Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code

[Guest]

Well my bum is on your lips.

Hi Daniel,


Not that I ever denied that, I just absolutly hate that method of
advertising and that is what I percieved it to be. That isn't what the
newsgroup was intended for. If by any chance it wasn't a sales push then as
mr "Vortex" is a possible client or end user of JungleCreatures /
Decompiler.NET, they should conduct their chit chat elsewhere. This isn't a
forum for JungleCreatues to offer support on their products is it?


Yup, my comments can be *very* inappropriate at times, but I am not
leaving this newsgroup, I've been here long enough now and respect many of
the hard working participants. Just because I am not an MVP, or CJ or
Brian, that is the only reason you are making this statement, which
personally I believe to be unfair. But expected from an MVP, no offence but
sometimes they can get a little too authorative, the status doesnt come with
a uniform does it?

Believe it or not, I am a regular of this group and do not always get
irate by this kind of thing, but sometimes I do. If *you* don't like what
you read, put it in your "block list".


Oh well, pots and kettles, but you are not the referee, so there is no
need to start blowing your whistle.

At the moment "mate" *I* don't even make products I care for, it's been
one of those days!

Nick.

 

[CJ Taylor]

(the m...f... who entered my system

got it) >

hmmm.........

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

I understand that you find the product useful and fully appreciate it.and
are not complaining about anything.

We are just discussing here whether or not you understand that the local
variable names are present in the compiled dll or not.

Go ahead and compile this simple code intoa dll nd post the output from your
magic bixtext.exe program.

public class TestLocalVariables

{
public void Method1 ()

{
int theIntLocalVariable = 0;
bool theBoolLocalVariable = false;
object theObjectLocalVariable = null;
}
}

Now, if what you claim is true, we should see these symbols in your
bixtext.exe output that you ran on the dll.
theIntLocalVariable
theBoolLocalVariable
theObjectLocalVariable

-Jonathan

 

[Nak]

Indeed.

hmmm.........

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

With the exception of microsoft products, I never purchase software that
ties me to a specific machine considering 1) I use removeable hard disks in
the same machine, 2) I frequently update internal components (video cards,
sound card, network card, new scanner, different digital camera, replacing
PCI modem with a USB model, etc.) such that my machine very quickly appears
to be a new machine, 3) I am a huge fan of Virtual PC/VMWare and like to
install my software into guest OS's, 4) Every 6 months or so I get a new PC,
and 5) I just don't trust software where the company could dissappear in a
year or two and leave dry in the dust.

Shawn,

Our hardware check, similar to Microsoft, is not dependant on these
minor hardware changed. If a customer does occasionally replace their
motherboard or needs to move to a new machine, we will reissue
licenses that expire on the old machine. Hardware checks are to only
way that we can avoid sharing of the application by multiple users. If
you are replacing your machine soon, you should wait before purchasing
our products.

I have the ability to create my own from scratch that often work better and
have better features and are tailored specifically for my own needs.

This took me over two years to write. Feel free to write your own if
you like. I am looking forward to the next third party review
comparing our products. Not only does the code we produce run
correctly, but it is higher level that what other tools produce since
we have spent more time on our optimizer.

fortunately there is Reflector which is free and has never let me down.

You can thank me for that as well since I've been helping Lutz by
sending code generation bugs in Reflector, and snippets to reproduce
the issues, as well as testing some of his releases before he makes
them public. At least the last 10 bugs he fixed were reported to him
by me.

I

therefore don't have the need to dump $500 and be tied to a machine

As I said, it can be moved, but not shared with other people at the
same time.

I'm a home user, this is not for my employment so I'm ever more
cautious when it comes to my own money. And yes, I *do* pay for all my
software, which is why I care so much.

Your time is also valuable. We also including new features like
automatic refactoring that noone else provides and a built in
obfuscator that Reflector does not have. If Reflector wasn't free,
you'd probably be glad that our product was available to you at a cost
well below what would justify it's development cost.

Nonetheless, I have no doubts that its a fine product. Just one that I'll
never review or purchase.

You should try it out before you judge it. The latest release has an
early look at a browser interface feature we will be fully supporting
soon that is similar to what Reflector offers.

Jonathan

 

[Shawn B.]

Again, I didn't judge your product.

I can respect that you don't want multiple people using a single license,
I'm a home user and so there never would be more than one people on my
licenses, even though I have multiple machines, and multiple primary
harddisks for each machine (removables).

Nonetheless, regardless of whether a license can be reissued, I still still
see it as tying to a specific machine. What happens if you go out of
business in 2 years? Then how do I get license reissued? I can understand
you're perspective, that your sales are strong, you've been around,
whatever. That doesn't change the fact that nothing guarantees you'll be in
business in 2 years or that anyone will buy you out to keep the product
going, or that if I choose not to upgrade after you put out multiple major
releases, you'll even consider "reissuing" another key for an "unsported"
product. I've been burned in the past, I'm very selective now.

Besides, I didn't say I'd write my own decompiler, I just said if it was
that important I could, I'm more than capable, its just not a priority and
since I don't decompile non System.* assemblies, the price is not
justifyable.

My choice not to purchase software that ties me down (regardless if I can
call you up and get another license -- just the very thing I feel I
shouldn't have to do if I purchase it) is a general rule of thumb and is not
personal. I stopped using Norton AV for the same reason, I also opted not
to update my Photoshop 7 to CS for the same reason. Its not because I'm a a
thief or whatever else people want to think, its because I dissagree with
the "feeling" of such treatment. I feel that if I purchase it, I shouldn't
have to be dependant on the vendor to continue using the software, and
regardless if a key can be moved to another machine, there isn't a guarantee
that vendor will always support the key or keep on "reissuing" or will be in
businees for as long as I might need to use the software. I dissagree with
the MS product activation, also, but I have no choice so I'm okay with it.
I have no choice because my income depends on writing software for their
platform, so switching to an alternate OS won't return the investement. My
MSDN Universal suits me just fine.

So, once again, I'm not "judging" your product. I'm just stating a fact.
The fact is, *any* non MS product that has such tight licensing will not get
my money. There are exceptions: for example, Rational software allows you
to use a "floating" license. Therefore it guarantees only the number of
licenses purchase can be similtaneously active, on any machine in the
network (I run a home network where I test my distributed applications).
There is also libronix, which uses activation, but they allow you to back up
the key so I can use it as much as I want without their "blessing". Except
each book that I activate is tied to that key so books can't be shared. If
my books or key end up on the Internet they know who the culprit is. I'm
fine with that. I'm not fine with being actively dependant on a vendor in
order to keep using the software despite all of my requirements.

You have your right to license in this manner. So be it. I have my right
to not purchase *any* product that does so, no matter how good it is. I'm
fully licensed for Adobe Photoshop, but I'll switch to GiMP before I'll
upgrade and be locked down. Same with Norton AV, I just happen to dissagree
with that kind of licensing. It does nothing to keep prices low or make an
honest user "feel" honest and makes me have to always justify myself whever
I get a new PC or upgrade multiple components of it or whatever.

Thanks,
Shawn

 

[Rick]

You can thank me for that as well since I've been helping Lutz by

sending code generation bugs in Reflector, and snippets to reproduce
the issues, as well as testing some of his releases before he makes
them public. At least the last 10 bugs he fixed were reported to him
by me.

Thank you.

Reflector rocks!

Is it possible to load your obfuscator into Reflector and render the output
with Reflector?

 

[Rick]

You should try it out before you judge it. The latest release has an

early look at a browser interface feature we will be fully supporting
soon that is similar to what Reflector offers.

What is the point of doing that?

You will spend a lot of time cloning this functionality and the original
Reflector is just so much nice. You can just make your obfuscator tool a
plug-in?

Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool which
free?

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

Your Reflector tool will cost $500 compared to the real Reflector tool
which free?

Our customers prefer the decompilation capability offered by the real
Decompiler.NET.

Our product has many other capabilities that Reflector doesn't include, and
we have many more planned. Some of our customers have requested an ability
to browse assemblies simiilar to the way the class browser in Visual Studio
and other decompiler tools like Reflector allow. The prmary value in our
Decompiler is it'c core decompilation capability that produces higher level
and more accurate code that Reflector, so we would also have to add our
decompiler to it, and all of our other features like our refactoring tools,
and wouldn't be retaining much from it's original value aside from it's user
interface and plugin architecture. We prefer to continue to sell our
products as standalone tools and soon integrated into Visual Studio when
2005 ships.

Jonathan

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

see it as tying to a specific machine. What happens if you go out of
business in 2 years?

That won't happen. We're also only charging $500, not 5 million. There is as
much of a risk that you may get hit by a bus tomorrow and won't need the
software anymore.

Besides, I didn't say I'd write my own decompiler, I just said if it was
that important I could, I'm more than capable, its just not a priority and
since I don't decompile non System.* assemblies, the price is not
justifyable.

We spent over two years writing ours. I imaging that two years of your time
is worth more to you than the $500 we charge for a license which our
costomers feel is a tremendous value to them.

I'm not fine with being actively dependant on a vendor in
order to keep using the software despite all of my requirements.

You are not if you don't replace your motherboard or machine itself. Tivo
doesn't even let you move your lifetime subscriptions to newer hardware that
they themselves sell.

I just happen to dissagree
with that kind of licensing. It does nothing to keep prices low

Pirated copied cause vendots to raise their prices for their software since
their target market is cannibalized. Locking down licensed copies to
hardware reduces the amount of software piracy and therefore does keep
prices lower that without it.Although you may feel that $500 is high, we
intenitionally priced our product much lower than the cost to develop it to
make it accessible to small developers like yourself who might benefit from
it. If Reflector also charged $500 and there weren't any free choices
available with relatively good decompilation capability, you would probably
feel differently towards our product and be glad that a product like it was
available to you instead of having to invest the two years yourself trying
to write your own decompiler that works as well.

Jonathan

 

[Guest]

My testing shows that original Reflector creates better code and crash less
as your tool .

 

[Guest]

That won't happen. We're also only charging $500, not 5 million. There is
as
much of a risk that you may get hit by a bus tomorrow and won't need the
software anymore.

How to you compare risk of you going out of business with getting hit by a
bus?

We spent over two years writing ours. I imaging that two years of your
time is worth more to you than the $500 we charge for a license which our
costomers feel is a tremendous value to them.

Price is not determined by work spent.

 

[CJ Taylor]

now thats funny...



You realize of course you will be deemed an "uncredible" source since you
proved his product doesn't work as well...

And the loop continues... ahhh...
=)

 

[CJ Taylor]

Price is not determined by work spent.

I'd be a millionaire.. as most people here...

=)

 

[Guest]

Sorry, it was not my goal :-(

I tried assembly with security attribute and Reflector shows the right
attribute while other tool doesn't.

Also trying the demo examples from remotesoft.com, Reflector creates good
code, other tool doesn't.

 

[CJ Taylor]

Have you read this thread all the way?

Sorry, it was not my goal :-(

I tried assembly with security attribute and Reflector shows the right
attribute while other tool doesn't.

Also trying the demo examples from remotesoft.com, Reflector creates good
code, other tool doesn't.

 

[Nak]

CJ,

You realize of course you will be deemed an "uncredible" source since you
proved his product doesn't work as well...

You can't say that!

Law suit law suit law suite, so on and so fourth and such like...

Nick.

 

[CJ Taylor]

=) With the assumption everyone here is an american

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

Please provide a specific example. We have no known outstanding bugs, and we
recognize many constructs in code that Reflector misses. A good example is
our elimination of goto statements in switch cases that Reflector does not
eliminate. There are many other examples and we look forward to discussion
reproduceable test cases with you.

Jonathan

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

I tried assembly with security attribute and Reflector shows the right

attribute while other tool doesn't.

Decompiler.NET does generate custom attributes including security
attributes. However, our implementation relies on Reflection and is not
designed to bypass security or obfuscation techniques in the assembly
intentionally designed to prohibit such access. Please provide a specific
example.

Jonathan