in reply to Re: Re: An obfuscation script, and a question
in thread An obfuscation script, and a question
[Added I figured I'd also note that I do like obfuscated perl. Why else create Allen Ginsberg - Is About?]
I was referring to the programs you are delivering as obfuscated source code to paying customers when I made the comparison to free software. I'm wearing two hats here - free software user user/developer in the evenings and corporate application programmer developer during the day time.
Of the times when I've had bugs in the commercial software I use (during the day, obviously) I don't know how many times I could have fixed the thing myself if the vendor had provided it with source code. Months have gone down the drain trying to work around bugs and trying to document the bugs so product support can duplicate them (and hopefully fix them as well). Of all the things I really hate, its trying to deal with bugs in closed source software. You could just continue the trend and not provide the source but that's making someone else's life harder. In fact, with obfuscated perl that's all it does since the skill level required to debug a compiled program versus an obfuscated perl program is an order of magnitude apart (having done both I think I can comment).
I recently had to fix a bug where HitBox JavaScript code was breaking part of an intranet web application (interactions via the onLoad handler). In this case the HitBox software is delivered as a text file containing obfuscated JavaScript code and some user documentation describing some global variables (among other things). This had me swearing the entire time because I just couldn't (and still can't) believe the gall of HitBox to provide obfuscated source code. In this case it is merely time consuming (it took me an hour or so) to get a readable source back. HitBox took our money for a product that didn't work in our environment and then I spent my time undoing their obfuscation just so I could fix the damn thing. At least they could have respected me and my employer enough to just give us the source outright.
So perhaps I see it as a respect issue. You disrespect your customer when you deliberately make life hard for them. But then I don't sell software so perhaps you've found that providing the source just means your work is ripped off. So perhaps it puts a smallish obstacle in front of your dishonest customers and actively disrespects your honest customers. I choose to disagree with you on whether this makes business sense or not.
As an open source programmer I don't think I need to prove my credentials to you or anyone. I spend almost every evening and weekends with my time split between activism and the coding to support that activism. If you really want to know what I'm spending my time coding I'll elaborate but I don't think that's relevant here.
Seeking Green geeks in Minnesota
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re^3: An obfuscation script, and a question
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 14, 2003 at 00:10 UTC | |
by diotalevi (Canon) on Mar 14, 2003 at 00:32 UTC | |
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 14, 2003 at 00:15 UTC |