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.





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.