50 replies to this topic

[dabus]

So you'll both code installers? One in .net and one with java?

[Zeracles]

So you'll both code installers? One in .net and one with java?

I won't go for an installer - i like the bat file and even manual installation (step by step). But i've spend about 4 days to find & download all needed files - it's just ridiculousy stupid to do that manually!
Writing the installer is a small trouble - the main difficulty is making a list of links. So i proposed to use some common XML-scheme, just to avoid double work. The java installer will obviously use a superset of my schema, but it still will need those links to work.
Since i'm about 30% done writing the software (in fact - it is even quite usable, but there are only four links in my database)) - it seems, that i'm the man who will do the dirty work with initial database gathering
You are welcome to monitor progress, since during the development - it'll be a web application for your convenience (just like some java applet)

Edited by Zeracles, 02 January 2012 - 04:36 AM.

[Jarno Mikkola]

It's highly unlikely that an updated weiDu.exe makes the file seen as less virus containing than one without it, as the problem is in the virus scanners side, not in the WeiDu.exe itself.

It's just the particular weidu version - i've tested the file throughly, it's crystal clean ...

Actually the detection happens to many versions of WeiDU.exe's and the reason why a few are seen as and other are not, is that there is a list that the scanners have that removes the file from the possible list of this particular virus containing files... as the problem is actually on how the virus is searched, not that it's actually there.
So every time the WeiDU.exe is updated, there is a possibility that it's seen as a virus by all the anti-virus scanners, and if that happens, the scanner needs an update, not the WeiDU.exe itself.

[Zeracles]

Actually the detection happens to many versions of WeiDU.exe's and the reason why a few are seen as and other are not, is that there is a list that the scanners have that removes the file from the possible list of this particular virus containing files... as the problem is actually on how the virus is searched, not that it's actually there.

Nope, NOD32 has an alert for only one particular version of Weidu. Mods, that use it are:

http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=download&do=confirm_download&id=151
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=download&do=confirm_download&id=655
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=download&do=confirm_download&id=693
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=download&do=confirm_download&id=695
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=download&do=confirm_download&id=706
http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=download&do=confirm_download&id=845

The Weidu version is 20800, the file is 507 904 bytes size.

as the problem is actually on how the virus is searched, not that it's actually there.

There are no viruses in that file, it's not the point. NOD32 still detects that particular version as a virus. Yes it is wrong - but a "normal" reaction to an anti-virus alert - is not ignoring it. Try look at it from a "ordinary" point of view - it's detected as a virus, it should be replaced with a version, that is not packed with some lame UPX-LFZ-V0Z packer, that gives the false alert.

So every time the WeiDU.exe is updated, there is a possibility that it's seen as a virus by all the anti-virus scanners, and if that happens, the scanner needs an update, not the WeiDU.exe itself.

I'm a 4chan veteran, by the way. I would happily continue the discussion of anti-viruses and things that need updating in some fl00d section of this forum, preferably beeing anonymous, because I just don't want all those respectful SHS users to "see" methods, I use to prove something in such pointless discussions. Go play some hockey, why even bother yourself with all those technologies...

Attached Images

• 

Edited by Zeracles, 02 January 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Nope, NOD32 has an alert for only one particular version of Weidu.

Ah, but you fail to understand what you quoted... as it's not just one virus scanner that detects the particular version as containing a virus, there's dozens and dozens of cases where the WeiDU.exe is falsely detected as having a virus... so if we 'fix' the noted uploads for your convenience, there are other programs that will note the version we update them to and that's bad too, and everyone needs to load more data as the later versions of the WeiDU.exe take more space.

[Zeracles]

Ah, but you fail to understand what you quoted... as it's not just one virus scanner that detects the particular version as containing a virus, there's dozens and dozens of cases where the WeiDU.exe is falsely detected as having a virus... so if we 'fix' the noted uploads for your convenience, there are other programs that will note the version we update them to and that's bad too, and everyone needs to load more data as the later versions of the WeiDU.exe take more space.

Your English is quite hard to understand, sorry. But i'm, starting to like you - when you make such statements, like the one above, are there some facts you consider or it's just confidence that everything your mind produces is truth?
Tell me, what can be easier, than uploading different Weidu.exe to virustotal.com? Stop posting nonsense, please...

Another WeiDU (random from BG folder) versions:
WeiDu 191 (0/43) (сlean)
WeiDU 197 (1/43) (suspicious, not virus)
WeiDu 231 (0/43) (сlean)

THAT version:
WeiDU 20800 (15/43) (Trojan, backdoor, agent, every mainstream antivirus alert)

and everyone needs to load more data as the later versions of the WeiDU.exe take more space.

You must be kidding me - Come to Saint-Petersburg, Russia from you Finnish,village (deep in the cold woods, isn't it?) - i'll buy a flash drive for you, so you won't feel so bad about those 300 KB of space! The size of this particular page you are viewing right now is 3 times bigger - 1100 KB)

Edited by Zeracles, 02 January 2012 - 12:19 PM.

[DavidWallace]

There are three main reasons we don't like people hosting our mods without permission.

• It's disrespectful to the wishes of modders who have worked hard to create things for the community.
  
• The community does update mods fairly regularly, especially at G3 where many mods get yearly maintenance updates. These updates often fix crucial bugs and contain new content. If multiple versions of mods are floating around, modders tend to get bug reports from players using old versions of mods, which is incredibly frustrating.
  
• It means that people never see SHS, G3, PPG or any other site. This means less people get to see the main sites, which means less people joining the community, which means less people getting interested in modding. It's funny: more people are playing BG mods of varying descriptions than ever, but because nobody needs to visit the main sites anymore, not as many new people are getting interested in modding, contributing or even giving modders feedback.

There's a fourth point (which arguably is part of (3): if people only come across mods as part of a massive all-in-one download process, they're going to be less informed about what the mods they're downloading actually do. Among other issues, that means they're likely to end up with a pretty indiscriminate install, with dozens or hundreds of mods of very varying quality and style. For some people, that's exactly what they want, but not for everyone. Plenty of people still want a "boutique" install, with 2, 5, 10 or 20 mods chosen fairly carefully.

[Enkida]

You have some balls, sir, and the worst case of willful ignorance I have ever see in a very long time. And you aren't helping the community. Believe me, as a newcomer to the Baldur's Gate modding scene a few months ago, and more than a dozen painful BWP inastallation experiences, I would be the first to say "an updated installer that provides easier cherry picking and component exclusion options and an up to date installation guide! May fortune smile upon you!" But that isn't what you're doing. You're just making yet another sh!tty non-contribution to an already dense, overloaded, counter-intuitive and obtuse installation process. I will grant you this, though: the BWP itself paved the way for people like you to make the assumptions that your mod theft and rehosting is "OK" - since even the BWP itself comes under fire from some modders for doing just that.

One huge reason the current BWP is such a pain in the ass is that the "easy auto installer" is not up to date. At the least, the mods it links to ARE, though you can't use e installer to rifle through their components. Your project will not only eventually have the problem of a non-updated installer - because nobody wants or has the ability to work on maintaining a project of this size and scope indefinitely if not paid for it, not even Leomar himself - but also non-updated mods on top of that, when you get tired of downloading latest versions and bugfixes, which I have found to be released on a WEEKLY if not DAILY basis. The best you can hope for is a frozen point in time installer with frozen point in time mods that work well together. And the problem with that? If that non updated mod in your "perfect installer" has any sort of future revision in it that you fail to cover - and you will - that mod author is going to be the one receiving the angry emails, the complaints, and the bad reviews. Not you.

There is also the separate issue of intellectual property, but others have already covered it and I'm not going to even bother explaining it to a boob like you who doesn't want to understand. Do the modding community a favor and don't make the BWP even less credible than it has already become. And if you really do want to help with good intentions, contact the people who maintain the current BWP and work with them, at the very least. It's not like they're not around and not posting on the various forums even as recently as last month.

Edited by Enkida, 03 January 2012 - 01:30 AM.

[Lollorian]

Umm, methinks there's a bit of misunderstanding going on still yeah?

If I'm getting the jist of this thread right, Zeracles has decided to create an updated BWS-type-thing that just downloads (and extracts?) the mods in the BWP while letting the install.bat do the actual installing

While his initial idea of the private shared folder was kinda well not cool This new path he's taken is well within modding community standards (imho )

As regards to easily updating the links that this new BWS uses, I'm sure if we had an open and easy to edit format (like XML that Zeracles is using) anyone can keep updating the list if they feel like it even if Zeracles decides to take a break

But I gotta say, cheers to Zeracles for understanding what peeps around here wanted and working around them rather than against them And dude, ShadowTek! I to your optimism

[William Imm]

EDIT: What is with this cruise internet mangling my posts?

Umm, methinks there's a bit of misunderstanding going on still yeah?

If I'm getting the jist of this thread right, Zeracles has decided to create an updated BWS-type-thing that just downloads (and extracts?) the mods in the BWP while letting the install.bat do the actual installing

While his initial idea of the private shared folder was kinda well not cool This new path he's taken is well within modding community standards (imho )

As regards to easily updating the links that this new BWS uses, I'm sure if we had an open and easy to edit format (like XML that Zeracles is using) anyone can keep updating the list if they feel like it even if Zeracles decides to take a break

But I gotta say, cheers to Zeracles for understanding what peeps around here wanted and working around them rather than against them And dude, ShadowTek! I to your optimism

Don't forget me. I sperheaded the BWS revival movement, and also will be mantaining non-mantained mods (and converting them to be Linux compatible)

Zeracles, at first I was like "dude, take those repackaged mods off, you might get a modder mob with pitchforks and torches", then when his downloader idea came, I was like "wow, totally a great idea, I'm totally going to use that in my BWS revival project"

Shadowtek, his enthuasim and his noob guide on the Big World is excellent. I was going to add guidance on using the GoG versions, but never had the time for it. If anyone wants to do so, please post on his thread.

Edited by William Imm, 03 January 2012 - 06:09 AM.

[Lollorian]

Dang I knew I forgot something William man, I to you too

Hell almost everyone who posted here deserves 's This thread could've gone wrong in so many ways! :voolthumb: