Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Marcus Brinkmann dies 15/05/2006 hora 14:15:
> I did this once, and couldn't find any program that posed a serious
> problem.

I did, though. ;-)

> I have no evidence that typical people want "reliable competition
> software on their system".

As Bas said, all means provided to prevent cheating are used on a
regular basis by many people involved in computer competitions. That is
an evidence.

> I have also evidence that in the cases where a competition happens,
> there are other ways to achieve it that are not intrusive, for example
> logic games where you just send in the complete solution that can be
> verified.

This kind of solution is only possible for a very limited subset of the
competition games existing.

> I also have plenty of evidence that people want to cheat sometimes:
> they are even paying money for magazines or hardware

You're mixing cheating in one player game, in multi-player game and in
competitions. If there is a protected high score, then we talk about
competition, nothing else.

> Look, I have very little sympathies for the problems faced by people
> who want to compare their mine sweeper high scores but don't trust
> each other enough to not cheat in the process.

But I do, in a limited way. I think it can be useful sometimes, and many
people want that. I don't think it's really sensible to try to drop that
possibility for the Hurd for ethical reasons about competitions.

You're trying to prevent competition. Promote cooperation instead, if
you want.

As far as DRM and user freedom is concerned, I don't agree with your
reasons to avoid implementing constructor, but I don't think it is
nonsense, as Hurd is a GNU project. But if it is about preventing the
mere possibility to compete within a computer, then I think you would be
abusing your position of Hurd maintainer if blocking addition of the
constructor for this reason.

> Even if we would do everything you suggested so far, you _still_
> wouldn't know if one of the players doesn't cheat.  It's in fact
> impossible to know, unless you have a nurse take a drug test and have
> a police man watch the player at all times during playing.  I could
> set up a camera and a robot which plays the game for me, much better
> than I ever could.  And you would not be able to tell.

Do you really think anyone suggested in this thread that we were
building the only absolute security on earth? Of course, every security
can be broken. And in some games, a bot is a very good way to cheat,
difficult to counter and to detect.

I don't try to prevent that kind of cheating, because I find the
adequate security too expensive to build at the moment. And in some
sense because I would be impressed by the cheater. ;-)

Honestly,
Nowhere man
-- 
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature