Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Dave Searles on 25 Sep 2009 10:53 gnubeard wrote: > For those annoyed with the 5-hour timeout in LispWorks Personal > Edition: > > You can disable the time-out by using the library interposition > mechanism on your platform (LD_PRELOAD on linux, DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES > on Mac .. not sure about a mechanism on Windows). > > Write your own implementation of gettimeofday() that: > > Lets time proceed normally for the first N seconds (10 < N < 5*60*60). > This allows the startup > dialog boxes to time-out properly. > > After N seconds have passed, the bogus gettimeofday() function should > freeze time to a > constant value. > > This will prevent LispWorks from prompting you about the impending > timeout, and will allow > Lisp code to continue running past the 5-hour mark. Code running in > Lisp will, however, always get the bogus time - so code dependent on > proper clock values won't work right. > Depending on your application, you may be able to get around this by > avoiding LispWork's internal time functions and getting the time > through some other fashion. Or, you can get around this by avoiding using crippleware. There are plenty of truly free Lisps out there -- ABCL, SBCL, and others among Common Lisps, at least one free Scheme, and Clojure.
From: gnubeard on 26 Sep 2009 02:17 On Sep 26, 12:15 am, kodifik <kodi...(a)eurogaran.com> wrote: > On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > To the LispWorks crew: a better way of managing this would be to > > either statically link your own gettimeofday(), or at least draw in > > the gettimeofday() function yourself, right from the system library > > into your own function pointer so that it can't be hijacked as easily. > > They could always be found ways to play with the primary time source > perceived by the software. > > I once had an Allegro free edition past its expiry date in a Windogs > box > with no possible internet connection: One just had to twiddle the > taskbar clock > by one whole month or year back, and leave the clock widow opened to > do the reverse > once the software had started. Yes, such naive methods are easy to defeat. There are ways to do fairly effective time-locking for the case of a 5-hour run time. Nothing is unbeatable, of course - but that usually isn't the goal anyhow. Usually you aren't interested in a nearly unbeatable security system. Rather you are satisfied with a security system which is difficult enough to defeat to be a deterrent. For the $1k+ price tag, if I were LispWorks, I'd want a security mechanism which would require about a weeks worth of serious hacking to defeat - not 15-20 minutes of casual playing around. Then again, the market for people interested in LispWorks is small enough that they don't really need to worry about serious cracking / piracy. My only reason for wanting to circumvent the 5-hour limit is that I use LispWorks to do some audio processing - I've been toying with writing some custom audio filter stuff. On some evenings and certainly on weekends, I go back and forth between coding and playing guitar - for far longer than 5 hours at a time. It is super annoying to finally be getting through a difficult guitar passage flawlessly, only to have lispworks pause or time out on me and screw everything up.. > > If you use a lisp system for lucrative purposes, buy the required > licences. > Its no money for any company. Nope. I'm not a professional programmer, nor a professional musician. Just a geek who spends more than 5-hours at a time mixing up two enjoyable hobbies.
From: Rainer Joswig on 26 Sep 2009 04:02 On 26 Sep., 08:17, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 26, 12:15 am, kodifik <kodi...(a)eurogaran.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > To the LispWorks crew: a better way of managing this would be to > > > either statically link your own gettimeofday(), or at least draw in > > > the gettimeofday() function yourself, right from the system library > > > into your own function pointer so that it can't be hijacked as easily.. > > > They could always be found ways to play with the primary time source > > perceived by the software. > > > I once had an Allegro free edition past its expiry date in a Windogs > > box > > with no possible internet connection: One just had to twiddle the > > taskbar clock > > by one whole month or year back, and leave the clock widow opened to > > do the reverse > > once the software had started. > > Yes, such naive methods are easy to defeat. There are ways to do > fairly effective time-locking for the case of a 5-hour run time. > Nothing is unbeatable, of course - but that usually isn't the goal > anyhow. Usually you aren't interested in a nearly unbeatable security > system. Rather you are satisfied with a security system which is > difficult enough to defeat to be a deterrent. > > For the $1k+ price tag, if I were LispWorks, I'd want a security > mechanism which would require about a weeks worth of serious hacking > to defeat - not 15-20 minutes of casual playing around. Then again, > the market for people interested in LispWorks is small enough that > they don't really need to worry about serious cracking / piracy. The LispWorks Personal edition is not the same as a full LispWorks with a 5 hours limit. Defeating the time limit of the Personal Edition does not get you the LispWorks Professional or Enterprise product. > My only reason for wanting to circumvent the 5-hour limit is that I > use LispWorks to do some audio processing - I've been toying with > writing some custom audio filter stuff. On some evenings and certainly > on weekends, I go back and forth between coding and playing guitar - > for far longer than 5 hours at a time. > > It is super annoying to finally be getting through a difficult guitar > passage flawlessly, only to have lispworks pause or time out on me and > screw everything up.. > > > > > If you use a lisp system for lucrative purposes, buy the required > > licences. > > Its no money for any company. > > Nope. I'm not a professional programmer, nor a professional musician. > Just a geek who spends more than 5-hours at a time mixing up two > enjoyable hobbies. What would be a price where you would start thinking of buying LispWorks for your hobby? Actually quite a lot hobbyists bought LispWorks, because it is easy to use and has extensive GUI capabilities. Btw., LispWorks 6 beta has just been announced. Major new features: multiprocessing, GTK+ support and a port for Solaris/Intel.
From: Pascal Costanza on 26 Sep 2009 04:06 gnubeard wrote: > On Sep 26, 12:15 am, kodifik <kodi...(a)eurogaran.com> wrote: >> On Sep 25, 1:48 pm, gnubeard <gnube...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> To the LispWorks crew: a better way of managing this would be to >>> either statically link your own gettimeofday(), or at least draw in >>> the gettimeofday() function yourself, right from the system library >>> into your own function pointer so that it can't be hijacked as easily. >> They could always be found ways to play with the primary time source >> perceived by the software. >> >> I once had an Allegro free edition past its expiry date in a Windogs >> box >> with no possible internet connection: One just had to twiddle the >> taskbar clock >> by one whole month or year back, and leave the clock widow opened to >> do the reverse >> once the software had started. > > Yes, such naive methods are easy to defeat. There are ways to do > fairly effective time-locking for the case of a 5-hour run time. > Nothing is unbeatable, of course - but that usually isn't the goal > anyhow. Usually you aren't interested in a nearly unbeatable security > system. Rather you are satisfied with a security system which is > difficult enough to defeat to be a deterrent. > > For the $1k+ price tag, if I were LispWorks, I'd want a security > mechanism which would require about a weeks worth of serious hacking > to defeat - not 15-20 minutes of casual playing around. Then again, > the market for people interested in LispWorks is small enough that > they don't really need to worry about serious cracking / piracy. > > My only reason for wanting to circumvent the 5-hour limit is that I > use LispWorks to do some audio processing - I've been toying with > writing some custom audio filter stuff. On some evenings and certainly > on weekends, I go back and forth between coding and playing guitar - > for far longer than 5 hours at a time. > > It is super annoying to finally be getting through a difficult guitar > passage flawlessly, only to have lispworks pause or time out on me and > screw everything up.. How much did your guitar cost? Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Alain Picard on 26 Sep 2009 20:40
gnubeard <gnubeard(a)gmail.com> writes: > My only reason for wanting to circumvent the 5-hour limit is that I > use LispWorks to do some audio processing I suspect Lispwork's only reason for offering the 5-hour limited edition is to allow you to come to a determination of whether or not the product is suitable to your needs, so you can decide if you're willing to purchase it or not. YOUR reasons for circumventing such limit are utterly irrelevant. > It is super annoying to finally be getting through a difficult guitar > passage flawlessly, only to have lispworks pause or time out on me and > screw everything up.. I'd even bet that if you could make a convincing case to them that you need a 10 hour limited edition to make such a determination, the helpful folks at Lispwork would accommodate you. But I'm starting to get the impression that you could not make such a convincing case. > Nope. I'm not a professional programmer, nor a professional musician. > Just a geek who spends more than 5-hours at a time mixing up two > enjoyable hobbies. Ah. Well, then, you've determined that you don't want to shell out the money for that software for the purposes of your hobby, right? Then it seems pretty clear to me that you should simply stop using it---trying to manipulate the software into accomodating your needs without you accomodating the needs of the authors seems... well... dishonest. I'm kind of amazed that anyone would have have the audacity to discuss how to defeat the meagre circumvention devices in that software, which are clearly there just as a reminder to "be honest". You ARE aware that there are high quality Free (as in libre) lisps out there, right? |