Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
Let me suggest a design change as a workaround: Instead of PB automatically
doing
an update at a given time, it could pop up a request for the user to update.
The
user would have to click "update" for it to actually do the update.
This is the same model of operation that most virus programs use for their
definitions, and most OSes do with their updates. It does not assume that an
update
is a trivial thing that can happen on its own.
Since we're seeing a crash in the update procedure that takes the whole program
down,
we should move to this model at least temporarily. Perhaps adding it as a
third mode
of operation such that the user can choose 1> no automatic updates 2> prompt for
updates and 3> automatically updates. 1 and 3 are what exist now. 2 is what
I'm
proposing.
Original comment by glen.sei...@gmail.com
on 25 Jan 2010 at 12:10
I have the same issue with blocking being terminated. Add to that and more
critical
is that Peerblock often terminates after the attempted update also. Some it
terminates right after I restart from the prior failure.
Some type of warning or error box like "App has terminated" would really be
helpful.
dump attached.
Original comment by mrvinyl....@gmail.com
on 30 Jan 2010 at 4:02
Attachments:
This problem has happened to me occasionally over the last few weeks.
Original comment by chris...@gmail.com
on 20 Feb 2010 at 1:20
Attachments:
Definitely happening periodically with the program crashing on update attempt.
I am
not sure if I am having the issue of the blocking stopping overnight because if
it
doesn't tell me that it blocked something then I just assume it didn't have
anything
to block...so I will keep an eye on that.
Original comment by dye...@gmail.com
on 23 Feb 2010 at 2:10
The "crash while updating" problem we believe has been fixed recently - the
next Beta
Release should include this fix. All the peerblock.dmp files attached thus far
look
like it's that bug, Issue #24.
We've still never seen this "stops blocking overnight" issue ourselves, so
hopefully
the Issue #24 fix will in fact resolve this issue as well. Does anybody have a
machine on which the "stops blocking overnight" issue happens often, or even
better a
reproducible test-case which we could follow to get the problem to occur on a
test
machine / VM? If so, please post here - peerblock.log files would be helpful,
as
would any machine config you can provide such as OS version (Win XP, Vista
64-bit,
etc.), and maybe even what antivirus / firewall software you're using - this
might
help us see some kind of common thread amongst the machine configs of those of
you
seeing this problem.
Original comment by peerbloc...@gmail.com
on 23 Feb 2010 at 2:23
I have had the same happen to me and it does not seem to matter what auto-update
settings I have enabled/disabled. Last night I disabled all auto-updates in the
settings, and still found PB to have crashed in the night. Of course, my
computer was
on standby while I slept so idk if that affects things at all. I am mostly
writing
this to inform the powers that be (that's you Mark :) ) that the fix posted on
the
sticky on common problems did not seem to work in my case. Let me know if any
of my
data would help. Cheers!
Original comment by Trinity....@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2010 at 4:54
Oh, and let me know if you want the .conf files or anything. I will hold off
deleting
them (working on a different issue) until I hear one way or the other. PB makes
my
life much easier and I'll help however I can.
Original comment by Trinity....@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2010 at 4:56
Has anyone tried turning History to log none and notification off? I did this
after
turning the updates off didnt make a difference so far it hasnt crashed where
it
would have before, Ive reinabled the auto updates and am going to see if it
still
works.
Original comment by wright...@gmail.com
on 3 Apr 2010 at 8:13
Include a "Test these Known IP Addresses" feature where either the PeerBlock
website
itself provides a list of 10 IP Addresses to give you an on-website "status
report"
if indeed you are "blocking" those known "test IP's" or not.
The alternative is to allow the "User" to input their own List of Test IP's to
see
if indeed PeerBlock is working as it should, *however*, off-site reporting from
a
website is best, since a defect in the "User's" copy of PeerBlock might cause
them
to think the PeerBlocking is working as it should (even during the "Test these
IP's
to see if they are being Blocked") when in fact the "PeerBlock Defect" is
lulling
them into a "false sense of Security".
Just a Thought. :)
Righteous Jude
Original comment by Gary.Rus...@gmail.com
on 11 Apr 2010 at 10:33
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
peerbloc...@gmail.com
on 28 Nov 2009 at 6:40