[REBOL] Compiler for Rebol ? Re:(4)
From: jsc:dataheaven at: 24-Sep-2000 7:50
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> Hi, Jochen!
>
> [jsc--dataheaven--de] wrote:
> > I think CodeSecurity through compiling is nonsense.
>
> Bit harsh. Not nonsense, just not a perfect solution against a
> well-equipped, knowledgeable attacker.
Hm my harsh tone seems to be a real problem ... ;-)
But I think compared with the other thread this is much lesser
harsh ! ???
> > ... not to make sure nobody can read your secrets.
>
> How about, "To make it difficult enough that fewer will do so,
> and to reduce the risk of alterations (accidental or otherwise)
> of the source which can create stability/support problems."
To ensure the risk of alterations we could also use checksums
with our scripts. So that a script can abort after checking it's checksum.
This will help out with accidental alterations. (Compiled code
can also crash when modified!)
The problem with "other" (user?) alterations is a bit more difficult.
As a vendor I would reject all warranty-claims if a client modifies
the product. To check this we could again use checksums of the
distributed files.
> > If someone really is interested in your code - a compiler doesn't
> > protect you.
>
> If that someone is sufficiently skilled and has sufficient resources
> and time, agreed. But not everyone fits those criteria.
This is why I said that it is a sign that the code isn't worth the whole
protecting-thing if theres no one that throws in the ressources to
reverseengineer it.
> > Open Source is a important quality-characteristic...
>
> Open source development (if properly managed) is certainly an
> effective process for producing high-quality code. Even the
> Forrester group agrees with that (much to my amazement!)
>
> > If I charge a software-team to develop a special software for me,
> > I certainly want the source too! Such a software will cost me
> > ~ 100$ per man-hour!!!
>
> And if you're paying them to develop custom software for you, it
> is certainly reasonable for you to establish as a condition of the
> contract that you get the source (or at least have access to it in
> the event of a failure on their part).
>
> However, there's more to the software market than bright people
> such as yourself contracting with high-priced developers for the
> construction of custom code.
It was only a example - I work as Softwaredeveloper at a softwarevendor
that creates e. g. software for airports,Air Information Services,
traveling-agencies and more.
Most of our profit is made through custom applications. 100$ per man-hour
is not to much for such work. Most projects cost in the range of some
100k$.
> BOTTOM LINE: As has been pointed out in the recent "40 platforms"
> thread, there's a real marketplace out there. While Carl and
> company would be within their legal/moral/whatever rights to stop
> supplying REBOL for w95/98/nt/2k (just to use a hypothetical and
> totally unlikely example ;-), I'd consider that an impractical
> decision if the goal is to get REBOL widely adopted. Similarly,
> although I applaud/appreciate the legions of excellent developers
> who contribute to the open source movement, and am a grateful
> beneficiary of their labors, I question the practicality of
> refusing to address the concerns of developers who wish to have
> some other means of distribution than pure source code -- for a
> variety of reasons.
I think I have to explain a little more what I meant.
I did not say RT should stop supplying Win.. Platforms with their fantastic
tools!!! It is important for RT and the REBOL-Comunity that REBOL evolves
to a widely used language.
What I said was much more general than it obviously seemed.
IMHO there exist NO OS I really like.
UN*X is the worst OS - besides all the other ;-)
I've dreams of what a OS should look like. But no Vendor seems to try to
evolve in those directions.
As you certainly agree the net is one of the most important things in the
future. We are in the beginnings - There is _much_ more possible.
The Problem is that the Microsoft-Way (And the Apple Way too!!!) hinders
the development of that future. They develop Desktop OSs why should they
work toward a more networked future???
Sun is in another situation. They sell servers - so they try to let the
network grow more. But there are other reasons why Sun hinders the
development too.
In relation to to the Open Source topic:
IMHO most developers should more think of what source they can protect
than what sources to Open. This sounds irritating but if they open most of
their code by default and only some little (real valuable) code is protected
this would led to a much better situation.
What I wanted to say is
"Hey Guys look at your Software! Is it REALLY SOOOOO
special, sophisticated and valuable that it have to be protected?"
I hope this explaines a little bit more what I wanted to say.
Regards,
Jochen Schmidt
