Hector Martin

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. But seriously, use whatever tool you like and be happy. IDA Home is the most affordable of our licenses, and as the replacement of IDA Starter it is great.

All of your licenses are horrific & overpriced af so either make them affordable again or maybe shut the entire thing down because ghidra is a thousand times better & that’s why I’m swapping.

In what ways is Ghidra better? Genuinely curious what I'm missing here because I thoroughly enjoy IDA despite some annoying shortcomings that are typically associated with anti-RE strategies (so their mishandling makes sense).

Well, IDA only has undo because Ghidra did and Hex-Rays went into panic mode to add that feature after decades of saying it was "too hard". So whether you use Ghidra or not, thank it for that :-) Really though, each one has its pros and cons.

No shit, everything comes with pros and cons. I've yet to see a comprehensive or even somewhat well constructed comparison of the two when I've asked why one is better than the other. I don't use Ghidra, but given this I'm tempted since I can never get a real answer out of users.

Personally, I haven't been doing a ton of RE lately so I can't point at little features, but what I find most interesting in Ghidra's design is the declarative processor definitions. It means you can write a spec for a processor's opcodes, and then it knows how to decompile it.

That's a great feature too. If that's unavailable in IDA as simply as it is in Ghidra then that would certainly be a +1 for Ghidra.

As far as I know, for IDA you need to write actual code (e.g. most asm-only processor modules are IDAPython, and thus way slower than built-in or C ones), and I'm not sure if you can literally implement new backends for the decompiler that way. Certainly not in the past.