Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Bas Wijnen]

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:15:48PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > If you intend to have Hurd-NG used on typical desktop systems with
> > typical people (that is, that might want reliable competition software
> > on their system), then you have a problem here, I think.
> 
> I have no evidence that typical people want "reliable competition
> software on their system".

He said they _may_ want it.  Which is very true.  Some of them probably do
want it.

> I have evidence that people trust each other to not submit bogus data, for
> example web sites where you just send in screenshots of your score, or
> forums where they just post their stats.

That works pretty well, but is only accepted because there isn't anything
better.

Considering what proprietary software games try to stop people from cheating,
including punkbuster servers, and that these methods are actually used, not
only by the vendors of the software, but also by people who host their own
games, I'd say that is evidence that people do want a defense against
cheaters.

> I have also evidence that in the cases where a competition happens, there
> are other ways to achieve it that are not intrusive, for example logic games
> where you just send in the complete solution that can be verified.

That doesn't work for all types of games.  For example it doesn't if there's
randomness involved.

> I also have plenty of evidence that people want to cheat sometimes: they are
> even paying money for magazines or hardware (like the modules for the C64,
> back then) to allow them to cheat.  In fact, cheat sheets are a regular part
> of any computer magazines covering games since at least the early 80s.

Sure, but that's about cheating themselves.  I agree that this should continue
to be possible.  But when playing a competition, it shouldn't happen.  If
there're a lot of people playing in the competition, you can be pretty sure
that some of them will try to cheat.  If they succeed, it ruins the whole
competition for everyone.  I think it does make sense to provide a defense
against that if we can, and it isn't too expensive.  The question of course is
if we can, and if allowing DRM is "expensive".

> Even if we would do everything you suggested so far, you _still_ wouldn't
> know if one of the players doesn't cheat.  It's in fact impossible to know,
> unless you have a nurse take a drug test and have a police man watch the
> player at all times during playing.  I could set up a camera and a robot
> which plays the game for me, much better than I ever could.  And you would
> not be able to tell.

That's a good point.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature