5 ms·

> SOURCE CODE > Sorry, but I do not release the source code for any of my software. This is particularly true for the Cash Register program. > The Cash Registe

> SOURCE CODE > Sorry, but I do not release the source code for any of my software. This is particularly true for the Cash Register program. > The Cash Register program. has many things that must be hidden like the passwords and PIN numbers. It also has things that users must not be able to change like sales and tax amounts and transaction numbers. These things could easily be changed by anyone who has the source code and anyone with the source code could write a program that would change the hidden things and then release it on the internet making my program useless. It's all in FAQ. I don't really get the whole thing about the PINs/Passwords, but I'm guessing there's some logic in it. The funny thing is he explicitly explains to people how to modify the binary with a Hex Editor to change language strings...

cies 7y ago
Thanks for the digging. I would steer clear of this project. I expect there to be opensource alternatives that score better on openess.
simmons 7y ago
I'm a bit of a computer history buff, and dig around through old software archives from time to time. It seems to me that developers back in the 80's (at least in the PC / home computer world) were quite possessive of their source code, even for hobbyist projects that they gave away for free. It might seem a little odd to us today, although perhaps they had some rational motivation (e.g. hopes of productizing it or selling the IP later). So I'm not surprised that this program is also closed source, with some vague integrity/security reasons offered. I say this with all due respect to the developer, who of course is free to distribute his software however he would like. It's a very cool project, and I often wish we could see a resurgence of such simplicity and distraction-free UX. :)
- Crinus 7y ago
  FWIW there are a lot of closed source freeware programs out there, especially on the Windows world. Irfanview is a very popular example. Another, not as popular in general, though quite popular in HN, is the utilities by NirSoft.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > It seems to me that developers back in the 80's (at least in the PC / home computer world) were quite possessive... even for hobbyist projects that they gave away for free. Yup, this is one of those things where the free software movement managed to be surprisingly influential, even before open source proper was a thing. People who were committed to releasing freeware stuff, with no delusions about ever selling it commercially (even as indie "shareware") started making their source code available and using free software licenses, often "share alike"/"copyleft" ones. Even Linux itself went down that very path, in fact.
stakhanov 7y ago
Well, that sounds a bit like "security by obscurity". That ain't good.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  This isn't meant for a highly secure organization. This is meant for a mom and pop shop with limited inventory and limited employees. Most of his target audience are very very small businesses, trying to save a buck on POS software. From his website: 26,000 ITEM LIMIT You may have noticed that it requires almost zero time to find any item in the stock table by the stock number. This is because all of the stock numbers are indexed and held in memory by the program. Unfortunately there is limited memory in DOS software to do this. The theoretical maximum would be 32,000 items but since some memory must also be used for other purposes the program becomes unstable with more than 26,000 items. The other consideration is that one of the reasons that this program is free is to help the small to medium business compete with the Wal-Marts of this world. With some exceptions once a retail business grows large enough to carry more than 26,000 different items then it is a Wal-Mart type large business and should be able to afford commercially produced POS software.
  - frankzinger 7y ago
    26,000 ITEM LIMIT You may have noticed that it requires almost zero time to find any item in the stock table by the stock number. This is because all of the stock numbers are indexed and held in memory by the program. Unfortunately there is limited memory in DOS software to do this. The theoretical maximum would be 32,000 items but since some memory must also be used for other purposes the program becomes unstable with more than 26,000 items. The other consideration is that one of the reasons that this program is free is to help the small to medium business compete with the Wal-Marts of this world. With some exceptions once a retail business grows large enough to carry more than 26,000 different items then it is a Wal-Mart type large business and should be able to afford commercially produced POS software.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    That's not the point: A bookkeeping system has to have certain properties in order to be able to make it through a tax audit. For example, once a transaction is entered, there have to be certain guarantees that the transaction can't just be deleted or meddled with afterwards. In the pen-and-paper era this was accomplished using special writing instruments. If your books were kept with a pencil or pen with erasable ink, you'd be in big trouble. It sounds to me a bit like what the author is saying here is that, if the source code were to get out, then it would become common knowledge how to meddle with the accounting records using a hex editor and that, in turn, would be something that an expert witness in a court of law or a tax auditor would point out to attack the admissibility of the whole system. But that's kind of bad. If the records can be meddled with in a way that would be known if the source code were to get out, then they can probably also be meddled with without the source code being public knowledge (just harder to figure it out), and that is almost as bad: Security-by-obscurity is probably not a valid defense against that allegation if it were to come up in court. So, there should really be some crypto there instead.

cies 7y ago

Thanks for the digging. I would steer clear of this project. I expect there to be opensource alternatives that score better on openess.

simmons 7y ago

I'm a bit of a computer history buff, and dig around through old software archives from time to time. It seems to me that developers back in the 80's (at least in the PC / home computer world) were quite possessive of their source code, even for hobbyist projects that they gave away for free. It might seem a little odd to us today, although perhaps they had some rational motivation (e.g. hopes of productizing it or selling the IP later). So I'm not surprised that this program is also closed source, with some vague integrity/security reasons offered. I say this with all due respect to the developer, who of course is free to distribute his software however he would like. It's a very cool project, and I often wish we could see a resurgence of such simplicity and distraction-free UX. :)

Crinus 7y ago
FWIW there are a lot of closed source freeware programs out there, especially on the Windows world. Irfanview is a very popular example. Another, not as popular in general, though quite popular in HN, is the utilities by NirSoft.
zozbot234 7y ago
> It seems to me that developers back in the 80's (at least in the PC / home computer world) were quite possessive... even for hobbyist projects that they gave away for free. Yup, this is one of those things where the free software movement managed to be surprisingly influential, even before open source proper was a thing. People who were committed to releasing freeware stuff, with no delusions about ever selling it commercially (even as indie "shareware") started making their source code available and using free software licenses, often "share alike"/"copyleft" ones. Even Linux itself went down that very path, in fact.

stakhanov 7y ago

Well, that sounds a bit like "security by obscurity". That ain't good.

farisjarrah 7y ago
This isn't meant for a highly secure organization. This is meant for a mom and pop shop with limited inventory and limited employees. Most of his target audience are very very small businesses, trying to save a buck on POS software. From his website: 26,000 ITEM LIMIT You may have noticed that it requires almost zero time to find any item in the stock table by the stock number. This is because all of the stock numbers are indexed and held in memory by the program. Unfortunately there is limited memory in DOS software to do this. The theoretical maximum would be 32,000 items but since some memory must also be used for other purposes the program becomes unstable with more than 26,000 items. The other consideration is that one of the reasons that this program is free is to help the small to medium business compete with the Wal-Marts of this world. With some exceptions once a retail business grows large enough to carry more than 26,000 different items then it is a Wal-Mart type large business and should be able to afford commercially produced POS software.
- frankzinger 7y ago
  26,000 ITEM LIMIT You may have noticed that it requires almost zero time to find any item in the stock table by the stock number. This is because all of the stock numbers are indexed and held in memory by the program. Unfortunately there is limited memory in DOS software to do this. The theoretical maximum would be 32,000 items but since some memory must also be used for other purposes the program becomes unstable with more than 26,000 items. The other consideration is that one of the reasons that this program is free is to help the small to medium business compete with the Wal-Marts of this world. With some exceptions once a retail business grows large enough to carry more than 26,000 different items then it is a Wal-Mart type large business and should be able to afford commercially produced POS software.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  That's not the point: A bookkeeping system has to have certain properties in order to be able to make it through a tax audit. For example, once a transaction is entered, there have to be certain guarantees that the transaction can't just be deleted or meddled with afterwards. In the pen-and-paper era this was accomplished using special writing instruments. If your books were kept with a pencil or pen with erasable ink, you'd be in big trouble. It sounds to me a bit like what the author is saying here is that, if the source code were to get out, then it would become common knowledge how to meddle with the accounting records using a hex editor and that, in turn, would be something that an expert witness in a court of law or a tax auditor would point out to attack the admissibility of the whole system. But that's kind of bad. If the records can be meddled with in a way that would be known if the source code were to get out, then they can probably also be meddled with without the source code being public knowledge (just harder to figure it out), and that is almost as bad: Security-by-obscurity is probably not a valid defense against that allegation if it were to come up in court. So, there should really be some crypto there instead.