what worries me most (and is so damn typical of the PB team) is that they
filed a patent. probably SPECIFICALLY because they know that abandoning the
HL community will spawn alternatives.
considering how idiotic the patent office is about software, they might get
it for something like: a client/server where the client checks local
software and reports anomalities to the server... hopefully someone will be
able to debunk such a patent. after all, punkbuster IS just a virus
checker...
----- Original Message -----
From: "accident" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: PB no more.....
>
> The best example I can give of PB to anyone not familiar is a virus
> scanner... A group of volunteers take on the task of finding, checking,
> and detecting the cheat in as quick of a fashion as possible.. Even
> virus's that are slightly different get past virus scanners.. The
> difference.. You don't pay for PB, there is no ad support, no income
> coming for the effort.. People personally paying so you can have a
> better game with them.. And because of this is there more of a delay to
> remove the "virus" from gameplay...
>
> I think PB has done the best job it could giving the obsticles in its
> way...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SQLBoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PB no more.....
>
>
>
>
> Thats not the point. I'm just going on here-say here but I think each
> individual cheat is coded into Punkbuster. I'm sure the program has a
> couple different ways of finding out if a cheat is installed. Things
> like checking for registry changes a cheat makes, looking for the
> installation files, etc. Yes, its possible for the coders to find out
> how PB is detecting them and make some changes, it happens everyday I'm
> sure. Why give them the source though so they can update their cheat
> 5min after the release?
>
> I understand what you are trying to say with your openSSH example, but I
> don't agree. What makes a hacker a hacker is detailed knowledge of how
> things work. There are always going to be bugs or exploits in weaker
> software that could allow me to replace your SSH server binary with a
> custom one of my own, and then gain access via SSH. I've seen it done
> on customer machines running old Bind and FTP servers.
>
> I believe in open source but since the game server and client code is
> not open source, you will run into the same limitations PB did, and more
> since all the cheaters will be studying your source code.
>
> SQL
>
>
> On Tuesday 25 September 2001 16:27, you wrote:
> > that's wrong. that's like saying: knowing how openSSH works means you
>
> > can circumvent it. the best secure software has always been open
> > source software because of the amounts of eyes that review it.
> >
> > besides, the source is just a tool. you don't NEED the source to find
>
> > out how something works. i really believe that a smart open source
> > based team can do just as good of a job, and not be such control
> > freaks about it.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "SQLBoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: PB no more.....
> >
> > > It makes no sense to go open source. Since PB was basically
> > > reacting to cheats, if cheat coders had the source, they would know
> > > exactly how to circumvent the software.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 25 September 2001 15:27, you wrote:
> > > > > There has never been a chance that a "one man army" can get rid
> > > > > of cheats that hundreds of cheatcoders work on. Maybe it's time
> > > > > for some open source project ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I personally do NOT miss punkbuster at all.
> > > >
> > > > LMAO...it's been funny to watch the dark-eyed penguin pushers try
> > > > to
> >
> > wrap
> >
> > > > their minds around the PB team not going public with their source.
>
> > > > And it's been frustrating to watch them get all pissy about it,
> > > > not because
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > doesn't work, but because it's not open source. If it's not
> > > > opensource, then fsck you! It's a pretty dense way to live, to
> > > > cut off your nose to spite your face. But, regardless, I guess
> > > > none of you actually develop software professionally...
> > > >
> > > > Eric (the Deacon remix)
> > > > http://www.firekite.com
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ketchup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 11:58 AM
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: Re: PB no more.....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Sysop,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tuesday, September 25, 2001, 6:29:01 PM, you wrote:
> > > > > > So what are the chances of getting an official comment by
> > > > > > valve on
> >
> > why
> >
> > > > > > PB and Valve couldn't work together on a integrated solution?
>
> > > > > > PB
> >
> > has
> >
> > > > > > pulled the plug on HL/CS because of (they say) lack of
> > > > > > participation
> >
> > by
> >
> > > > > > Valve. I would like to hear Valve's side of the story, as to
> > > > > > why we are loosing something that could have REALLY improved
> > > > > > the quality of the game...
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter aka Ketchup
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > http://www.pommesbude.org
>
>
>
>
