Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

wireedit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 82 posts

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#31

Post by pyre »

swartkrans wrote: post #13
simlevesque wrote: post #4

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…

For starters, it looks like this could be an issue:

  Can I add support for stack Y myself?

  No but we’d be happy to talk about it.
If this was FOSS, you could easily add support for your own stack rather than being at the mercy of their limited amount of time to work on it.

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#32

Post by res0nat0r »

deeviant wrote: post #28
res0nat0r wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even paying for software doesn't guarantee they are going to keep the product the way you like it (OSX, Windows). This attitude seems to think that open source is some magic wand and that it will be around forever just because it is open source. Open sourced code falls by the wayside all of the time, so I don't think this really matters in the scheme of things.

With FOSS software, an enterprising and capable individual always has the ability to modify/update/or other wise change the software to suit their needs. I find your line of thought to hold little weight.

Sure, and the parent I was replying to said he is happy to pay money for software he uses. I don't see why paying for closed source software (to encourage the dev to keep developing it and also to allow you to comment on what to improve) is a bad thing just because the project is not open-source.

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#33

Post by pyre »

cbd1984 wrote: post #21
wirefloss wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well. Let me know if you need it. 2) No source indeed. 3) Privacy policy is stated in the EULA. I'll repeat it here: "No info is gathered, no connections to outside servers, except for a standard WINE repository".

Without source why should we trust the privacy policy?

Presumably the crowd that a packet editor is targeted at knows their way around something like WireShark, and could easily monitor the software for phoning home. That's a pretty strong incentive to not do it.

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#34

Post by pyre »

wirefloss wrote: post #6
pritambaral wrote: post #2

No native Linux support (Win7 binary "+ hacked version of WINE"). Makers request it be run on "Ubuntu 14.4 x32"[sic] only, not even x86_64. I suspect they mean x86, or 32-bit when they say x32, since the x32 ABI is nowhere near implemented. No source, no privacy policy. Supporting new protocols/formats/stack requires one 'to talk about it' with them.

1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well. Let me know if you need it. 2) No source indeed. 3) Privacy policy is stated in the EULA. I'll repeat it here: "No info is gathered, no connections to outside servers, except for a standard WINE repository".

> 1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well.

I think that the parent was more concerned with the lack of 64-bit (x64/AMD64/x86_64) support. The parent also takes issue with the usage of x32 to refer to 32-bit.

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#35

Post by jnazario »

xorrbit wrote: post #5

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.

if you're looking for an OSS variant of this (packet editor with a GUI), have a look at Netdude:

http://netdude.sourceforge.net/

older package, but does basically this.

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#37

Post by Arkanosis »

res0nat0r wrote: post #25
Arkanosis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't tell for others, but I'm very reluctant to spend time learning a tool that I know from the beginning I won't be able to debug / improve later and that the owner may change in a way that doesn't fit me or even stop to support. The only non-FOSS tools I've been using on a daily basis for years are Gmail and Google Calendar. I can't tell I'm really happy with how they have evolved out of my control. Oh, and Google…

Even paying for software doesn't guarantee they are going to keep the product the way you like it (OSX, Windows). This attitude seems to think that open source is some magic wand and that it will be around forever just because it is open source. Open sourced code falls by the wayside all of the time, so I don't think this really matters in the scheme of things.

Paying gives no guarantee, open-source does.

Some did not like Gnome 3, they created MATE. Some found GCC was too conservative, they created EGCS. And MariaDB. And LibreOffice. And ffmpeg… And…

That's how you guarantee software will continue to fit your needs in the future. It's not paying for Microsoft Works that made people able to open *.wks files with Microsoft Office when Microsoft discontinued the former office suite (though they are some converters available). But it's open-source that made people able to open TrueCrypt files with CipherShed when the developers gave up.

Even at my level, I'm able to tweak the tools for my needs. The last version of zsh is not available on AIX? I can build it myself (and send the fixes upstream). Vim doesn't provide the feature I want? I can add it (and who cares if it's not yet merged upstream? it still does what I want it to do, now).

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#38

Post by Arkanosis »

res0nat0r wrote: post #32
deeviant wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With FOSS software, an enterprising and capable individual always has the ability to modify/update/or other wise change the software to suit their needs. I find your line of thought to hold little weight.

Sure, and the parent I was replying to said he is happy to pay money for software he uses. I don't see why paying for closed source software (to encourage the dev to keep developing it and also to allow you to comment on what to improve) is a bad thing just because the project is not open-source.

It certainly isn't (it pays my bills). It just isn't an obvious good investment for some people (including myself).

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#39

Post by wirefloss »

cbd1984 wrote: post #30
wirefloss wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well. Let me know if you need it. 2) No source indeed. 3) Privacy policy is stated in the EULA. I'll repeat it here: "No info is gathered, no connections to outside servers, except for a standard WINE repository".

What assurances do we have that you'll live up to your privacy policy?

I'm afraid there is no such thing. Even open source products have critical security bugs as you may very well know. If you do just a bit of research you can find who I am, and where I live. Code is not obfuscated. This is the best I can do.

Re: WireEdit – A Full Stack WYSIWYG Editor for Network Packets

#40

Post by wirefloss »

cbd1984 wrote: post #21
wirefloss wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Have Ubuntu12.04x32 with hacked WINE working as well. Let me know if you need it. 2) No source indeed. 3) Privacy policy is stated in the EULA. I'll repeat it here: "No info is gathered, no connections to outside servers, except for a standard WINE repository".

Without source why should we trust the privacy policy?

You'd have to make an intelligent decision without access to full information. Isn't it often like that in life? As an engineer myself, I'd respect any decision you make.
Post reply on HN