Register | Login | |||||
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
| |
0 users currently in ROM Hacking. |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - ROM Hacking - The Open-Source Exception | New poll | | |
Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
User | Post | ||
Guy Perfect Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DischThen the cause of confusion between us is a miscommunication of what we understand ROM hacking to be. I understand it to be getting, not putting, but getting data from ROMs and figuring out what it does. Music, graphics, levels, etc... Anything really that has to do with editing, that's just generic game modding to me. If source code that I release is adjusted for the purpose of game modding, then I would feel violated as if someone cut off my hand and played Badminton with it. For F-Zero X, I'm making the editor for two reasons: to share tracks and to provide a decent benchmark for N64 hacking. The track file format for shaing doesn't even need to have ROM-patching capabilities, so there's no need for source code there. To promote hacking--hacking as I understand it to be--the source code is next to worthless because all the theory and memory addresses can be contained in a written document. Originally posted by Hyper LOLDocumentation is not limited to ROM hacking. There can be other documents for other things. Why consult a ROM hacking document for help with File I/O? Originally posted by Hyper LOLHence the term "relative." That ensures that, say, "right" is only "right" from the perspective of the object's facing direction. Like I said, this is a simple trigonometry concept, but it requires an advanced understanding of trigonometry to come up with a way to implement it. The reason you don't see much information on it is because anyone with some college-level math ought to be able to come up with their own way to do it without much effort. Until such a time that I can provide such an article, look up information contaning all three of the words "azimuth," "elevation" and "skew" (edited by BGNG on 01-31-06 09:02 PM) |
|||
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Well there's the problem, I'm not in college quite yet. At least now I'll have some incentive to pay attention in math class. But yes, that's what I mean.
I don't think you get what I'm saying about documentation. If you were to document all the inner workings of your editor, I imagine it would only cover how to actually edit the game. Take my camera example again. If I look at your editor and see that it does what I want to figure out how to do, if I have the source code, I can just check out how it's done. If I just have documentation of how to edit the game, of course it's not going to include how to move cameras in a 3D environment. You could document how to do this as well, but that's only one thing... anything your program does, even little tiny things, people may want to check out the source to see how they work. If you were to actually document it all... you'd basically have rewritten the source code. |
|||
Disch Red Cheep-cheep Since: 12-10-05 Last post: 6576 days Last view: 6576 days |
| ||
Originally posted by BGNG Okay. Sticking to this definition for the remainder of this discussion. What I'm mainly looking for... which hasn't yet been answered to my satisfaction... is why you feel program source code would prevent someone from ROM hacking. I've heard a lot of reasons why Documentation is good for ROM hacking -- however that was never in dispute. The issue here is whether or not Source is bad for ROM hacking. The reasons you have given so far have either not made sense, refer to editors in general (rather than their source), or apply equally to Documentation. That final note is what I find to be the most interesting. You say the goal of ROM hacking is to get people to dive into ROMs and discover things. At the same time you rave about the awesomeness of documentation.... but in reality, documentation exists to prevent people from discovering things (by telling them what's already been discovered). Think about it.... if there's ANYTHING that's going to stop a hacker from looking into a game... it's going to be existing documentation on that game. I mean why look at a game when there's nothing to look for? But that's a tangent. I don't really want to argue that point. I just brought it up because I found it to be pretty funny and awfully ironic. Leaving that tangent and getting back to my point. Here are paraphrases (or direct quotes) of reasons you gave why Source code release is bad, and my response to those reasons in the following brakets. 1) it may not be in people's best interest to release source code to the ROM Hacking community, since people will just take it and say "Hey, look what I have! Power!" [The only sense I can make out of this is that you don't want lamers to be able to go on power-trips with other people's source that they don't really have any way to use. While lamers do suck, and this is a somewhat reasonable thing to expect happen -- I fail to see how it poses any sort of problem or inconvieniece for the author. Who cares when a lamer is flashing around a copy of your source when the source is freely available to whoever wants it? That's like saying we should discontinue money because of all the people on the street flashing dollar bills in other people's faces saying "look what I got!"] 2) withholding source code means that a person's project will remain unique to them [aka, my "greed" excuse listed before. Encouraging this kind of behavior would be the same as encouraging people to only release ROM hacks and not documentation on how they hacked the game. In a sense, this analogy sums up this point-- documentation:hack :: source:editor ] 3) A person who has documentation and source code will look at it and say "Hmm. Okay. Now I know how it works" and walk away. If the program code already exists, then what's the point of reading the documentation in the first place? [This sounds like more of a beef with the editor than with its source. Why would they read the documentation? Because they're interested in editing the game. Or they're interested in further hacking. Or they're interested in making an editor. I fail to see AT ALL how also having the source available would steer them away from any of those goals. I mean all it is is more information] 4) source code will dilude the motivation to further understand the workings of the game. [But to understand the source... wouldn't they already have to understand the workings of the game? I mean if you sit down and read the source and see the documentation put into practice -- your motivation to understand the documentation is fulfilled.. you finished. That's like saying the documentation will dilude the motivation to further understand the workings of the game =P] 5) Does it matter if people have the source code? Not if understanding and skill are the focus of the mission. Source code provides little to that end. [I couldn't disagree with this statement more. I don't know if I responded to it already, but God Damn. There is so much you can learn from someone else's source. It may not all be applicable to ROM hacking -- but it's still knowledge/understanding/skill bulding. Saying util authors shouldn't release their source because the information you obtain doesn't apply to ROM hacking is bogus -- if good can come from its release (in whatever field), then it should be released.] 6) they may never hack the game at all if they have some arbitrary editor's source. They are more likely to do so given documentation and no source. [I find this to be one of your nonsensical reasons. As I can't think of a single way to apply this to reality. You might as well have said "eating cheese prevents people from ROM hacking -- stores should stop selling cheese". There is no factual basis for this on any level -- I don't see where you're getting this from] 7) I don't see anything that source code can do that can't be fully explained in a document [ and I don't see anything a document can do that can't be fully explained in source code. But that's moot, because the two serve seperate functions. ] Note I just skimmed your posts to find those clips. If I'm missing a point, I'd appreciate a heads up. Now after reading those again... and trying to make sense of your logic... it sounds to me like you feel the only (or at least the primary) reason anyone would read documentation would be to make their own editor.... and that is somehow spoiled by having an existing editor's source available. That's the only sense I can make out of any of this. Of course I would argue that view is flawed on multiple levels. For starters, there are things people can gain from ROM documentation other than a how-to on how to make an editor. In fact, most of the time the people reading the documentation don't even know how to code an editor -- let alone have any interest in making one. Furthermore, since when has existing source code prevented ANYONE from coding their own similar program? Have you seen all the existing NES emulators? How many of those are open source? All these SMB3 editors popping up (what are there now.. like 5?). Graphic editors... text editors... the list is endless. Source is not a hinderance, but is actually a tool... an AID for developing a similar app. There is so much for other people (and yourself) to gain from releasing your source code. And I have yet to hear a reasonable example of ANYTHING anyone has to lose from releasing their source. In fact you almost said as much in one of your previous posts:
Yet it seems that everywhere else in the thread you've been saying the exact opposite. Remember to note that I'm not saying documentation is bad. And I'm not saying source is better than documentation (though neither am I saying that documentation is better than source). And I'm not saying that either should replace the other. They're two different things that fulfill two very different roles. (edited by Disch on 01-31-06 11:40 PM) |
|||
Guy Perfect Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DischAs I said before: Knowledge is nothing if it is not applied. Have documentation and not use it, might as well not have documentation. Have documentation and learn how a game works, you can apply those concepts to other games or make an editor or teach a flock of geese or whatever. Have source code and see how a program works (maybe), and you have source code that compiles into a program. No geese involved. 1) Power, ego, status symbols... Any use of source code for those things is negative. I don't see anyone saying "Look at this new document I have! Wait, no... don't look at it, it's mine... But then I can't prove that I have it! What am I gonna do to show you how awesome I am?" 2) Uniquness is not equal to greed. If UserA makes a program and UserB modifies it by adding some new features and slaps his own name on it, then all it is is UserA's program with new features and UserB's name on it. Each programmer working on his own unique project will ensure that there aren't a billion variants of the same thing. 3) If you had the source code for an intuitive level editor, would you take the time to make your own version of the code that's already there on your hard drive? Chances are, you'd flat-out use some of it. Making it all means that you have a full understanding of everything your work does. That's not necessarily true when you copy/paste source code. There's always a chance one of those lines of code was X + 0 instead of X + 1 and you didn't notice it. That's understanding that you would have had if the source code was not there. 4) "But to understand the source... wouldn't they already have to understand the workings of the game?" Yes... yes, they would. Documentation therefore has a higher precedence for learning and understanding than source code. But if the source code is there, who will honestly try to figure it all out? Anyone who will use the documentation, you say? Then the source code isn't even necessary. 5) "It may not all be applicable to ROM hacking -- but it's still knowledge/understanding/skill bulding." Why would it be placed in the ROM hacking community if it wasn't used for understanding of ROM hacking? That's like a pumpkin pie made with sweet potatoes... not a pumpkin pie. 6) With this is the mindset of "All the work has been completed. I need not do anything." While not everyone will do that, it's still there. Withholding source code prevents it. 7) Credit goes to some guy called Bram: theta = cutoff*2*pi / samplerateYou know what that is? If you have some background with audio DSP, you can probably figure that there's code for a high-pass and low-pass filter there, but the real meat and potatoes is that it's specifially a One-zero IIR implementation. How does it work? I have no idea. How was it made? Not a clue. There's NO way I can tell you that just by looking at the source code, even with my background in the field. I don't know how it was created, but I sure as heck wish I did... Some documentation would come in handy right about now. Needless to say, source code does not necessarily supply sufficient information for understanding as does documentation. All things considered, the final scores for desirability of release are Documentation: +170; Source code: -10. That's just a scant -10, but it's more than 0, so there's still reason to withhold it. The benefits that simply aren't there in source code are contained in documentation. Still, lots of people tell me that source code might as well be released. Well, I have a -10 saying it shouldn't, and documentation more than makes up for it. |
|||
Disch Red Cheep-cheep Since: 12-10-05 Last post: 6576 days Last view: 6576 days |
| ||
1) I see you missed the point of my money analogy. There's always going to be douchebags being lame about stuff. Withholding source isn't going to make things less lame. Not to mention you can use ANYTHING in your efforts to be a douchebag. This is in no way related to the source code being what it is.
2) "If UserA makes a program and UserB modifies it by adding some new features and slaps his own name on it, then all it is is UserA's program with new features and UserB's name on it." <--- that's a bad thing? Look at the Nester family of NES emus. nester became NesterDC. It also became NesterJ which became NNNesterJ. Or look at FCE. FCE became FCEU became FCEUd became FCEUXD became FCEUXD SP. Multiple people contributing to the same cause. Variations of the same program. I fail to see how you can possibly classify this as a downside rather than a MASSIVE upside. Or are you referring to UserB stealing all of UserA's thunder? Because that's another fear that lies in the realm of impracticality. In the history of open source programming, with all the programs out there... how many can you name that have been "stolen" in this fashion? I can't think of a single one. Besides... again this is a fear that could apply to ANYTHING you release --- it's not a problem with the source. Someone could just as easily (or even more easily) take a technical doc and write over the original author's name. You'll notice that such a thing seldom happens though. 3) "If you had the source code for an intuitive level editor, would you take the time to make your own version of the code that's already there on your hard drive?" <-- in a word: yes. Would everyone? no. There are many ways to use source. It can be a reference, a base, or just an example. In my NES emu development efforts I have looked at several different emulator's source for reference. The information I received was invaluable. Did I copy paste their code into my emu? No. "Making it all means that you have a full understanding of everything your work does." But just because you didn't make all of it doesn't mean you don't have a full understanding. The bottom line is if the source makes you able to produce something you couldn't produce (or would have a more difficult time producing) without it... then the source fulfilled a positive role. Do you ever use 3rd party libraries in your programs? Zlib? libvorbis? FMod? SDL? Do you have a full understanding of how all of them work? Do you know exactly how your monitor works? Or your hard drive? If you can make use of a tool, does it really matter if you don't understand exactly how the tool works? Source is just another tool. People that want to have a deeper understanding can still get that deeper understanding from the source or from another reference. To expect everyone to understand 100% of everything is just ludicrous. It's like you're saying "you can't do this on your own? THEN NO TOOL FOR YOU!!!!!" Like what the fuck man... seriously. 4) "Yes... yes, they would. Documentation therefore has a higher precedence for learning and understanding than source code" umm... okay... I don't know where you got that from. You do realize it's possible to understand the workings FROM the source, right? "But if the source code is there, who will honestly try to figure it all out?" - I've done it. But regardless. Why does this matter? How is denying someone an extra resource motivation? "Anyone who will use the documentation, you say? Then the source code isn't even necessary." *smacks forehead* There is more information in a program's source than just what the documentation covers. Seeing code in action is completely different than having it explained in English. Documentation cannot replace source. And source cannot replace documentation. Even with extraordinary documentation on a program, there is still lots you can learn from the programs's source. 5) "Why would it be placed in the ROM hacking community if it wasn't used for understanding of ROM hacking?" There's more to the ROM hacking community than ROM hacking (remember we're using your super-strict definition of ROM hacking here). Me, for example. I hang out on these ROM hacking boards and read these ROM hacking threads -- but I don't ROM hack. People like me -- or people elsewhere on the internet (not in the ROM hacking community) will gain from the source of a ROM editing utility. 6) What work are you talking about? The work of discovering the data? Or the work of writing an editor? The former is defeated by documentation, according to you. And the latter is false as I previously pointed out with my NES emu example. 7) I don't see any comments. Commented source can be far more informative. ;P But I'm just babbling on this point. My point ... which I've stated close to a billion times now... is that program source and documentation serve two completely different functions to the people that use them... and comparing them to see which one is more important is fundamentally flawed. They both have their uses (and their abuses). Well judging from your arbitrary numbers you call a score, you're not the kind of person that would have much use for a program's source. However, there are people that would. Just because you apparently don't know how to use this paticular tool doesn't mean it's useless. I don't know how to use a mellonballer, but I'm sure it can be a very useful tool in the hands of someone that knows how to use it. I'm not going to demand stores stop selling them. Why rob those people of something they have a great use for.
I still see no downside. And the documentation does not replace the source's function. |
|||
Xkeeper Took the board down in a blaze of glory, only to reveal how truly moronical ||bass is. Since: 11-17-05 From: Henderson, Nevada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
*Xkeeper pops in the thread to tell you that the pointless debating in this thread will be ending in about 20 hours from now.
P.S. BGNG: If you don't like releasing the sauce to your programs, don't. Don't go on a crusade trying to get everyone else to stop doing it too. No one likes Jahovia's Witnesses, and you're acting just like them.* *JWs are infamous for acting like door-to-door salesmen, trying to convert you to the religion |
|||
Techokami Porcupo Since: 12-03-05 From: Mass-uh-chew-sits USofA Last post: 6311 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Closed source is just plain wrong when making hacking tools. Case in point: if you don't use Windows, you can't hack ROMs. That's completely unfair. I'm lucky to have Tile Molester, which runs on Java.
What I'm saying is, if the source code is released, then people can port it around in a manner that the original creator couldn't do/wasn't assed enough to consider. |
|||
Guy Perfect Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DischYou just shot yourself in the foot. I give you a reasonable example to support my statement and you ignore it because it's not what you wanted to hear. It's obvious you aren't the least bit interested in understanding why I feel the way I feel and you will, as you have been doing, simply post things that say "I disagree, BGNG. Try harder" without any real reason other than the fact you disagree. Originally posted by DischLooking back at the previous posts of the thread, I'm reminded of this one. Turns out it was you who said that. Same thing as above, you took a statement of mine and said "I disagree, therefore you are wrong." If you were hoping to retain any bit of credibility, Disch, you shattered your dreams into tiny ilttle shards. Originally posted by XkeeperI'll keep that in mind if I ever get the idea to do so. The purpose of this thread was to exp Speaking of which... If you're gonna moderate, you might as well go back and delete that "BWAHAHA" post as well as the "OMG IT'S LONG POST DEBATE TIEM" one before locking the thread or moving it to The Pit of Dispair. I'm fairly certain spam and flaming aren't allowed. I will make no further replies to this thread. If anyone wishes to speak with me on the subject, use a PM. |
|||
Disch Red Cheep-cheep Since: 12-10-05 Last post: 6576 days Last view: 6576 days |
| ||
Originally posted by BGNG Like you've been doing with EVERY ONE OF MY POINTS IN THIS THREAD? But yes. I'll concede that my former point 7 was incorrect... I got carried away. You're right on this one. But then again I've been saying from the very beginning that there's different kinds of information you get from the source than you get from the documentation and you can't compare a source's function to documentation's function. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that or rephrase it before it sinks in with you. Because I've mentioned it at least 3 times in every post since I began this debate and every time it's as though you didn't read it. -- EDIT--- To further clarify what I meant by my remark about it not being commented: Properly commented source is far more informative. The example you gave was not commented. I didn't shoot myself in the foot here, the example you gave was of unclear source. That doesn't mean all source is unclear. You would brand all source code in the world as useless simply because some of it is unclear? I could probably dig up some unclear documentation and show it to you.. but that would hardly be a good example of why source is more informative (if that were even the point I was trying to make). By pointing out that the source wasn't commented, I was not brushing off your example with a "I disagree, BGNG. Try harder"... but rather more of a "that's not an example that shows the full potential of a program's source -- but rather an example of the bare minimum you can get from source". -- END EDIT--
Are you kidding? You're describing yourself here. I'm saying "give me an example of why you think this will happen". I've been giving multiple examples to back up my points in all my posts. You make outlandish claims like "people will steal your code for evil". I say "give me examples". I get none. You say "there's nothing to gain from having source if there's sufficient documentation". I've given examples of myself learning from existing NES emu source, additions to NES emulators, the concept of learning by example, code examples, optimization tricks... several real world examples which support my point. All go ignored. You say no one will duplicate a program if its source is available. You give no supporting evidence. I point out that this statement is 100% false, and give examples to support, such as the several SMB3 editors (despite more than one of them being open source), graphic editors, and NES emus. My examples go ignored. You say having a program's source will prevent people from hacking a ROM because they will already know how it works. I point out that this is a double-standard, since the whole point of documentation is to explain how it works... yet you advocate documentation and condemn source. I get no response. You say people can steal source and claim it as their own. I point out that it's just as likely (and even far easier) for them to steal documentation. You ignore. What's worse is you're encouraging people to withhold information, rather than share it. Something that is CLEARLY detrimental to a community which is built off the free exchange of information. Your logic for saying it's a benefit makes no sense. You provide no evidence to support your crackpot theories. To sum up what this has been like for me, I'm going to do a mockup debate. The 'BG' in this debate is an exaggerated you: BG - releasing source is a bad idea me - I find it to be a good idea. Other people can gain information from the source, and it's not harmful to anyone. Why do you think it's a bad idea. BG - releasing source gives you the mark of the devil me - why? BG - all the people that release the source are evil. only people that release documentation are good. me - I know several good people who have released source: example, example, example. And have also known some bad people that have released documentation: example, example, example. How can you honestly pass off the above as fact when it's clearly false? BG - YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN DEBATING WITH ME! I'M LEAVING. Looking back on it now. I can't believe how much of my life I've wasted on this one. Originally posted by Disch No, I laughed at a statement I found to be funny. I made that post after I literally laughed really hard in real life. This was also before I decided to take up this debate.
Judging from your logic in this thread... not having any credibility in your book doesn't seem like such a terrible thing to me.
Have it your way. I will continue to watch this thread in case you change your mind and want to bring some facts in to support your points... or want to address the points I've been making. I refuse to move a debate into PM. There's no point to it. If you want to debate, what's the difference between doing it here or doing it in PM? The only difference is that other people don't get to read it (less information available for them -- which I guess is what you're all about). (edited by Disch on 02-01-06 05:14 PM) (edited by Disch on 02-01-06 05:15 PM) (edited by Disch on 02-01-06 05:19 PM) (edited by Disch on 02-01-06 05:20 PM) |
|||
DahrkDaiz Nipper Plant U wan hax Mario?! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Documentation serves as a manual
Source serves as an example Some people learn best by knowing why, others learn best by seeing it in action. A combination of documentation and open source is prime in my opinion. But open source is not deterimental to ROM hacking by anymeans. That's like saying having the blue prints to a car makes it uninteresting to build one of your own from scratch. Source is just a model to go by and I see no problem in having it out in the, er, open. Oh yes, people do not ROM hack simply to "discover" how a game works. Discovering how a game works is necessary to edit it and create a ROM hack. Source would do nothing but speed up the process of creating a ROM hack in general. (edited by DahrkDaiz on 02-01-06 02:14 PM) |
|||
Xkeeper Took the board down in a blaze of glory, only to reveal how truly moronical ||bass is. Since: 11-17-05 From: Henderson, Nevada Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Originally posted by BGNGIt was about 4 AM, I was tired, I went to bed. I'll clean up the thread now (including the pointless reply right before this) |
|||
Parasyte + Red Paragoomba Since: 01-05-06 Last post: 6618 days Last view: 6618 days |
| ||
Originally posted by sp I agree wholeheartedly with nearly everything stated by sp. The biggots here who insist that resisting sharing within the community is 'better for everyone' are one of the main factors that made me give up with ROM hacking. The second issue is that there is so little support for free software by the community. To that end, I would rather contribute nothing than some indecisive 'in-between' in order to protect a false sense of 'secret knowledge'. |
Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - ROM Hacking - The Open-Source Exception | | |