one line of C

Code: [Select]

rename("/documents/myfolder", "/exammode/usr/myfolder");
I can't see how more simple it could be. PTTKiller is just an already-made code, it is not difficult to understand, even for newbies who never programmed.

Yes, and this line of C was not put in Ndless, but in PTTKiller, so Ndless is not a PTTKiller.
There is the same difference between a human and a human with a gun: one can hurt, not the other.

It's the staff that decides how Omni is ran and you cannot dictate how the team should run their own site nor force them to run it the way you want.

I know, I do run a site as well, and the first time I was moderator on a message board was about ten years ago
I'm just reminding the staff about the consequences of their actions, which have an effect of curbing free speech and user rights.

What is frowned upon is helping people cheat on tests and bypassing school calc restrictions.

It's up to the users of said methods to face the consequences of their actions (if any), and also up to the whole idea of standardized testing not to be so disconnected from real-world usage of calculators. That does, however, not mean that discussion and programs should be actively censored.

Quote from: Levak on August 03, 2012, 02:54:49 am

one line of C

Code: [Select]

rename("/documents/myfolder", "/exammode/usr/myfolder");
I can't see how more simple it could be. PTTKiller is just an already-made code, it is not difficult to understand, even for newbies who never programmed.

Yes, and this line of C was not put in Ndless, but in PTTKiller, so Ndless is not a PTTKiller.
There is the same difference between a human and a human with a gun: one can hurt, not the other.

What I was trying to tell you is that it's stupid to "ban" PTTkiller when we know that one line of C does the exact same thing.
What people don"t understand is that PTTKiller doesn't do anything special, anything that requires extensive OS hacking skills. That might be a reason why people here didn't wan't PTTKiller to be published. Who would ban a simple "remove" command ?

That's why I was reffering to the fact that Ndless is a PTTKiller, even if I don"t mind it.

What people don"t understand is that PTTKiller doesn't do anything special, anything that requires extensive OS hacking skills.

And what you don't understand is that if Ndless gets permanently blocked, all your work on Theme Editor for example is useless.
Moreover, I don't care about the simplicity of PTTKiller, I only care about what it does, and in my opinion it should not be called PTTKiller but NspireCommunityKiller.

If PTTKiller is already in Ndless, then why was a standalone PTTKiller ever published?

It is not that PTTKiller is already in Ndless, it is that Ndless almost does not need extra code to kill PTT

On the other hand, Hayleia, regardless of if PTTKiller existed or not, I doubt TI would ever change their mind about Ndless. They already made up their mind about ASM and C way back in 2006. That said, maybe if we play nice they'll not permanently block Ndless yet? (Seeing how OS 3.2 can still be downgraded back to the very OS that can run Ndless 3.1, despite coming out several months after Ndless 3.1, it almost seems like TI doesn't mind us running Ndless to a certain extent)

Yes, that is my point of view. Let's not kill the opportunity TI didn't give us yet

The problem is not only for it to be permanently blocked, but even blocked every years, as it is now. This way, the Nspire community doesn't grow and even decreases

Quote from: Levak on August 03, 2012, 03:22:43 am

What people don"t understand is that PTTKiller doesn't do anything special, anything that requires extensive OS hacking skills.

And what you don't understand is that if Ndless gets permanently blocked, all your work on Theme Editor for example is useless.

It won't be useless. Finding things like that is a game for me. I don't mind if it will be blocked.
Also, there is always a way in for Ndless if we compare to the iPhone where security is #1 concern for Apple and despite them blocking jailbreaks in each new version, hackers always find their way around the protection(s). The only problem that we have is the number of experts and volunteers to search for flaws on the platform that nobody outside the calculator world will be interested in. The time to find a flaw is thus immensely increased, but there is always a hope.

Moreover, I don't care about the simplicity of PTTKiller, I only care about what it does, and in my opinion it should not be called PTTKiller but NspireCommunityKiller.

To my mind, TI is just stupid to have put a PTT mode in the "public" OS. Why can't they make a compilation flag in order to generate PTT OSes and let the "public" OSes access ASM/C ? It just takes a few dozens seconds to install an OS, even faster if it is smaller.

The reason why PTTKiller exists is that it is a proof of concept of what can be done. Such tools to hack educational limitations would not exist if there weren't a goal for them and if TI would let users do what they want on their calc. If teachers want to limit stuff, they would only have to install a different OS. Again, this is not difficult for TI to do so, only a compilation flag, nothing more. I'am sure that, in such a way, nobody will be interested in the PTT OS because nobody use it.

PTTKiller was born by accident, a 3.1 ndlessed OS turned to PTT mode with programs in startup folder. There is no goal for PTTKiller other than being a proof of concept, to let people know that it is possible. It is like Norse : it was just a proof of concept of using the LED through software at that time.

Trust me, if PTTKiller was made for its real aim, some deep inside OS routines would have been published, for example, existing the PTTMode through a Ndless program.