6 ms·
I think it's due to the impracticality of reverse-compiling and then modifying executable code. > A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers wh
by CaptainFever 2y ago
I think it's due to the impracticality of reverse-compiling and then modifying executable code.
> A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily change the numbers to make the program do something different.
Source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
- saagarjha 2y agoSome software is easier to hex edit that figure out how to compile ;)
- userbinator 2y agoStallman clearly had zero exposure to the cracking scene, nor the PC/microcomputer community. Back in the old days, we only needed a hex editor and disassembler, maybe sometimes a debugger, to "make the program do something different". PC magazines would publish binary patches too. IDA showed up sometime in the 90s but it was extremely expensive, and cracking it became a "rite of passage". Now, Ghidra is free and there are tons of other tools available.
- pseudalopex 2y ago> Stallman clearly had zero exposure to the cracking scene, nor the PC/microcomputer community. I would say it was clear you had zero experience writing for a general audience if I wished to make unfounded assumptions like you. You overlooked he wrote easily maybe? Cracking IDA was a rite of passage because it demonstrated skill.