.dll CC's Yes or No

[Davidbbb]

so with the new release I won't be able to use DarkBens demo lock .dll? If not will I be able to still use the older HB aswell so I can use the new one when I want to pvp on my rogue while still using the older one for leveling?

 

[syn3]

Hi

my point of view:

NO! Why?
Because:
1) Eventough some people are trustworthy, people can change anytime.
2) Yes i can't code a CustomClass myself, but atleast i can edit it to my needs, i just don't like some things, which make it looking bottish to my eyes...
3) Sometimes even the good programmers make mistakes, so you can maybe fix them, contact the CC-Dev and help him a little.

Thats what i think...

alchemist

 

[Dalees]

Mhh well, if the HB Staff will take a look over the code and compile it, so we are prevent from rnd-code, I say give us DLL.

I understand the reasons why its better for CC-Devs and I agree with em

 

[LiquidAtoR]

First of all I want to thank everyone that reacted so far (and that will react in the near future on this thread) for keeping it civil and open minded.
I gathered a few posts again and answered with my own opinion.

I personally prefer the CC's in .cs form. There are times that I want to make a change to the way the CC is handling combat for example. However, most of the CC's are compiled and I can't do that. I understand the fear of people mucking around in the code and causing problems, but so be it; it becomes that person's problem if they modify the code.

I would say to simply not support anyone making changes, if you break it you buy it type of thing.

The biggest downfall, and I agree with, is the theft of code. But honestly, these CC's are not for sale, they are created for a community for free and therefore I believe should be open source. If you don't want anyone to steal your code, then don't write it and release it.

Even though the CC's are in .dll format, if u ask the developer, you get the source code.
In some cases like DarkBen's warlock, the sourcecode is posted along.

The problem is, if someone makes a change in the CC, breaks it and comes and complains in the CC release thread, the developer has no means to check if it's his released CC or a altered one by some dipstick, that "forget's" to mention he changed it.
So it would be hard to say not to support the CC when U change it because if it's a .cs file, you don't know if it's altered or not by the user.

i dont think that there will be a change on that...
today we will have the first release without dll support

I realise it's a long shot Tony, but nonetheless I felt that this had to be done with a poll and a civil discussion.
I for one run everything I don't trust in a sandbox (but then again I'm also not the average user I guess).
Maybe if the devs read the thread (and I know they do, Bossland voted no), they have a change of heart and reinstall the .dll support.

I would hate to see those fancy CC's move away from HB2 (it's not only the bot, but also the CC's that make the bot as good as it gets).

so with the new release I won't be able to use DarkBens demo lock .dll? If not will I be able to still use the older HB aswell so I can use the new one when I want to pvp on my rogue while still using the older one for leveling?

I hope so too. I rather use the old HB and a good CC, than a new HB with a "poor" CC.

Hi

my point of view:

NO! Why?
Because:
1) Eventough some people are trustworthy, people can change anytime.
2) Yes i can't code a CustomClass myself, but atleast i can edit it to my needs, i just don't like some things, which make it looking bottish to my eyes...
3) Sometimes even the good programmers make mistakes, so you can maybe fix them, contact the CC-Dev and help him a little.

Thats what i think...

alchemist

As stated earlier.
If asked politely, the developers will hand u the sourcecode of their project, so you can change and recompile yourself in VS.
If I can do it, you can do that too.

 

[Tony]

we havent got any problem with the poll or the posts

but the decision is final

devs havent replied on this thread yet cause atm they are very stressed with HB2 release

 

[LiquidAtoR]

I realize that they are stressed with the release, and I'm not demanding anything.
Just let em do their thing, and we do ours (as always).
Simply trying to get facts sorted and opinions posted.

Maybe for one of the follow-up releases it can be enabled if enough users are voting for the use of libraries, or it gets torpedoed if enough people vote No.

Possible Option: 1 release that doesn't allow dll's (We (HB Development) support this blablabla) and 1 release that does allow dll's (*! USE AT OWN RISK !* We DONT support this blablabla), so we can have a choice.

It's a democracy after all

 

[Tony]

I realize that they are stressed with the release, and I'm not demanding anything.
Just let em do their thing, and we do ours (as always).
Simply trying to get facts sorted and opinions posted.

Maybe for one of the follow-up releases it can be enabled if enough users are voting for the use of libraries, or it gets torpedoed if enough people vote No.

Possible Option: 1 release that doesn't allow dll's (We (HB Development) support this blablabla) and 1 release that does allow dll's (*! USE AT OWN RISK !* We DONT support this blablabla), so we can have a choice.

It's a democracy after all

ofc,we have democracy

i will name your request(2 HB2 versions) as a "fair request" but there isnt any chance to have 2xHB2 versions

 

[DarkBen]

so with the new release I won't be able to use DarkBens demo lock .dll? If not will I be able to still use the older HB aswell so I can use the new one when I want to pvp on my rogue while still using the older one for leveling?

My CC is working with HB2, but should be used as source.

OFC, the source i deployed wont work. you need a converted source, i have already done it. And helped other 2 devs to convert theyr source as well.

Only problem is that i will rewrite to settings method because for some reason it?s not working as source, it?s not saving the settings. But it?s reading the default ones from the file.

 

[LiquidAtoR]

And my other question, will HB1 still work after HB2 is released?

 

[Tony]

And my other question, will HB1 still work after HB2 is released?

after HB2 full release all previous versions will not be supported

 

[LiquidAtoR]

My CC is working with HB2, but should be used as source.

OFC, the source i deployed wont work. you need a converted source, i have already done it. And helped other 2 devs to convert theyr source as well.

Only problem is that i will rewrite to settings method because for some reason it?s not working as source, it?s not saving the settings. But it?s reading the default ones from the file.

People deserve the right to protect their work. For safety sake use the review like mentioned above.

On a sidenote.

I remember that for PhP there is a way to encrypt the file, and PhP being able to read it without problems, but that the file itself is unreadable without a proper decryption key.
Is such a thing not possible for .cs files?

something like this (for .net, it's native c++ but can't be too far apart I guess) http://www.codeproject.com/KB/mcpp/EncDecExt.aspx or http://www.eziriz.com/ <<<--- This is no advertising, merely suggesting a way to protect their work if .dll will not be allowed, don't hit me tony

I have too little knowledge to know this of C and it's derivates, but that might be a viable option too if .dll's will stay on the banlist (if this is possible at all ofcourse).
That way the source is protected, no alterations are possible by users and there's no use of .dll

Win/Win for everyone if this is possible?

 

[DarkBen]

On a sidenote.

I remember that for PhP there is a way to encrypt the file, and PhP being able to read it without problems, but that the file itself is unreadable without a proper decryption key.
Is such a thing not possible for .cs files?

something like this (for .net, it's native c++ but can't be too far apart I guess) http://www.codeproject.com/KB/mcpp/EncDecExt.aspx or http://www.eziriz.com/ <<<--- This is no advertising, merely suggesting a way to protect their work if .dll will not be allowed, don't hit me tony

I have too little knowledge to know this of C and it's derivates, but that might be a viable option too if .dll's will stay on the banlist (if this is possible at all ofcourse).
That way the source is protected, no alterations are possible by users and there's no use of .dll

Win/Win for everyone if this is possible?

If HB Devs wanted to keep DLL away for security reasons, they could give the CC devs that somewath they trust a Key to sing in the DLL and only accept those signed DLL.

Thats not the case, i believe the intention was to keep open coding to go on. So community itself could give support on a dead CC project (for e.g) not to mention to learn from other codes.

Open sources leads to copying. DLLs can be reverse engineered to obtain the source.

Somehow it?s frustrating to see someone receiving all credit because he made a better cake than you, and all that it did was to copy your formula and put a cherry on top of the cake.
But thats open source.

 

[MaiN]

As there have been said some times, the advantages do NOT outweigh the disadvantages.
Under advantages we only have code protection, and that's it.

Under disadvantages we have the ability to execute malicious code on any HB user. And yes, some people say that this is the HB users own fault, but we still have to take the blame when a users system has been fucked up because they ran HB.
Without .dll we can also keep this an open community, and many people will be able to learn from it.

This disadvantage far outweighs the advantage.

Feel free to argue with me, and I'll respond to you. I am not going to read all posts in this thread and respond to them.

 

[king]

I voted yea. If a dev wants to protect there stuff they worked hard on they should. All there is to it and the community can't stop them from doing it either

 

[MaiN]

I don't see how it can be a problem that other users can see your source.
Either you message a dev with your source and he verifies it (there are problems with this, but let's say we did that), or you message a dev when you see a copy of your code and it is removed.
Also, say we did the first. What would prevent one from using .NET Reflector, ripping your code and placing it in their own .dll? That way you wouldn't even be able to see that he ripped your code unless you spent hours going through disassembled code.

 

[ski]

I don't see how it can be a problem that other users can see your source.
Either you message a dev with your source and he verifies it (there are problems with this, but let's say we did that), or you message a dev when you see a copy of your code and it is removed.
Also, say we did the first. What would prevent one from using .NET Reflector, ripping your code and placing it in their own .dll? That way you wouldn't even be able to see that he ripped your code unless you spent hours going through disassembled code.

Here are two replies I received when that question was asked last night:

- In your first example, you have control over verifying and posting it, whereas if someone posts it on a different website (or starts charging for it, claiming its theirs), you can't remove it as easily.
- In your second example, there are far, far more people who will take plain-text source code and post it as their own then spend X amount of time reflecting or disassembling code to claim it as theirs. It takes 10 seconds to open notepad, change a name, and repost, it may take hours (if not longer) to reflect, get the right values, fix what broke, make sure it works, etc. A little deterrence goes a long way.

 

[exfelon]

I always say no. Open CC's are more fun.

 

[Thunderofnl]

I vote no, because then people can't make minor changes like if they don't wanna use that skill etc (ofc they need to have minor knowledge about c# =) )

 

[Nomfather]

Tough one it seems.
If you allow DLL's you have to sort out a system of verification.
If you dont allow DLL's you may hold back cc devs from releasing stuff and have little private groups of people cropping up using underground CC's that they dont want to release to the public, or worse, not release any at all.
The HB Devs want to protect their customers, but the CC devs want to protect their code.
Both ideally should get to do both working together.

 

[MaiN]

Here are two replies I received when that question was asked last night:

- In your first example, you have control over verifying and posting it, whereas if someone posts it on a different website (or starts charging for it, claiming its theirs), you can't remove it as easily.
- In your second example, there are far, far more people who will take plain-text source code and post it as their own then spend X amount of time reflecting or disassembling code to claim it as theirs. It takes 10 seconds to open notepad, change a name, and repost, it may take hours (if not longer) to reflect, get the right values, fix what broke, make sure it works, etc. A little deterrence goes a long way.

Your first argument doesn't make sense on this topic because that goes for both dlls and source files.
For your second argument, it also takes seconds to open the source of the CC of the guy who posted a warlock CC with the exact same properties as yours. But I haven't seen anyone yet who has ripped code so directly on this forum, so how can you say there are far more people?