Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler
From: Eugene (eugeneh_at_nospam.hotmail.com)
Date: 07/18/04
- Next message: Bui Pham Minh Tri: "Get real logon user from windows services"
- Previous message: Eugene: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- In reply to: Eugene: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Pierce: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:47:17 -0700
I have to correct myself. Reflector is not using ILReader anymore. It comes
with a really nice new internal API ...
Funny as it may seem Decompiler.net is more open source than Reflector :-)
"Eugene" <eugeneh@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23qEB36EbEHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> How can a tool that gets updated frequently be unsupported?
>
> To say it bluntly: This entire post stinks. You are making Reflector look
> like it is bad but in fact every .NET developer I know uses it and loves
it
>
> Also, Reflector is not open source. The only parts that are open source
are
> the CommandBar and ILReader libraries which are used in your (low-quality)
> product as well. Funny enough this entire comment backfires big time :-)
>
> Throwing dirt doesn't makes your tool look any better...
>
>
> "Jonathan Pierce" <jpierce@nyc.rr.com> 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: Bui Pham Minh Tri: "Get real logon user from windows services"
- Previous message: Eugene: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- In reply to: Eugene: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Next in thread: Jonathan Pierce: "Re: Obfuscator and Decompiler"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
