Jump to content

all my mods deleted !!!


lexsis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, I've had a close look at the source code for this tool (Don Miguel sent it too me) and I can honestly say that there is nothing in it that could even come close to doing what it has been accused of doing.

His algorithm is straightforward and very specific. It targets specific mods and no others.

**for testing purposes, I put some elements of my mod in the origmiss, mp1 & mp2 folders and those items were deleted too** so this program just went haywire, scanning the folder and deleting whatever it pleased.

Although the tool does detect if MP1 and/or MP2 is there, it does not "scan" the origmiss, MP1 or MP2 folders at all. It simply could not do what you claim.

Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought I'd have BJB, who is a college prof that teaches C++ (which is the language I used to code the app), check out this code to be absolutely sure. As I've said, the code does not do what is claimed.

That said, this email I thought would simply add to the amusement of this whole situation.

I dont appreciate my work being deleted by your product. so if you want to take the route of hurling insults and making accusations I can file a complaint in court against you and the operators of your website for damages. then I can produce documents of the hundreds of dollars Ive spent on outsourced work. as for being ###### over the DA mod being deleted, its no big deal to just download and install it again.

my mod was deleted by your program, not only my mod but other mods as well. I had some elements of my mod installed in the origmiss, MP1 & MP2 for testing purposes and those files were deleted along with those in my mod.

I had permission from other modders to use their material and all of that was deleted by your program.

had I not invested so much into my mod, you wouldnt be getting this email, so again, if you want to argue back and forth about my tone, we can argue in court. all I was wanting from you was some advice/direction on what I can do to get back the data I lost using your program, nothing more.

And to that all I have to say is this. When you're filling our the legal paperwork please remember its 'DonMiguel', no space between the Don and the Miguel.

Case Closed, lock thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can file a complaint in court against you and the operators of your website for damages. then I can produce documents of the hundreds of dollars Ive spent on outsourced work.

I'd like to educate you, you can only sue for the amount that Don had made from that work, so if he made zero dollars from it, that's what he would be liable for, in the best case for you. In the worst case, you'd be liable for his legal fees, which would be quite a bit more than zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, but those who you paid to make your mods for you would, very possibly, be liable for violating Ubi's EULA, as it's against the Agreement to profit in any way from Ghost Recon. Further, an professor who teaches C++ has clearly stated the the software is incapable of doing what you claim it has done. No other users have reported even a remotely similar problem. The application was extensively tested by several individuals, myself included, and no such problems were encountered. While I feel for you, if what you say is indeed true, I have to say that none of the evidence seems to be in your favor, lexsis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lexsis

Hey, sucks big time what happened to your files. Please drop the legal stuff around here though, not least because it drags this site somewhere I can't afford to take it, but also because I get so tired of hearing legal threats over modding issues. Any further legal-ese posted publically from any party will have to be deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lexsis

Hey, sucks big time what happened to your files. Please drop the legal stuff around here though, not least because it drags this site somewhere I can't afford to take it, but also because I get so tired of hearing legal threats over modding issues. Any further legal-ese posted publically from any party will have to be deleted.

I didnt post legal stuff here, your friend don did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amusing that someone still running DAGRM, can call something made by Don "crappy". DAGRM, besides being filled with stuff stolen from other people's work, is a ###### poor mod in its own right.

And Dynacomp will have the launcher, if that causes you to not play it, then enjoy being on the outside looking in, because everyone else will be using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its a top idea shame what happened to lexis I hope it doesnt happen again. If BJB says its cool and shouldnt do that im all for it. Down with DA if you ask me. Its an ingenous way of using a modders rep and skills to attack the people who steal material :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dynacomp mod has such a launcher, you can take your over hyped mod and stuff it. I suggest everyone avoid this mod and any other mod with any kind of invasive file tool.

You need to stop believing lexsis's story. BajaBravo has already confirmed that the software is incapable of doing what lexsis said that it did. Look:

1 - BajaBravo has pored over the code and made the above confirmation that the software cannot do what it supposedly did. The software cannot scan other files or mods. It does not invade your machine. It will give you a choice: remove our (or DonMiguel's) mod, or remove the DAGRM 'mod'. Whatever you choose, the launcher will do it for you. It is hard-coded to look only for a very precise mod name, and nothing else.

2 - No other users have reported anything even remotely like this

3 - The application was extensively tested by quite a few persons, myself included, and no such incident was discovered

The evidence against lexsis is so overwhelming, that I don't know why anyone is even giving him a second thought. Did he lose data? Possibly. Was it a result of this application? The evidence says 'no'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, DonMiguel

The problem encountered is the fact that this 3rd party tool delete some unwanted mods (according to the tool creator) by itself , if by mistake the tool user continue to launch it (nothing is unfortunately more simple than clicking without reading the question or any readme.txt).

I have a suggestion , that i think a lot more suitable to that situation in term of privacy respect (as it is the subject here).

-After the launcher start , it scans the Mods folder (actually , it is done)

-The scan reveal a mod incompatible with the tool creator mood.(actually , it is done)

-Then a message like this one should be displayed :

The mod -insert the unwanted mod name- is detected on your Mod folder

To be able to continue to use -insert your program name-

As the tool author made the choice to not approve the usage of both -insert the unwanted mod name-  and his own tool.

You must uninstall -insert the unwanted mod name- first.

After uninstallation of this unwanted mod , you will be able to use this tool.

-Finally the launcher quit, and do not uninstall anything itself, waiting for the user to do it himself before being able to use the tool.

I think that such a direction on your program is a lot more appropriate , as it does not remove anything on its own -> leaving the choice on the user side without leaving him the possibility of clicking by mistake, this way it respects entirely the user privacy without denying your right to not allow an user to play both your tool and your unwanted mod for whatever reason you can have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The actual popup is this:

The "ModName" Dev Team has agreed to boycott certain mods because of alledged stolen content and/or content not used with proper permission.  As a result of this boycott, these mods must be removed in order to play "ModName".

The following mod(s) were found on your system:

Any DAGRM version

Click OK to remove them and play "ModName" or click CANCEL to keep them and not use "ModName".

NOTE: Closing this dialog via the X in the upper right corner will be the same as clicking CANCEL.

It's not the same as your proposition, but it is written in simple language that anyone should be able to understand. There's no need to read the readme, its written right here. And if someone just clicks OK without reading the prompt, I am not responsible for that.

Thx though for your well thought and well expressed post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if someone just clicks OK without reading the prompt, I am not responsible for that.

As you understood , that was my only concern with the actual situation of this side effect of your very interesting tool, because i know lots of people click without reading : i can see exemples of this behaviour when i have to help people with their frozen computers ;) .

If in one of your future project you could address this possible user mistake as my suggestion pointed, certainly no one will discuss it as there will be no reason.

I understand perfectly your choice to not support the usage of a certain category of "mods" , in the Swat 3 community it was a common and general choice from the whole community (not only the modding one) to not approve those category of "mods".

Thanks for the concerns, and keep up the good work.

Edited by Orbarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to stop believing lexsis's story. BajaBravo has already confirmed that the software is incapable of doing what lexsis said that it did. Look:  1 - BajaBravo has pored over the code and made the above confirmation that the software cannot do what it supposedly did. The software cannot scan other files or mods. It does not invade your machine. It will give you a choice: remove our (or DonMiguel's) mod, or remove the DAGRM 'mod'. Whatever you choose, the launcher will do it for you. It is hard-coded to look only for a very precise mod name, and nothing else.

Speaking as a professional software engineer I have to say the concept of this utility makes my blood run cold.

It's entirely possible the programme works solely as it is supposed to and I have no doubt the testers believe it is foolproof, but Windows is a notoriously unpredictable environment and testing is almost never as comprehensive as users believe it to be and what even professional testers believe to be the necessary level of testing seldom approaches the true level required (the best testing by the best companies in the industry is still in general a sick joke when compared to that undertaken by safety critical projects). Even assuming you have a comprehensive set of tests, can you say the complete test suite has been run on Win 95/98/98 SE/ME/NT 1-4/2K/XP/XP Pro? On clean and incremental installs of those OSs? On tailored installs? On machines with odd security setups? If you can't then your testing is inadequate.

Most users aren't qualified to answer a question of the type posed by this utility because they simply don't understand it at the level necessary to give an informed answer. And unless they can give an informed answer the moral, ethical and arguably legal responsibility for the consequences remain with the original coder and to some extent with those giving it webspace (including potentially the hosting ISP, so it might lead to punitive action from them).

If someone reports a problem, don't try to label him a liar, worry about what you may have missed, because we have another name for a programme with a destructive payload -- virus. The case of Robert Tappan Morris and the first Internet Worm is a case in point, RTM believed it would not have the chaotic effect it did. His peers delivered their judgement by resetting his user name to RTFM...

I intensely dislike the community's practice of using .EXE installers rather than archives such as ZIP, this is an example of precisely the kind of code that worries me and it's safe to say I will be avoiding the programme and any like it.

As a final damning thought, it wouldn't work on my install even if I had the offending mod, I rename all mod folders....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a professional software engineer I have to say the concept of this utility makes my blood run cold.

It's entirely possible the programme works solely as it is supposed to and I have no doubt the testers believe it is foolproof, but Windows is a notoriously unpredictable environment and testing is almost never as comprehensive as users believe it to be and what even professional testers believe to be the necessary level of testing seldom approaches the true level required (the best testing by the best companies in the industry is still in general a sick joke when compared to that undertaken by safety critical projects). Even assuming you have a comprehensive set of tests, can you say the complete test suite has been run on Win 95/98/98 SE/ME/NT 1-4/2K/XP/XP Pro? On clean and incremental installs of those OSs? On tailored installs? On machines with odd security setups? If you can't then your testing is inadequate.

The code we are talking about is miniscule. I believe you may be overestimating the complexity of the code by a long shot.

I intensely dislike the community's practice of using .EXE installers rather than archives such as ZIP, this is an example of precisely the kind of code that worries me and it's safe to say I will be avoiding the programme and any like it.

The program in question is not an installer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occurs to me that there is an alternative approach to this problem that removes all risks, allows the anti-DAGRM pogrom to continue and places everything under the complete control of the user.

When the utility starts, simply display this message or an equivalent:

"This utility was developed by<whoever>, because of certain issues with other mod developers we would ask that any user please delete the following mods as a courtesy to us:<insert list here>."

(It's also worth noting that any mod reliant on an executable excludes the Mac GR community by default)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The code we are talking about is miniscule. I believe you may be overestimating the complexity of the code by a long shot.

I wouldn't even trust the explicit DOS delete command. I'm QC lead on a safety critical programme so I'm paranoid by profession and I have a very prejudiced view of the predictability of software in a Windows environment (especially C++ software, I'm afraid).

The program in question is not an installer.

My point relates to all executables, installers just happen to be the most common form within the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me clear up the air a bit.

I thought that while I disagreed on the deletion idea I thought my responses was much less negative than the people here screaming.

I tried to say my opinion without it seeming I was attacking the dynacomp team. There were others however who were very negative toward the team members themselves it seemed. But that wasn't me

Anybody who read my responses saw them as being very tame. I simply said for people to be wary of this because it sets a bad precedence..like a pandora's box being open.

But at the same time I am very much looking forward to the mod itself!

A little controversy is probably going to increase the number of downloads of DYNACOMP.

To all the team members of DYNACOMP I am sure you guys did a great job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(It's also worth noting that any mod reliant on an executable excludes the Mac GR community by default)

That is correct sir.

It seems that alot of modders as of lately have forgot about us macintosh Ghost Recon players. All these .exe's :wall:

I understand you all don't want your material stolen, but while you are trying to keep people from using your work illegally, you are cutting out 10-20%(guesstimate) of your audience by making them incompatable with these installers.

:ph34r:

=(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...