SandManTest1.zip
and re-upload (or I can wait until you release v1.0.12)?