11–20 of 82 posts
You should add the licence on the website. It's a nice concept but I'll start using it as soon as someone creates a FOSS clone.
You should add the licence on the website. It's a nice concept but I'll start using it as soon as someone creates a FOSS clone.
I like FOSS, and am grateful for the work open source engineers put into software, and I have also contributed, but this attitude right here where you wont even consider something because it's closed source? What's the point of that? Why shouldn't an engineer be paid? It's very difficult to capture value with open source software. Please explain to me how they could monetize this on par with the effort put into developing this and still have it be open source. This isn't a service that runs in a website, this is something you download and run.
Not open source = not at all like WireShark, sorry. And that's a damn shame. I could see a community growing around this kind of thing and adding all kinds of protocol support to it, if only it was open source.
No competition with WireShark is intended. WireEdit is a packet editor, not an analyzer. Can as easily edit a .txt Hex dump of a packet (not yet supported, but easy to do).
You may want to put a little disclaimer at the top saying it's not associated or competing with Wireshark.
Pretty cool tool either way.
You should add the licence on the website. It's a nice concept but I'll start using it as soon as someone creates a FOSS clone.
>It's a nice concept but I'll start using it as soon as someone creates a FOSS clone. I like FOSS, and am grateful for the work open source engineers put into software, and I have also contributed, but this attitude right here where you wont even consider something because it's closed source? What's the point of that? Why shouldn't an engineer be paid? It's very difficult to capture value with open source software. P…
shouldn't he? EDIT: fixed bad wording. sorry, English is not my native.
> Please explain to me how they could monetize this on par with the effort put into developing this and still have it be open source.
paid closed-source plugins supporting enterprisey protocols, paid support, custom functionality. these are from top of my head, so pretty sure wirefloss devs could think of something as well.
This looks really cool. Whenever I open up my Networks textbook, I get nostalgic about this stuff. It'd be fun to easily create my own packets to test out different stuff I've learned. ... any idea on a Mac version?
Yes. Will take a while.
edit Ah.. Wait http://www.wirefloss.com/ This one looks very familiar :)
I'm curious how it deals with field lengths, conditional fields and other constraints. It is tough to get it right ;) Try comparing it with: http://freestuff.linkbit.com/epc_packet_builder/ edit Ah.. Wait http://www.wirefloss.com/ This one looks very familiar :)
You should add the licence on the website. It's a nice concept but I'll start using it as soon as someone creates a FOSS clone.
>It's a nice concept but I'll start using it as soon as someone creates a FOSS clone. I like FOSS, and am grateful for the work open source engineers put into software, and I have also contributed, but this attitude right here where you wont even consider something because it's closed source? What's the point of that? Why shouldn't an engineer be paid? It's very difficult to capture value with open source software. P…
And it's really not about money. I'd be happy to pay a developer for some tool I use everyday if asked for. I already pay for music under CC or FAL.