6 ms·

I don't understand the thesis - releasing the source code costs nothing and the user can choose whether to look at it or not. They could've spent the time apolo

I don't understand the thesis - releasing the source code costs nothing and the user can choose whether to look at it or not. They could've spent the time apologising for virus ""false alarms"" publishing the code instead. That way one can trivially look through it instead of wasting time on different analyzers.

Const-me 8y ago
> releasing the source code costs nothing When you release code, you need to do following. 1. Ensure it builds. Old software can only be built with old compilers, with old Windows SDK. Sometimes they also rely on old custom build tools. Other times builds requires manual steps. 2. Ensure you have not violated any copyrights or patents. The relevant laws are ridiculous these days, potentially, you can get in legal trouble even by copy-pasting stuff from stackoverflow. 3. Ideally, that it comes with documentation/comments, at least minimal. Neither of these are free, they’re quite time consuming. Speaking from experience, I did release a few things, e.g. https://github.com/Const-me/EsentSerialize/ https://github.com/Const-me/EsentSerialize/ > That way one can trivially look through it Looking through is not enough. To be sure, you need to build the software and run the binaries you’ve built. Building third-party code, especially old one, can be very hard: dependencies, build environment, mismatched OS versions, and thousand more papercuts. I sometimes spending a whole day just to build some third-party project that I need to use. BTW I’ve been programming for living for couple decades now. Even if it builds, security audit of a program longer than a couple pages of code is very non-trivial. If you’ll ask “how do you know they are longer than a couple pages?” the answer is “because GUI”. Despite user friendly, GUI usually require substantial amount of code. That’s probably the main reason why open source community is reluctant to create GUI apps despite users obviously prefer them over CLI.
- CapacitorSet 8y ago
  Arguably, point 2 is the only real concern about releasing the source code - 1 and 3 are optional responsibilities that people take to a varying degree, with "Works On My Machine (tm) - no documentation - here be dragons" being a valid (though in my opinion not very kind) option.
  - chii 8y ago
    regardless of whether you release the source or not, a patent violation is a violation. So 2) is a pointless worry.
- papermachete 8y ago
  I only see a potential problem with No. 2. The rest seems like a non-issue. Nobody is forcing the creator to spend his time writing extra documentation or build instructions - just post it and let the community sort it through. Just as nobody is forcing people to sit and figure out the code - some are just interested in how the tool works and why AV software is really handing out ""false positives"". Personally, I just want to skim over it and see his style of writing and commenting.
  - CJefferson 8y ago
    I've had plenty of people swear at me because open source software I release won't build for them. It gets tiring and puts me in a bad mood all day.
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      So have some requirements and make sure it builds. File any other complaints in NUL.
      - Stratoscope 8y ago
        And then you get a reputation for ignoring your users. Some days you just can't win.
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        "Users" = "People who pay me." Everybody else can go take a long walk off a short pier, if they're going to send angry emails about not being able to build something they didn't pay me for.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  Copyright and patents while using the Win32 API?

Const-me 8y ago

> releasing the source code costs nothing When you release code, you need to do following. 1. Ensure it builds. Old software can only be built with old compilers, with old Windows SDK. Sometimes they also rely on old custom build tools. Other times builds requires manual steps. 2. Ensure you have not violated any copyrights or patents. The relevant laws are ridiculous these days, potentially, you can get in legal trouble even by copy-pasting stuff from stackoverflow. 3. Ideally, that it comes with documentation/comments, at least minimal. Neither of these are free, they’re quite time consuming. Speaking from experience, I did release a few things, e.g. https://github.com/Const-me/EsentSerialize/ https://github.com/Const-me/EsentSerialize/ > That way one can trivially look through it Looking through is not enough. To be sure, you need to build the software and run the binaries you’ve built. Building third-party code, especially old one, can be very hard: dependencies, build environment, mismatched OS versions, and thousand more papercuts. I sometimes spending a whole day just to build some third-party project that I need to use. BTW I’ve been programming for living for couple decades now. Even if it builds, security audit of a program longer than a couple pages of code is very non-trivial. If you’ll ask “how do you know they are longer than a couple pages?” the answer is “because GUI”. Despite user friendly, GUI usually require substantial amount of code. That’s probably the main reason why open source community is reluctant to create GUI apps despite users obviously prefer them over CLI.

CapacitorSet 8y ago
Arguably, point 2 is the only real concern about releasing the source code - 1 and 3 are optional responsibilities that people take to a varying degree, with "Works On My Machine (tm) - no documentation - here be dragons" being a valid (though in my opinion not very kind) option.
- chii 8y ago
  regardless of whether you release the source or not, a patent violation is a violation. So 2) is a pointless worry.
papermachete 8y ago
I only see a potential problem with No. 2. The rest seems like a non-issue. Nobody is forcing the creator to spend his time writing extra documentation or build instructions - just post it and let the community sort it through. Just as nobody is forcing people to sit and figure out the code - some are just interested in how the tool works and why AV software is really handing out ""false positives"". Personally, I just want to skim over it and see his style of writing and commenting.
- CJefferson 8y ago
  I've had plenty of people swear at me because open source software I release won't build for them. It gets tiring and puts me in a bad mood all day.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    So have some requirements and make sure it builds. File any other complaints in NUL.
    - Stratoscope 8y ago
      And then you get a reputation for ignoring your users. Some days you just can't win.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        "Users" = "People who pay me." Everybody else can go take a long walk off a short pier, if they're going to send angry emails about not being able to build something they didn't pay me for.
mixmastamyk 8y ago
Copyright and patents while using the Win32 API?