Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler
From: Andre (andreseibel_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/14/04
- Next message: Andre: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Previous message: Niroo: "RE: Help: Security Exception"
- In reply to: Jonathan Pierce: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Next in thread: Andre: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 14 Jul 2004 14:39:24 -0700
Sorry but reading this I'm just realizing that you're objective but
instead are twisting facts so they better serve your purpose. It
doesn't makes sense to continue this discussion.
jpierce@nyc.rr.com (Jonathan Pierce) wrote in message news:<3d0f5457.0407130438.2f0a6f67@posting.google.com>...
> andreseibel@hotmail.com (Andre) wrote in message news:<6af05d73.0407121631.c9d8623@posting.google.com>...
> > Remember that you asked Lutz to charge for Reflector because it makes
> > it much harder to sell your tool (strange enough since Reflector is
> > not even targeting to-disk-decompiler users). That is silently
> > admitting that with Reflector you actually "get more than what you pay
> > for" ;-).
> >
>
> Andre,
>
> The reason I asked Lutz to charge for his tool is so that he could
> justify spending more time supporting it and correcting problems with
> the code that it generates. I personally still feel that it is a
> mistake for any developer to spend time debugging code that is
> generated incorrectly, other than to isolate the issue and report it
> so it can be fixed. This type of debugging is extremely time
> consuming, especially if you don't have the original correct code to
> compare. Without fixing the bug and regenerating the code, the
> developer is exposed to multiple instantiations of the same bug, and
> wastes more time tracking down dependant bugs that don't really exist.
> One of the reasons that I wrote the Decompiler.NET product is that I
> wasn't able to rely on the code generation quality of the available
> tools on the market, regardless of their price. Unfortunately, novice
> developer's don't often realize how valuable their time is to
> themselves or their employers, and choose to expend significantly more
> of their employers resources than the cost of purchasing a supported
> product that resolves issues quickly when they are reported. As I've
> indicated before, I have reported several bugs to Lutz regarding
> Reflector 4.0 as early as the first day that it was released over two
> months ago and he still has not made the time to correct them in his
> product. I can enumerate them again for you and for him, if he is not
> aware of them still existing in his current version. His frequent
> releases show that he is spending some time improving the product, but
> these releases don't correct his outstanding bugs, so the level of
> support is still lacking. On the other hand, we respond immediately to
> any customer issues, and find and fix most bugs ourselves before
> customers even encounter them.
>
> Using free unsupported tools that are buggy is not much different from
> choosing to use an old slow computer with an old OS and insufficient
> memory that crashes often, rather than spending a small amount of
> money to upgrade. There are probably many professional users being
> paid high salaries that are still relying on using the no longer
> supported Windows 95 / 98 OS on slow hardware with frequent crashes
> that don't realize the true cost of their lack of productivity would
> be sufficiently outweighed by purchasing new hardware.
>
> I understand the choice to use open source software like linux
> sometimes if it works really well and there is no residual additional
> cost to using it, but not in the case when the software that you have
> chosen has known issues that directly affect you, are not resolved by
> the vendor in a timely manner, and much better alternatives exist and
> are available at justifiable prices. They are probably some people out
> there who never discard anything that still works to some degree, and
> are therefore still using rotary dial phones and watching B&W
> televisions.
>
> Unless you are really poor, and you are not using a decompiler for
> your professional needs, it is much more cost effective to purchase a
> low priced supported product than to continue to waste your time and
> your employers time relying on substandard tools and resources that
> turn out to not really be free because of the amount of extra time you
> waste using them.
>
> Jonathan
- Next message: Andre: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Previous message: Niroo: "RE: Help: Security Exception"
- In reply to: Jonathan Pierce: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Next in thread: Andre: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
