Poll: Keep MQ "source only" or release precompile

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:45 am

Having already put together a zip file of the precompiled binaries, I wanted to check with the rest of the active developers before releasing anything. So take a moment to vote please. I won't release until I have a good consensus. Poll will close on Friday, so if we decide to release the binaries folks can have them for the weekend.

Valerian · Post by **Valerian** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:20 am

I'm all for the idea of source only... this poll will mean nothing. Everyone that CAN compile themselves will vote to leave it source only, and everyone that CAN'T, will vote for binaries. That basically takes the voting majority out of the developer's hands and places it into the hands of the masses that got us noticed in the first place.

I'd reccommend anyone voting should also post, so a truer vote of "developers" can be measured, as opposed to just a vote of mainly "users"

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:57 am

I understand all that V, 'cept I have a pretty good idea of the "developers", and will crosscheck that with L124RD. Those are the votes I'm looking for.

AlphaBeta · Post by **AlphaBeta** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:29 pm

Can one download a free compiler that will compile the code?

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:15 pm

It's not quite as simple as that. While it is, in theory, possible the original code was put together using Microsoft Visual C++ .NET. That means that moving it to another compiler requires ignoring the current project files and creating a new one in a freeware compiler/IDE.

I'm working on that in my somewhat limited spare time, using Dev-C++.

The current problem I'm having is in automatic generation of the makefile, which gives me an error I can't seem to work around. Only been working on it a few hours though, and I'm cleaning house at the same time, so give me some time.

If I get the problems worked out and can manage to compile a working version of MQ I'll post complete directions, new source files, links, the works.

Ohmz · Post by **Ohmz** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:44 pm

The only way to keep MQ alive is to keep a low profile, MQ is almost certian to break again after the next patch and releasing the binaries would only work to speed up and intensify SoEs hunt to break MQ.

I feel that the only people who should be able to use MQ are those people who assist in its development.

Am I selfish? I don't think so, I think all the people who want a free handout are being selfish, the more people that abuse MQ the more of a problem it becomes for SoE and the more of a problem it becomes for everyone that participates on keeping MQ working.

If I had to make a choice between a working MQ and a big happy community of selfish noobs for a week or two, I wouldn't have to think twice.

kaz · Post by **kaz** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:33 pm

Def keep it source only, in fact I would even suggest you take critical technology that you dont want SOE analyzing like the memchecker function out and make it into binary only lib (much like libEQ.a for ShowEQ) that is linked with the rest of the source and only released in binary form along with an MD5 sum to the masses.

As for make / workspace files, this is really a trivial thing in my opinion that you only need solve once, make files workspaces for vc6 in addition to those for 7 that are already there and include them with the release.

One last thing, take that perl CRAP out, I've been unlinking it in every build since november, and even the author of it (Amm) says its crap, and all it does is cause headaches. If you need advice on how to surgically remove it without killing the patient come talk to me in irc and I'll be glad to share.

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:53 pm

I agree about the PERL. If you get the time PM me the instructions on how to remove it. If you'd read the various MQ2 threads you'll notice I suggested removing it a long time ago.

My objection to VC++ is monetary. Don't know what you do for a living, but I'm in the Army and we are barely paid above poverty level. No way I can afford to drop a k on Microsoft's compiler. Hooray for you if you can, but don't belittle those who can't afford hefty development tools. Offer them a job instead.

Yes, the project/make files are a problem that only has to be solved once. I'm working on it, just takes time, and I got a war to worry about.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:10 pm

I say keep it source only. The key here is to keep the usage down. It takes ALOT of progaming skill and talent to program ways to find and disable MQ and I doubt SOE will take the time if only 100 people use it.

I would go so far as to talk to SOE and ask them what would they like most to be taken out of MQ to keep it from becoming their proiority to disable. I worked on anouther EQ helper program and we talked with them and they said "A and B are not that bad but C is major" followed by "Keep in mind your program is still aginst he EULA and your users WILL get banned for using it." (That helper program is still being used without one user being banned btw) (also MQ is much much more to the left of the EULA then the other program was so I doubt it will help).

Just IMHO

Jay

kaz · Post by **kaz** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:46 pm

Mckorr wrote:My objection to VC++ is monetary. Don't know what you do for a living, but I'm in the Army and we are barely paid above poverty level. No way I can afford to drop a k on Microsoft's compiler. Hooray for you if you can, but don't belittle those who can't afford hefty development tools. Offer them a job instead.

Visual C++ .NET : $89 brand new

heres a link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... e&n=229534

and that is all you need to do C++ development, you dont need Visual Studio .NET Architect Edition with included SQL Server blah blah, that is the one that costs 2k.

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:55 pm

Thanks for the link. I can probably swing that... of course I'm trying to talk the wife into letting me drop 400 or so on computer upgrades, so she may balk at a compiler

kaz · Post by **kaz** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 5:35 pm

btw, I apoligize for calling Dev c++ crapware, its a nice tool, I've used it before and if you can get a build enviroment going in it, more power to you.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:15 pm

My objection to VC++ is monetary. Don't know what you do for a living, but I'm in the Army and we are barely paid above poverty level. No way I can afford to drop a k on Microsoft's compiler. Hooray for you if you can, but don't belittle those who can't afford hefty development tools. Offer them a job instead.

Since we're breaking the law here anyway *laugh* ....it's not THAT hard to find software online

Granted, if I were making money using the compiler, I might feel guilty; however, since I don't make ANYTHING from my hobby programming, I don't feel guilty at all not having paid for VS.NET (Especially since I use VS.NET *ONLY* for MQ...Borland Builder is better ..hehe)

Last Note: "Free" compilers for Windows sucks in my opinion (as opposed to Linux)...it's best to stay with a brand name compiler IMO.

Turmoil Toad · Post by **Turmoil Toad** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:58 pm

Here are my thoughts on this situation:

There is no doubt that any visible source for this project will be found, compiled and examined by EQ Programmers. Whether you release it as an executable or as source, they will get it, and they will no doubt attempt to stop you from using it...

Now, for me, life is a little busy. On top of 20 credit hours in school, a job, a GF, and EQ, I get very little "free time". However, I took the time out of my day to attempt compiling this and to check out the new version.

For the last five hours I've been playing with this without any luck. I still get errors on compile, and I know that I'm more likely to get smart-assed replies to any post that I make, rather than constructive help. I've added VC++, MS Detours and DXSDK to my machine today, which I really hate doing. On top of that, EQ won't even run now, probably because of DXSDK. As a result I've reinstalled my video drivers and run DXDiag.

Now, here's a really nice tidbit: DXDiag reports that the files installed by the DX SDK (debug versions) run SLOWER than standard DX files. This is according to the DXDiag output. Can I tell you how thrilled I am with that possiblity? I'm sure raiding with 90 people in a corner trying to kill RZ and kiting 20,000 adds will be more fun than ever!

So on top of the wasted time that I didn't have, I now have a broken machine that will run slower than it used to, will take me MORE TIME to fix, and won't solve the problem of not having MQ.

Sorry for the rant guys, but it would have taken you no more time to zip up the real deal than it did the source, and it sure as hell would have made my day... Good luck on keeping it hidden from Sony--I'm sure they won't take the time to read your site and find out how to use it.

driftinsupra · Post by **driftinsupra** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:50 pm

I agree with the previous post. I had pink eye today so I had to stay home from school (woohoo) and all I could do was play the computer. I spent most of the day trying to get the thing going and just couldnt do it. Granted if you are going on the base of keeping only the ones that added to the program then I guess i dont deserve it but then in that same respect when the last ver MQ was working I helped people with their scripts and contributed alot of my own. I think that is contrubting in some degree. I hate to not be able to use this prgram just because I cant code or WC++ is just too much for me. I am learning.

Poll: Keep MQ "source only" or release precompile

Should MQ remain "source only", or should a precompiled version be offered?

Poll: Keep MQ "source only" or release precompile

Public release

My thoughts