Commercial distribution?

[MHz]

Hold up Magoo....

OK, fine. Whatever name.

"You suffer from tunnel vision. Did I mention PE standard?"

Yea... What ya think a executable file is?? Its the header

So a header is an executable.

"Answer this: If a AutoIt compiled executable is not a executable then what do you call it?"

A script engine with a attached script

Please define as an name rather then a sentence. As an executable is a name, not a sentence.

"And if Aut2Exe is not a compiler, then what is it?"

Interpreter aka script engine....Wikipedia

The interpreter is AutoIt3.exe. Again, what is Aut2Exe?

"If you put petrol in a sealed canister with a wick and it blows up, do you call it a bomb? But what if gun power was inside it and it blew up, would you not also call it a bomb?"

I would call it E-Rage E-Rage Defintion (For those without a dictionary)

You had to google an answer to that? Surely something can come from what you already know?

See, I'm getting personal now. But your confusing behaviour only is causing me to be so. Feel like giving up yet?

[Sykeo]

Mhz your not even worth the time.... You don't even understand the simple concept to turn your computer on do ya?

Don't worry i think they have a 12 step program for that....

I told ya what aut2exe is above if you read.... Even after words went back and explained it on a level of "2 year olds"

Header is the begnning part of a file to explain what the file is and what it does what it contains and the information inside it....

The link i gave ya explained that.... Here try this ... copy a executable lets say notepad.exe .....

Open it with a Hexeditor.....

Paste a textfile at the end of it something like "Mhz needs schooling bad"... Holy Fork batman it still runs....

Now try with a jpg file...

Now is that text you pasted in the file a executable? NO ... Did it 'compile' NO

Thx again troll gg.... learn to read.... cause of you this post turned into a pissing contest with a person that thinks he is big here and doesn't know squat.... http://www.autoitscript.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8389 GO CHECK THE SOURCE CODE

[MHz]

learn to read.... cause of you this post turned into a pissing contest with a person that thinks he is big here and doesn't know squat....

I did not turn anything into a pissing contest. You are the one pissing on AutoIt for how it works and for what it compiles into. So I will end your pissed behaviour by stating that the others can judge you for what you have previously posted. Btw, that narrow tunnel vision seems to have a enormous hold on you.

[Sykeo]

I did not turn anything into a pissing contest. .

"A executable is not defined by needing to be compiled by any certain method but it needs to be able to self-execute which AutoIt scripts comply with." http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/executable_file.html ..... Hmmm ya??? What did you say... As I try to state facts you attempt to obsure the truth....

You are the one pissing on AutoIt for how it works and for what it compiles into

Where? I stated facts! and If I thought autoit was useless would I be here?

Btw, that narrow tunnel vision seems to have a enormous hold on you.

Thanks Mr Magoo.....

So I will end your pissed behaviour by stating that the others can judge you for what you have previously posted

I am not here to get touchy feely with people but to share FACTS and to help... what were you here for again?

Edited February 26, 2007 by Sykeo

[SadBunny]

This thread started out with some nice things to think about, but now it seems like it might be becoming a flamewar, resulting in lock or remove. That would be a shame. So here are my two cents, in an attempt to turn this case another way:

1) Ofcourse 'compiled' autoitscript files are executables. They can be run, and they can be run standalone. Only, IMHO, the thing is in the word 'compile' which might be not so well-chosen. It is not like the source code is translated, so the source code itself was not turned into an executable of its own, rather it was added to a default executable that can execute autoit code. This is much like in the old QBasic days, anyone remember BRUN45 and stuff? (Was it even called that?)

On top of that, this discussion is not all that useful or relevant. AutoItScript says nothing about special precautions on top of implemented password functions and stuff, against this decompiling thing. It is not the biggest issue in AutoIt, that is for sure. But be glad that the creators focus on functionality so you can so easily create such beautiful scripts in it!

To go short: use the password functionality if you want to, and assess the chance that a very literate hacker will even be interested enough in your code to spend his valuable time trying to decompile it while he can at the same time spend his time trying to crack Windows Vista protection :-)

2) But what's more important: the way around worrying about people decompiling/reverse-engineering/etc. your "compiled scripts", is to do like I did: ask your boss permission to create your script open-source! In this way you don't have to worry, and only need to state a distribution right, like I did: you can change and distribute it all you want BUT you must give me credit and you must state that it has been changed by you and is not my code anymore.

If your boss doesn't allow that or you don't want this yourself, you're back to the second paragraph in my 1st remarks.

Now go hold your dear pissing contest in another direction please, it's starting to stink

[SadBunny]

Afterthought: if I see an argument between an AutoIt MVP with over 3600 posts, and a new registration with 17 posts, who do you think I will give more credit? Not to stir up the fight, but just for fun, read more of MHz's posts before you start boasting, and see that he is FAR from clueless. Note: Not that I say that YOU are clueless, but the thing is, with only <20 posts I just cannot be sure. Just like you cannot be sure about me, with my small amount of posts.

But here's a suggestion in general: on Internet fora, it is generally a good idea to read more of the regulars, and if you really don't like them, don't abuse a general forum thread for a pissing contest, but collect material you disagree with, and ASK CLARIFICATION (instead of just starting to shout).

/edit: typo

Edited February 26, 2007 by SadBunny

[Bert]

A better way to look at this would be simply:

For the greater than 99% of the world, using AutoIt is fine. You can "compile" the script so that it will run by itself. For the other less than 1% then you may need to think about what you want to do before releasing it to the world.

If you make a simple weather program that displays maps of what is going on in your neck of the woods, then who cares if the program isn't secure. If you are slightly paranoid, then use EncodeIt 2.0 to lock it down. Even then, if you want to use your "claimed world class hacking skills" to decompile it, by all means do. Who cares. Do you want a cookie if you get it done in 30 seconds?

If you have something that contains a password, or other sensitive information, then yes, a more secure method of programming is called for.

Sykeo, a word of advice. You are barking up a tree that you need to stop barking at. Taking a piss on the regs will only get you banished into the doghouse. You made your point. Going further will only cause a mod to get involved, and you will loose that battle. The rules of Jon only apply to this sandbox.

[Jon]

What an odd argument.

A stub exe is used with an encoded script appended to the end of the .exe data. Whether you call that compiled / encoded / selfextractor largely depends on your technical standpoint. "Compiled" what the chosen wordage as most non-technical users get the idea that it makes it an .exe. Encoded/Selfextacting would be more technically correct.

Anyway. *click*