*LEGIT* Patcher question...

[Fez Ajerbazian]

I've got a question about the way the patcher works. I know 'patcher' has become a bad word with all the freaks in the general forum begging for what amounts to warez.

Now, I realize that sending a user a full copy of a VI executable is a bad thing. Bad on bandwidth, bad on storage and most of all illegal. My question is this:

Is sending the user a binary diff suitable for patching his executables a violation of the law? The patcher would just be providing information then on how the executables are different, not the actual executables. It would be up to the user to decide if they want to patch or not. The patches would of course have to be regenerated every EQLive patch.

I'm sorry if this has been hashed out before, but it just seems to me like if we're not sending the actual files, how are we at fault? We're just sending information about the files.

- Fez

[mangoo]

why is this in development forum?

[Fez Ajerbazian]

Ummm, so the developers can read it...

Unless you're lucky enough to have the right files lying around, you're not able to use the emu until something is done WRT the patcher. If you don't have the files you're SOL until a new version rolls which catches up to EQLive, and I'm guessing that won't be soon. The issues with the patcher will be handled by devs, so why shouldn't I post a design/legality question here to get an answer straight from the horses mouth?

As far as I'm concerned, the devs are the only ones here who know enough about what's going on to give a sane response as to whether the idea is even workable. If it is, then the devs are prolly the ones who will make it work.

Posting anything about the patcher in a general forum will just get another 400 people banned because they don't bother to read the part about 'don't ask for the files or give them to other people.'

That answer your question? I'm sorry if this doesn't belong here, but it doesn't seem to me like it doesn't belong here.

[Shawn319]

This thread is still going to turn into a free-for-all "patcher dont work, gimmie files" thread hehe... people search for the word "patcher" and aimlessly post their BS on every fricken thread they see.

[Fez Ajerbazian]

LOL! Well, you can lead a monkey to water but he still squeals when you give him a lobotomy... Unfortunately the bottom line is that short of catching up to EQLive or lobotomizing a couple thousand people, fixing the patcher is the only way to keep Shawn319 and Acolyte's sanity. Which was another reason I posted here. I feel your pain guys, I did a little work with Casey and Xylor a couple years back on SEQ when VI first started really messing with the encryption. I was the guy who wrote the first QDecoder module which backfilled spawns... Wound up having to leave because I just couldn't handle the trolls.

So, now that a couple of the right folks have read this... What are the thoughts? Where exactly does the law stop with the patcher? I happen to be one of the lucky ones who, for other reasons, has kept many copies of my full EQ directory. I'm fairly certain that a patcher client could be created which:

1) Receives a list of CRC hashes of most-recent known working files from a patch server.

2) Compares local file CRC hashes to the list.

3) Requests binary/text diffs for files that need changes.

4) Executes the changes when the user agrees with any terms that may appease the legal gods.

You would initially think that many, many diffs would have to be stored on the patch server; that the patch server would have to know how to get between two arbitrary versions of any particular file. In reality, you would only have to store the diff between the most recent EQLive client and the last version known to work with the emu. As long as the user on the other end can still patch to EQLive, they will always be working with a current version of the client.

The real question is whether it's illegal to send information about VI's files, even though we're not sending the actual files themselves. After all, a diff is useless without a file to patch it with.

- Fez

[Lurker_005]

As I understand it, SOME of the reasons the patcher was pulled was due to people patching to EQEmu, then live then EQEmu then live.... That adds up to LOTS of bandwidth! Another was all the problems people had with the patcher, their own fault, the design of the patcher, and the installer package (default directory and missing components). And finally Ethernalquest users using the patcher rather than host their own.

Hogie has mentioned the posability of releasing a new one that requires your board username and password to use it, as well as tracking if your patching over and over again. And of course checking to make sure you already have a different version of the files to begin with.

stuff like this is why it was brought down, =/

EDIT: That and stuff like this

Look at the EDIT: portion of mine, =P

[Memener]

lol i though they were dead

Since you are playing the 'delete post' game, can I do it too? =P

[Memener]

??????

[Shawn319]

Originally Posted by Lurker_005

As I understand it, SOME of the reasons the patcher was pulled was due to people patching to EQEmu, then live then EQEmu then live.... That adds up to LOTS of bandwidth! Another was all the problems people had with the patcher, their own fault, the design of the patcher, and the installer package (default directory and missing components). And finally Ethernalquest users using the patcher rather than host their own.

Hogie has mentioned the posability of releasing a new one that requires your board username and password to use it, as well as tracking if your patching over and over again. And of course checking to make sure you already have a different version of the files to begin with.

I think the new patcher should only let each user download the files 2 times. After that, there should be absolutely NO excuse for not backing up the files onto a CD or some other storage medium.


"Error: You have exceeded your download quota. Please revert to the backup you made. If not, TOOOOOOO BAAAAADDDDDDD"

And if they install it on a new comp... or format drive c

[Shawn319]

Originally Posted by NecronomiKron

And if they install it on a new comp... or format drive c

thats why you back it up.

[kathgar]

Yes, binary diffs would be good.. the problem is getting good binary diffs.. preferably in some OSS package.. crackz0ring RTPatch wouldn't help much =P