Actually, Jules may be right about the vulnerability. This computer that I am using right now has been sitting away in storage for a while and may have had an old version [of JUCE] on it, and I just installed juce again to it - I'm not sure if I had an old version on here. If I did, it was from when I was evaluating it from back in 2011... which would explain the 'jucer.exe'. If that's the case, at least clamAv didn't find any further vulnerabilities.
That said, I was only irritated at the 'FUD' comment. That wasn't my intent. I scanned with the only free scanner available on linux, clamav. It doesn't generally report false positives. That said, no, not all security scanners are accurate. I believe it to be the job of the operating system to provide security; and on top of that most OS's don't give us enough access to truly protect against everything in a true AV manner (file scanning should be a secondary operation, not a primary one in preventing threats.)
To be fair and frank, everybody, including Jules; clamav also reported multiple vulnerabilities in netbeans for linux - and there were far more in it [Netbeans] than in JUCE (6 vs 2), and as Jules points out the 2 may be from a 2011 version.....
Thanks for the sanity check, lucem. You are correct. If it doesn't fit the project requirements, it just doesn't fit. And that's fine. QT is actually similar in a lot of ways to juce, only juce has an easier interface, and QT seems to be more difficult to understand how to deploy to other systems - they are really ambiguous about it. But it fits my projects better, having closer to a native UI with the exception of linux menus, since linux uses a variety of windowing environments and QT makes you use, QT.... But it's as close to cross-platform native as I can get without wxWidgets, and I really, really don't want to use wxWidgets - it only provides the UI, but nothing else. Which means with wxWidgets I would have the mundane task of merging it with something else - like Juce, or boost. Boost may even be easier for that end, but either way it would be a nightmare...
Thanks guys. I really wanted to use Juce for all of my stuff - but lucem is right. I am evaluating multiple spots and want to use the same development platform for all my projects; and this just doesn't quite fit, sadly. I will say that even though JUCE hadn't been reviewed by many people when you do a google search for 'c++ cross-platform library' or similar, I was glad to come across it. It was really a close call, the only thing that made me shy away was the ui....
Cooler heads prevail. -V