3 ms·

This "Product" is taken from open source project http://exepack.codeplex.com/ http://exepack.codeplex.com/ .. ExePack == DotPack same functionalities .. but

by Mrzljak 17y ago

This "Product" is taken from open source project http://exepack.codeplex.com/ http://exepack.codeplex.com/ .. ExePack == DotPack same functionalities .. but one is "Product" and other is opensource project ..

DarkShikari 17y ago
Because if they do similar things, they must use the same code? Better tell Microsoft that Apple's ripping them off. I mean, they're both x86-based graphical operating systems, right? Don't accuse people without evidence, especially long-standing members of the community like Daeken, of stealing. The fact that you spammed Daeken's blog with comments promoting exepack (forcing him to disable comments) doesn't help either. Then again, some of your comments were pure gold. For example: "Your product" name is DotPack and open source ExePack ; Pack part of the name the same . coincidence ? To much coincidence in this case . (FYI, I've worked on a portion of DotPack's code, specifically optimizing the LZMA unpacker module, and while that portion was not original code, the original source was a public domain LZMA unpacker. We ended up rewriting practically the whole thing anyways because of how badly it was written. The end result was something like half the size of the original.)
daeken 17y ago
The extent of this accusation stems from the fact that both names contain 'Pack', much like every other packer on the planet. One of his many trollish comments on my blog was this: "Your product" name is DotPack and open source ExePack ; Pack part of the name the same . coincidence ? To much coincidence in this case . NM Moscow, Russia At least a dozen HN readers can attest to the fact that I've been working heavily on this, and two have seen the source first-hand and can confirm that it's original. It's offensive to say the least to have such an accusation come up on your own blog, but eh, such is the internet.
- Mrzljak 17y ago
  Ok. question . Why will someone BUY "Your Product" for 250 - 500 USD (!?) if there is FREE openSource project with very much the same functionality, and from whom you take much of idea and implementation ?? ExePack http://exepack.codeplex.com/ http://exepack.codeplex.com/
  - daeken 17y ago
    The idea is one that's been around for many decades and implemented thousands of times over the years. It's not mine, and it's certainly not from Exepack. People may buy it because it works very well and is improving by the day, and if they don't, that's ok -- competition is good. But accusing me repeatedly of stealing code when the only thing our projects have in common is that we're .NET packers with names ending in 'pack' is just downright offensive.
    - paraschopra 17y ago
      Don't worry about repeated acquisitions. I know it is hard to filter unjustified negatives but sometimes, like this time around, you simply need to ignore.
      - thebigshane 17y ago
        *accusations Acquisitions may be a good thing.
        nrr 17y ago
        I'd argue that they are, undeniably, an awesome thing. :)
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]

by Mrzljak 17y ago

DarkShikari 17y ago

Because if they do similar things, they must use the same code? Better tell Microsoft that Apple's ripping them off. I mean, they're both x86-based graphical operating systems, right? Don't accuse people without evidence, especially long-standing members of the community like Daeken, of stealing. The fact that you spammed Daeken's blog with comments promoting exepack (forcing him to disable comments) doesn't help either. Then again, some of your comments were pure gold. For example: "Your product" name is DotPack and open source ExePack ; Pack part of the name the same . coincidence ? To much coincidence in this case . (FYI, I've worked on a portion of DotPack's code, specifically optimizing the LZMA unpacker module, and while that portion was not original code, the original source was a public domain LZMA unpacker. We ended up rewriting practically the whole thing anyways because of how badly it was written. The end result was something like half the size of the original.)

daeken 17y ago

The extent of this accusation stems from the fact that both names contain 'Pack', much like every other packer on the planet. One of his many trollish comments on my blog was this: "Your product" name is DotPack and open source ExePack ; Pack part of the name the same . coincidence ? To much coincidence in this case . NM Moscow, Russia At least a dozen HN readers can attest to the fact that I've been working heavily on this, and two have seen the source first-hand and can confirm that it's original. It's offensive to say the least to have such an accusation come up on your own blog, but eh, such is the internet.

Mrzljak 17y ago
Ok. question . Why will someone BUY "Your Product" for 250 - 500 USD (!?) if there is FREE openSource project with very much the same functionality, and from whom you take much of idea and implementation ?? ExePack http://exepack.codeplex.com/ http://exepack.codeplex.com/
- daeken 17y ago
  The idea is one that's been around for many decades and implemented thousands of times over the years. It's not mine, and it's certainly not from Exepack. People may buy it because it works very well and is improving by the day, and if they don't, that's ok -- competition is good. But accusing me repeatedly of stealing code when the only thing our projects have in common is that we're .NET packers with names ending in 'pack' is just downright offensive.
  - paraschopra 17y ago
    Don't worry about repeated acquisitions. I know it is hard to filter unjustified negatives but sometimes, like this time around, you simply need to ignore.
    - thebigshane 17y ago
      *accusations Acquisitions may be a good thing.
      - nrr 17y ago
        I'd argue that they are, undeniably, an awesome thing. :)
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]