JShowEQ

[JShowEQ]

Ive been posting this around and am looking for
feedback on this.

My associates and I have targetted this as an
application that people seem to have an interest in,
so much to the point they are willing to purchase a
good copy of it.

The linux version is ok, quite a nice hack job. We
are trying to get a feel for who would be interested
in a Java Version, either indedepent, or run via a
browser.

There are a couple of obstacles we've encountered,
first being the source for libEQ.a, but some
resourceful solutions have been found for that. We
plan on letting the guru's here keep up their good
work on the libEQ.a, that seems to be the majority of
the work. We simply interface to the library through
a gateway we've written. We figure we can host
several gateway machines that your box can connect.
This way, a linux, mac and even windows version can be
easily implemented. A leaner version is being worked
on by disassembling the libEQ.a file, but our initial
test shows that a server is capable of handing several
thousand connections at a time to the libEQ.a library.

With that little brief. We are trying to estimate the
volume of people who would be intersted in purchasing
a subscription to a JShowEQ product. Our pricing
model would probably be a monthy recurring fee of
maybe $5, depending on the response. The recurring
fee would be necessary because as past test have
shown, once an easily viable solution is out there for
the EQ users, VI tends to change their coding
structure. This means more work for the guys who are
doing the libEQ.a file and a little work for us to
modify our gateway to interface with their library.
We could probably expect changes several times a week
from VI.

Let's hear your feedback on this.

Cheers

[Azerael]

Sorry, I hate to say it, but I think this is a Very Bad Thing (tm).

As soon as VI sees someone providing a pay for service that allows folks to see whats happening around them the way SEQ functions, they will unleash their wrath.

As it stands now, a fairly small, select community is cabable of using SEQ simply for the fact that they have both the additonal hardware and the technical savvy or dedication to get it set up. By opening the floodgates to the masses to be able to make use of this for 'a small fee' you give VI every reason to take further steps to ensure that it never happens again.

This debate came up in the past over Win versions of SEQ IIRC, and I don't see them changing.

I sincerly wish you luck in your endeavors, but am equally sincere in my hopes that your proposal never sees the light of day so that the usefullness of this application remains.

--Azerael--

[high_jeeves]

/Sigh

Not this again.

1) If you charge for it, you are legally liable... Sony has lots of lawyers, I am guessing you have none... they might not be able to actually get you on anything, but they can certainly waste a lot of time and your money.

2) Whenever a larger scale version of ShowEQ has been available (Windows in particular), Verant has started rotating encryption frequently (read every 1-3 days). If you release the project you are talking about, you will render ShowEQ (and your product) useless. Since you have charged people (for a now useless) product, you would need to deal with refunding your pissed customers.

3) LibEQ.a is not open source! You would either have to get permission from the author to use it (which I really dont think will happen), or write your own from scratch.

Please, for the sake of yourselves, and the whole community, please leave it alone. Feel free to add stuff to ShowEQ, the community welcomes all capable developers who have the time to add to the project. But for the best of all involved, leave it Linux, leave it "not so easy" to install.

Thanks,
Jeeves

[a_corpse00]

Originally posted by JShowEQ
We are trying to get a feel for who would be interested in a Java Version, either indedepent, or run via a browser.

Ha! Java.

[|nero|]

I hope you die.

- |nero| -

[S_B_R]

I have to Totally agree with the other respondents this is an exceptionally BAD idea.

I also it seems to me that you don't understand how ShowEQ actually works. It's a packet sniffer I don't see how you could possibly make a central server for it. unless you had you "customers" log into everquest through your "gateway"... I that case Verant would quickly do 1 of 2 things:
1) Block all your IP addresses so that no one could connect from your "gateway"
2) Ban every account that logs in from your "gateway"...

[JShowEQ]

I expected a lot of dissent here. The other boards seem to be pretty positive.

Anyhow, to answer a few of the questions. The people would be paying for access to the libEQ server, not for ShowEQ. libEQ is not open source but its a library residing on a server. The gateway which we've already tested is simply a bridge between sockets.

The alpha version we have running right now is simply a java app using the pcap library to sniff the packets. Since no one had the libEQ source, instead of making calls the the libEQ library, we wrote a wrapper libSockEQ.a. Identical function calls and return values as libEQ(supposing we didn't miss any). libSockEQ passes the info via sockets to the socket server, which then passes it to the actual libEQ file. It pretty simple in actuality. Initially we though performance might be an issue, but that hasn't been the case so far. I'm guessing we'll eventually reach a threshold of users that can only hit that file at once(if the writers of it could multi-thread the calls, we would love that).

No graphic interface right now, just spits out some basic information and isn't much more then an advanced tracker right now, but the simplicity of setup is unbelievable.


In short, no one plays from a central server. The client runs on your second machine just like ShowEQ for linux, but the calls for libEQ go out to a server hosting the libEQ file. VI can't trace, no one gets caught unless they are stupid.

[RavenCT]

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Do you want to see the end of SEQ as everyone knows it?

Deal with the Linux, there's enough help for it around.

Veriant leaves it alone cause it's Linux and only a small percentage use it.

If you REALLY want to use SEQ, then learn how to get it installed.

:mad:



If you and your friends want to develop a Java/Windows/Mac version, keep it to yourself! Not that I'm discouraging Open Source, I would rather see SEQ remain alive! I can't imagine going back to EQ now without it!

[Ratt]

I can't see how a network version of libEQ would even be marginally functional over the internet. Your latency would make it virtually useless.

Regardless, you are not authorized to use libEQ for this purpose. If something like this were to debut, the next time a change to libEQ is required, none would be released publically.

And no matter what I say here, the fact of the matter is, Sony will stomp you into a little pile of goo and blood if you try to charge for anything EQ. I'm not talking about legalities here, I'm talking about legal harassment tactics. If you think your pocketbook can fend off a multinational electronics corporation that has ties in ever industry in the world... hey, kick it into high gear, the show will be almost as good as the AOL/Time Warner vs Microsoft thing that's brewing.

[casey]

I think i'll chime in here too.

in addition to the idea being exceptionally bad, as others have pointed out here, you seem to be making some pretty mig assumptions.

What bothers me, is that you in your 2 posts in this thread are making requests of us, the developers. You've asked us to re-write our libeq calls to be multi-threaded, and you expect us to keep up with the daily encryption changes this will cause.

All the while you would be collecting your $5 for the hard work of modifying your gateway to work with an interface that hasnt changed. Thats imho is a great pile of bs.

Under the GPL you have a legal right to package showeq and sell it for a price compensating you for the packaging. But, libEQ.a is not part of ShowEQ. LibEQ is a closed source non-GPL library, and you expessly are forbidden the right to sell a service based around it.

so your idea is not only bad, but it happens to infringe on some rights making you liable to lawsuit by the libEQ copyright holder(s), as well as the legal mess you stir up with verant.

[fee]

The linux version is ok, quite a nice hack job.

fuck you, buddy!

[fryfrog]

nothing that i can really add to this... but if you do go through with it you will be... oh, everyone said that already. oh, and you will have to refund the $5... oh, they said that already too. humm, lets see. i really can't add anything except to say that it IS a bad idea.

why the FUCK would someone PAY $5 to run YOUR client on a 2nd computer when they can get the real thing for free??? i'm i just smoking crack or is that just odd? of course, i guess you could make it work on windows... which would be winseq basically and cause all the above greif. you sound like someone who thinks they have come up with something really cool, but have failed to fully think it through.

[LordCrush]

Leave SEQ alone !

It is a great project - and nobody shall try to make profit out of it.
Everything to respond to you is said above!!


Thnx to the dev-team !

Regards

- Lord Crush

[NoLiving]

I'm going to have to go with Fee on all counts.

Speaking of hack jobs, who's claiming he's making a wrapper for a library he knows nothing about, to work over the internet, to try and provide something close to real time packet decoding?
There's always some queer seeing how many 5$ bills he can steal from people before they catch on.

[Zeppo]

Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad

No
No
No
No
No
No
No

STFU and go away.

[yyz]

Aside from what's already been mentioned, you'd also be opening yourself up to class action lawsuits.

I doubt any one would use this unless it was "guaranteed" to work since most people currently using seq are fairly self sufficient with a non guaranteed version.

In your "guarantee", you'd have to provide support for firewalls, private IP space...

*Subscriberonphone: I don't seem to be able to see anything on your program that I'm locked into a recurring charge on.

*Techsupport: What's your IP address? I'll ping you.

*Subscriberonphone: 192.168.1.40

Then there's security issues. If you can see that I'm doing "a" on my computer, what about "b". (You're not paranoid if they're really after you)
What if "b" turns out to be someone cracking "you?" Now you're server is down and you have to deal with subcribers again.

Just for grins, lets say you actually manage to dodge the lawyers from Sony and the users long enough to actually decode a packet.
Your target audience is going to be minuscule at best. All in all it looks like a very poor business idea considering the risk vs reward. Sounds like you're trying to make a quick buck off something you have no control over.

Then again, maybe you're just a troll.

[Pigeon]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I have never seen a reasonably processor intensive java app that did not run like, well, a pile of dried cement. I'm having issues with SEQ overrunning my CPU, and it's written in C for god's sake. Seriously- Java is ridiculous. It's a beautifully elegent programming language, but Communism is a beautifully elegent system of government. They're both very pretty, and both accomplish nothing.

Oh, and by the way, take your JShowEQ and shove it up your ass.

-Pigeon

[high_jeeves]

Slightly OT here, but a decent Java programmer can make Java 90% as fast as C quite easily. I develop extensivly in both languages, and they both have their high and low points.

You want to do hardcore number crunching and or low level device access, C is your language 100% of the time. You want to do GUI apps, web apps, or many flavors of server apps?

Java is an excellent choice because of ease of development and portability. Speed really hasnt been a significant issue for a decent Java programmer since v1.1.8.

At my previous job, we developed an app, initially in C to sit on an NT Web server (we were a startup, and couldnt afford real hardware). When we could finally afford real hardware, we began on the port job to get it working on Linux and Solaris. This became a big enough issue (since some of our customers still wanted to run on NT) that we decided to move forward on our next version in Java. Our app was just as fast (actually, about 5% slower on equivalent hardware, mostly because we could not use a JIT VM with the application server we were using), could run on all three platforms with NO changes, and was much easier to maintain.

All the terrible "speed" issue that came out about java 5 years ago really arent very relavent anymore, with the exception of any extremely processor intensive computations. I would hate to see a Java version of SETI for example, but a Java version of ShowEQ is technically feasible (although a FUCKING TERRIBLE IDEA!)

[Mongo222]

This is quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard of.... in an "Office Space" "Jump to Conclusions Mat" kind of fashion.

Perhaps you could just save the time and effort and send all your computer equipment to sony, and report to your local jail.

[S_B_R]

Originally posted by high_jeeves
Slightly OT here, but a decent Java programmer can make Java 90% as fast as C quite easily.

<RANT>
Then there are a lot of really crappy Java coders out there. Which isn't Java's fault I guess but it sure hurts Java's reputation. I think Java has it's place when you are looking for Portability. But when there is no chance than an application will ever be needed to run on a different platform it should be written in C.... But I guess it doesn't Matter as long as Java has "buzz word" status. The Big wigs that make the $$$ decisions we use it anyway. You know the some Big wigs that will lay off hundreds of employees, while still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on The next new box from Sun or HP. When a couple Dell workstations running Linux (or even NT) could do just as well if not better...
</RANT>

Sorry about that.... :D

[Pigeon]

Originally posted by high_jeeves
a decent Java programmer can make Java 90% as fast as C quite easily.

*cough* While I'm not familiar with very many java apps, all the java apps I've ever used run like ass. All I've ever used btw was Forte, a log parser for the CS server I used to run, and Hotjava... (I think that's what it's called- the java based web browser) All of these ran absolutely terribly...

And maybe a Java based SETI would be useful, considering all the problems they had (don't know if this is still the case) with having too many users and not enough data....

[Cthon]

Java has real advantages over C and C++ aside from portability. It is far truer to the OO paradigm than C++. It has a much lower tendency toward obfuscated code than either language. Language lawyering is at a minumum when compared with either C or C++. Well written Java is easier to maintain than well written C++.

C and C++ are definitely faster, but Java is fast enough for most everything. We have an equity trading system written in Java (in use on a large institutional trading floor at a major broker) and it runs fine. For those who don't know, slow trading systems can cost a firm big bucks. Java is (with good coding practices) fast enough for almost any application. Java is poor for intense numeric calculations, but only the decryption library is likely to be doing any of that.

[crazdefool]

Take a HIKE DUDE

I smell a scammer.. It would be very easy to grab everyones passwords (if they had it running when logging in)

Fuk off man!
:o :o :D

[high_jeeves]

Originally posted by Pigeon


*cough* While I'm not familiar with very many java apps, all the java apps I've ever used run like ass. All I've ever used btw was Forte, a log parser for the CS server I used to run, and Hotjava... (I think that's what it's called- the java based web browser) All of these ran absolutely terribly...


I use forte every day, and it actually runs quite well, which JDK are you using with it. I even run it on a Dual PPro 200 occasionally and it runs fine (although, as with all things Java, 256-512MB RAM is required). As for Hotjava, it was last released on version 1.1.6 of the JDK in about 1999... I'm suprised you even found somewhere that still has it! For most everyday stuff, it is sufficiently fast.

To save myself some flaming from those that dont read the whole thread: I AM NOT ENDORSING JSHOWEQ, simply the Java language.... I DISAGREE WITH JSHOWEQ COMPLETELY

--Jeeves

[guice]

Okay, back on topic ;)

/cheer Nero. :D

[eloi]

Originally posted by JShowEQ
Ive been posting this around and am looking for
feedback on this.

a gateway we've written. We figure we can host
several gateway machines that your box can connect.
This way, a linux, mac and even windows version can be
easily implemented. A leaner version is being worked
on by disassembling the libEQ.a file, but our initial



So you'll have access to all the packets used by EQ (or anything else) from the machine your program is running on.

Shouldn't you be paying them for that?

Desperate for logins?

[winseq]

It's likely that Sony would attempt legal recourse against anybody selling anything resembling ShowEQ. Since you claim JShowEQ would be subscriber based this means you'd have to keep track of who was paying for it. This list would definately be subpoenaed in such legal proceedings. It wouldn't matter if you won or lost even if you could overcome the technical challenges. (Considering your musings related to this, it seems unlikely.)

Ultimately, a subscriber based system utilizing ShowEQ style software is likely to be subject to problems similiar to those which Napster has gone and is going through.

[Cthon]

I forgot to point out that

1) Writing this is a really bad idea
2) Selling it is a worse idea
3) Buying it would be the worst possible thing you could do

[Monchichi]

Fuck you buddy! Take your idea and shove it up your ass!

[Tyrvidarus]

The day when there are about 1000 posts from people on the hackersquest boards complaining about being banned after the user database for JavaSEQ is subpeonaed by Verant while they sue for using an unlicenced product to make money off their property.

Ah the chuckles to be had.

[S_B_R]

Originally posted by Tyrvidarus
The day when there are about 1000 posts from people on the hackersquest boards complaining about being banned after the user database for JavaSEQ is subpeonaed by Verant while they sue for using an unlicenced product to make money off their property.

Ah the chuckles to be had.

LOL, yeah maybe that could be a bright side to this idea... At least it would get rid of all 1337 d00dz that use^H^H^HAbuse ShowEQ. :D

[guice]

Originally posted by S_B_R


LOL, yeah maybe that could be a bright side to this idea... At least it would get rid of all 1337 d00dz that use^H^H^HAbuse ShowEQ. :D

Wow, I didn't know there was a lighter side to this. I'm looking forward to it! :cool:

[TriggerHappy]

This seems about a good a troll/bait post as I have ever seen.

Hook, line, sinker.

[sandking]

long time listener, first time caller *coughs* oh wait a sec...

but seriously, been reading these boards for a while, but this is such a bad idea that I actually made an account so I could reply to this lameass thread...

Someone have the penguin take this guy out... I mean really, when will people learn (ok, we know they won't) that easy = mass quantities = fucks everything up. Anyone remember AOHell and all the other click n' card programs? Carded accounts and AOL warez was popular, but when these programs came out, any half-wit with a computer probably had a carded AOL account. AOL didn't like this and completely redid their authorization process on both credit cards and checking accounts. Another example is Diablo. At first, hacking the game was small and only a few people could do it, no big deal, it's expected. But when any half-wit (ok, less than half required for THIS one) was able to run the hacks, the game got destroyed. I remember sitting in town and having huge fights with firewalls being thrown everywhere. It got to the point that if you wanted to play online, you HAD to run these hacks in order to even survive a dungeon due to everyone running them and thinking they were the only PKers out there. If SEQ became publicly available to the masses, a similar thing would happen. You would HAVE to run it in order to find and kill something that was even slightly contested.

The basic principal is this... if only a few people maintain the upper hand, not much is said or done to stop it. A certain percentage is usually expected even to maintain the upper hand. But when the majority (i'd estimate 75%+) had the upper hand, the upper hand becomes the norm, and what was previously considered the norm, becomes the lesser. You then have to achieve the new norm (the former upper hand) in order to survive at all. People don't learn though. That could be good though... in some senses I'd almost like to see this guy try it, just to read about having to work 20 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the rest of his life in order to pay off what he would owe...

Ok, done talking to myself now ;)

[Loper]

The java idea rocks.

Paying for it, however, doesn't, for the reasons posted in this thread.

my $.02 ;)

[se7en]

I agree wholeheartedly, this is a BAD idea, it will be the end of showeq for ANYONE who has managed to get it set up for themselves...

/plead leave it alone:mad:

[Xalpus]

hmm am i the only one that smelled a troll when they read this guys message..

[SeqTester]

Nice Poll, I winder who the 1 that said yes was?
You shouldn't be able to Vote on your own Polls.

[TriggerHappy]

Xalpus,

No... note that above I thought this was a troll as well.

It was of EVIL design too...

But bottom line-- like all the other ShowEQ wannabees they claim great things and how they will unleash this and that upon the world...

And then their mommies send them to their room for not taking out the garbage.

[SeqTester]

Well hopefully his Mommy plays EQ also and he gets grounded from his CPU for even thinking about doing this.

[Jord]

A few points here:

1. If you charge for it, you are asking for trouble. As others have posted, ShowEQ has survived mainly because it is "below the radar". If you charge for it and make a profit, expect the lawyers to come and take you away.

2. However, a Java version of ShowEQ would be a great project. I would love to be able to run it on my Mac notebook as opposed to my very old pentium notebook.

3. Those who think Java is slow have not been paying attention. I code in Java on a daily basis and can tell you I can easily approach the speed of well written C/C++. Note I said well written as the language does not protect you from bad code. Not going to flame this point, but Java is FAR from slow.

[PawnOrc]

I think I must be confused here ...

Is this thing real or just a troll of some type? Some observations:

The author does not seem to know what some common terms of art mean ("hack" as the most obvious).

He (it, whatever) does not seem to know that the lib file is an absolute essential part and represents the real "work" of SEQ.

He does not seem to understand even the most basic large scale problem of "computing" with Java over a network.

I don't think this is real. I think this is someone bent because they can't get the lib source. Most likely someone who is mad because they could not SEQ the day SoL came out. They may be able to "hack" a line of c or dink around with a shell script but I can not see them up to a major task as they propose. - if they were why wouldn't they make their own lib code?

This is crap. I am not confused. They are fake.


People like this make me think keeping lib private is a good idea. Never thought I would say that...

[Joshi]

Bad!!

Joshi

[maco2580]

I am betting this guy is just bored and blowing smoke up our ass! Anyone with the intelligence to create such a thing would know NOBODY would pay for it, when they can get it for free! What kind of dumbass is this? Isnt it bad enough there are people on EBay selling SEQ boxes preloaded? I may not be the smartest person here on anything SEQ related, but I KNOW this is a very bad thing that would only lead to alot of heart ache!

[traveller888]

Threat assessment.

1) Ascertain the threat value – what damage can be done.
2) Ascertain the threat size – how large is this group.
3) Ascertain the threat growth rate – how fast can this group grow.

Threat assessment today is a science it initially came from the military but any large organization today assesses threats.

SEQ is a threat to EQ –
If too many people start using it then some people who don’t or can't use it will leave when they see they are disadvantaged. EQ lost revenue.
If too many people start using it and they are all banned then again they loose revenue.

Threat Management
A threat is managed by limiting items 1, 2 or 3.
There are many methods of limiting threats.
Have any of you ever wondered why they don’t cycle the encryption algorithm every release? It could be done and I am sure it would not be hard.

The reason is simple its items 2 and 3. This threat is limited to a small group of people and it’s unlikely to grow as most of their target market is not UNIX savvy and could not get it working.

A windows or Java version that can run on many other platforms now this immediately blows items 2 and 3. You can immediately expect that the encryption will be changed to defeat the new system (and the current users of SEQ)

Another form of threat management is to direct threats into areas where they do less damage or can be caught.
SEQ is perfect it takes the technical savvy people away from trying to hack there system and gives them a place to play with limited damage. If SEQ on Unix did not exist it would not surprise me to find Verant releasing one.

I use SEQ not to cheat but to map I like it and don’t want to loose it. Please don’t try to make a JAVA one, windows one or anything else.
If you are interested - its open source improve it.

[Jord]

My only wish/desire for a java version is simple. I want to run it on my G4 notebook. That's it, that is all I want.

I am currently running it on a P1 133Mhz notebook, and while it works, I am really limited by the 800x600 screen, memory, etc.

I am a Java developer by trade and have not touched C/C++ in years. Not to mention the fact that the entire gui would have to be recoded for the Cocoa APIs plus the possible issues with the eqLib.a file.

Perhaps it will eventually bug me enough that I will work on a OS X version, or at least a LinuxPPC version (which would probably only require some work with the libEQ.a file from what I have seen on the boards).

[RSB]

Actually in regards to

Isnt it bad enough there are people on EBay selling SEQ boxes preloaded?

that is completely within the spirit of GPL. Where you can package the product, put in some value add, and charge an
appropriate amount for this work.

No different they paying $15 for Mandrake CDs really.
I wouldn't buy a box but it is what Linux is about as long
as they are not doing a rip off scheme.

RSB

[Cryonic]

But are they allowed to do that with a fully working version of SEQ? The libEQ.a library is not released under the GPL, so I would think that they would really only have the right to sell computers with SEQ compiled WITHOUT decryption support.

[Mackinnon]

Cant say it enough...

No No... Please.. No!

Find some other sca.. erhm... "project"

and leave ShowEQ alone..

Read the points above.... Every one of them is true.. you'll be in for a heck of a legal fight... and no.. you won't win.

-Mackinnon