Tony@NefMoto
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +132/-4
 Offline
Posts: 1389
2001.5 Audi S4 Stage 3
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: May 17, 2011, 11:37:56 AM »
|
|
|
Right.
Well this is the thread where the OP posted the code he took that I wrote for my customers, and then asked someone more capable/less lazy than him to patch so he could use it in other files. It is not something put out there by bosch, it is not harmless either.
What do you think about that?
You say it like it is, I won't deny that. What exactly are you asking? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
chris66
Newbie
Karma: +1/-2
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2011, 11:45:33 AM »
|
|
|
I guess I am asking what you think about this.
Should people be posting other individual's work on here so they can have it patched for reuse elsewhere?
Is that what the forum is for?
It is not just copying some maps or tuning that are massaged bosch code anyway.
Not thrilled about the whole thing, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tony@NefMoto
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +132/-4
Offline
Posts: 1389
2001.5 Audi S4 Stage 3
|
|
« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2011, 12:01:19 PM »
|
|
|
Honestly, this code was going to be copied from Eurodyne at one point or another. Normally this is done secretly in private and often includes the exchange of money.
If this modification is openly credited to Eurodyne and the consensus is that they know what they are doing, then hopefully that will drive additional business to them.
If skilled people here are interested in improving this code modification, then I think it would be great if the community could add to what Eurodyne has done, and maybe they would even add it to their future revisions.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but it's not going to be possible to keep a cat in the bag forever. The tuning industry needs to find a way to benefit from this, otherwise one eBay tuner can destroy the business of all professional tuners.
Certainly I think it would great to identify this as Eurodynes modification, and if possible create a way to identify this code change in a tuned file.
I really hope that there is a way to turn the release of this modification into a positive thing for the tuning community and Eurodyne.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2011, 12:14:03 PM »
|
|
|
Honestly, this code was going to be copied from Eurodyne at one point or another.
In particular, reverse engineering compiled code is older than pretty much every poster here. Nothing new.... and fairly difficult to get legal monopoly protection for if 1) the "source" isn't copied 2) all there is is a small section of bytes *patched* into somebody else's binary such that the "substantial similarity" test passes more readily on the *original* binary that isn't owned by the creator of the initial binary patch. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
Tony@NefMoto
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +132/-4
Offline
Posts: 1389
2001.5 Audi S4 Stage 3
|
|
« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2011, 12:34:33 PM »
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.
No one disputes that Linux is a more secure operating system than Windows and Mac OS. The reason it is more secure, is because there are countless people pouring over the code in Linux to make it better. In Linux all the bugs are fixed before anyone can do serious damage exploiting them. In Windows and Mac OS people are not allowed to find bugs in the code, and Microsoft and Apple scare people into not releasing the details of bugs for fear they are exploited.
Something also to keep in mind is that Linux makes Windows and Mac OS better. If Linux wasn't there constantly making itself better, then Microsoft and Apple could keep selling the same software every year without making it better.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DJGonzo
Guest
|
|
« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2011, 12:58:49 PM »
|
|
|
Something also to keep in mind is that Linux makes Windows and Mac OS better. If Linux wasn't there constantly making itself better, then Microsoft and Apple could keep selling the same software every year without making it better.
Not really. If you go a few years back, Linux wasn't really too user intuitive. A better competitor to Windows would be Mac OS instead of Linux. Also Windows is the de-facto mostly due to piracy. See here: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9I know I went off topic, sorry  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NOTORIOUS VR
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +58/-7
Offline
Posts: 1056
|
|
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2011, 12:59:56 PM »
|
|
|
Right.
Well this is the thread where the OP posted the code he took that I wrote for my customers, and then asked someone more capable/less lazy than him to patch so he could use it in other files. It is not something put out there by bosch, it is not harmless either.
What do you think about that?
So are you saying it's ok for you (or whoever wrote the code for you) to hack/patch Bosch's original software, but it's not ok for others to do the same? Because that's what it sounds like. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
chris66
Newbie
Karma: +1/-2
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2011, 02:33:13 PM »
|
|
|
That routine is not written by bosch, I wrote it. Some people on here already understand this.
Nothing posted above really makes what the OP did ok. That sort of thing doesnt belong here as far as I am concerned. Not that hard to understand.
It seems like there may be a few people who could have actually put somthing like it together, but it is easier to just copy the code and idea than actually spend the time coming up with it, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jason
Hero Member
Karma: +38/-0
Offline
Posts: 500
Breaks everything!
|
|
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2011, 02:34:55 PM »
|
|
|
Are you saying that if they made it better you wouldn't integrate the changes into your own products out of respect for them, and would spend the time to do it yourself?
Not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2011, 03:44:51 PM »
|
|
|
Nothing posted above really makes what the OP did ok. That sort of thing doesnt belong here as far as I am concerned. Not that hard to understand.
I agree it is ethically questionable to simply cut and paste the patch into a different binary (without understanding what it does). The ethics of reverse engineering aren't as cut and dried. Every programmer who has EVER released a binary of any kind understands those risks, and understands there are limited legal avenues to prevent it. Better to have an open discussion of the technology than whinge about who owns what, in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2011, 04:00:13 PM »
|
|
|
That routine is not written by bosch, I wrote it.
Speaking as a devils advocate, why does it matter who wrote it, from an ethical (not legal) standpoint? Is it ok to cut and paste *code* from one (stock) bosch file to another? If not, why is it ok to cut and paste *maps* from one (stock) bosch file to another? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2011, 05:25:02 PM »
|
|
|
[Awesome stuff]
Awesome. I will give it a whirl when I have a minute. The improvements are exactly the shortcomings I didn't like about the original implementation. There was no point anti-lagging with clutch not pressed (as you weren't in a gear obviously) and rigid timer with no other means to disengage no-lift-shift was also not very flexible. Other issues aside, I think Chris can benefit from this new implementation as well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jason
Hero Member
Karma: +38/-0
Offline
Posts: 500
Breaks everything!
|
|
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2011, 07:54:40 PM »
|
|
|
It works! I can't match-rev downshift though... It kills the ignition momentarily when I blip the throttle. I just scorched the earth flat-shifting from 2-3 though  edit: I think an additional set of conditionals is needed so that it doesn't engage no-lift-shift if the brake is applied or throttle position != 100% |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 08:03:48 PM by Jason »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
julex
|
|
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2011, 08:57:19 PM »
|
|
|
It definitely needs the throttle conditional... gentle shifting over 5k shoots an unintended fireball out my exhaust...  Good idea about the throttle. This would also kill the other issue I have which is bogging the car when driving peacefully or at a stop. Either throttle over 90% or so OR only when RPMs are higher than some rather high value where you are racing for certain. But I think the throttle would be the ticket. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
