NoiseTorch, a popular real-time microphone noise suppression app recently had a possible security issue but it's been reviewed thoroughly and it's back.
"NoiseTorch is an easy to use open source application for Linux with PulseAudio or PipeWire. It creates a virtual microphone that suppresses noise, in any application. Use whichever conferencing or VOIP application you like and simply select the NoiseTorch Virtual Microphone as input to torch the sound of your mechanical keyboard, computer fans, trains and the likes."
In the new version 0.12.0 they completed a review of the code, and no issue was found. To help against any future issues, they're no longer using a separate update server and instead they will be using GitHub releases so it's all more transparent. For added security, they're also now using more GitHub features to validate the code too.
On top of that the new release also has some code cleanups, and the actual filtering status will be clearer now so it should give a better user experience.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Jolly good news.
1 Likes, Who?
That was fast, when I read it here and checked out there forum it was pretty much doom and gloom, the programmer was ready to stop.
Nice though how the community came together on this
Nice though how the community came together on this
1 Likes, Who?
dziadulewicz Jun 13, 2022
would have needed this software few times but never got it installed 
there's no snap or a flatpak either.
there's no snap or a flatpak either.
0 Likes
Quoting: BumadarThat was fast, when I read it here and checked out there forum it was pretty much doom and gloom, the programmer was ready to stop.
Note the original author does not endorse the project revival, see https://github.com/noisetorch/NoiseTorch/issues/328#issuecomment-1152801922 :
QuoteI disagree strongly with how it is currently being run, but i'm still not interested in maintaining the current version. As long as some people want to maintain it, that's fine. Find a new name please.
2 Likes, Who?
Ayyyy, okay, I strongly disagree with that:
Distro-specific patches are very common and pretty much necessary for distributions to, well, essentially work as intended.
Quoting: lawlQuoting: principisBesides, that's a very annoying clause ["Modified versions may not be conveyed to others under same name as the original program"] to have... It makes it impossible for packagers to apply distro-specific patches.
Good. You got the point of the clause.
Distro-specific patches are very common and pretty much necessary for distributions to, well, essentially work as intended.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: DrMcCoyAyyyy, okay, I strongly disagree with that:
Quoting: lawlQuoting: principisBesides, that's a very annoying clause ["Modified versions may not be conveyed to others under same name as the original program"] to have... It makes it impossible for packagers to apply distro-specific patches.
Good. You got the point of the clause.
Distro-specific patches are very common and pretty much necessary for distributions to, well, essentially work as intended.
Yeah, it feels like sour-grapes when I read those messages on the Github. Very much a "that's my football, and you're not playing with it" attitude. If Lawl wanted to keep the name, he should have kept his repo up, let the team fork it as Noisetorch-next, and that would be that. But he didn't - he pushed the whole lot into the group's new organisation, then when he didn't like the ideas they had for it, changed the license and is now throwing a hissy fit over the name?
There must be something else going on behind the scenes to drive that behaviour, but I don't know what it is.
6 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Nic264Quoting: BumadarThat was fast, when I read it here and checked out there forum it was pretty much doom and gloom, the programmer was ready to stop.
Note the original author does not endorse the project revival, see https://github.com/noisetorch/NoiseTorch/issues/328#issuecomment-1152801922 :
QuoteI disagree strongly with how it is currently being run, but i'm still not interested in maintaining the current version. As long as some people want to maintain it, that's fine. Find a new name please.
Bah, I just read through that whole post, why do things always go ugly
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineQuoting: DrMcCoyAyyyy, okay, I strongly disagree with that:
Quoting: lawlQuoting: principisBesides, that's a very annoying clause ["Modified versions may not be conveyed to others under same name as the original program"] to have... It makes it impossible for packagers to apply distro-specific patches.
Good. You got the point of the clause.
Distro-specific patches are very common and pretty much necessary for distributions to, well, essentially work as intended.
Yeah, it feels like sour-grapes when I read those messages on the Github. Very much a "that's my football, and you're not playing with it" attitude. If Lawl wanted to keep the name, he should have kept his repo up, let the team fork it as Noisetorch-next, and that would be that. But he didn't - he pushed the whole lot into the group's new organisation, then when he didn't like the ideas they had for it, changed the license and is now throwing a hissy fit over the name?
There must be something else going on behind the scenes to drive that behaviour, but I don't know what it is.
It's a popular application, so there may be monetary value in the name.
I don't see much of a practical problem with the request itself; rename it to LibreNT and be done with it.
It's the heavy handed way in which the original dev seems to want to try to enforce a name change, after essentially handing off the name to a new team, that is the bigger issue here. A bit of a d..k move and legally dubious, imo.
Last edited by emphy on 13 June 2022 at 7:41 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
No idea why the original dev is being such a weirdo about the entire project, sounds to me like there is some very personal beef here.
Coders can be absolute drama queens, though, especially about hobby projects, so this really isn't surprising me much.
In the end, a name's just a name, though. I don't know if they HAVE to change it (I doubt it, given the history), but I don't see too much harm in them doing that.
PS: Why would you disallow distro-specific patches?
Some weird ideal that all distros should be identical?
Seems entirely counter-productive.
Coders can be absolute drama queens, though, especially about hobby projects, so this really isn't surprising me much.
In the end, a name's just a name, though. I don't know if they HAVE to change it (I doubt it, given the history), but I don't see too much harm in them doing that.
PS: Why would you disallow distro-specific patches?
Some weird ideal that all distros should be identical?
Seems entirely counter-productive.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: DrMcCoyAyyyy, okay, I strongly disagree with that:
Quoting: lawlQuoting: principisBesides, that's a very annoying clause ["Modified versions may not be conveyed to others under same name as the original program"] to have... It makes it impossible for packagers to apply distro-specific patches.
Good. You got the point of the clause.
Distro-specific patches are very common and pretty much necessary for distributions to, well, essentially work as intended.
That doesn't mean distros should keep the same name, after all it's not the same software anymore but a derivative, even if it's only small patches.
That works well for Firefox for Android for instance:
* if it says « Firefox for Android », you know it's the official binary from Mozilla and the only people you have to go to for support
* if it says « Fennec F-Droid », then it's not officially supported by Mozilla so you should first try and reproduce issues with the official distribution before reaching to them
That seems to be the model that the original author wanted more than a year ago already, it's just too bad they didn't make it clearer earlier when handing the project over.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me