|
If someone - user or programmer - wants to go the open source route, fair enough, but let's not start talking as if it is anywhere near the norm. I worked as a consultant project manager for several years with a lot of household name companies and I can count on my fingers the number of times I came across unencoded software in production use.
Never mind software intended for sale to multiple clients, contracts for custom-coded software often did not include intellectual ownership of the software and it was therefore encoded. Clients might have access to the plain code, but that was usually for specific reasons and in controlled circumstances. Even software developed in-house was commonly encoded before going into a production environment. None of which prevented auditing, custom coding on request, etc.
Unless a program is a relatively simple one, or you put far greater resources into understanding it than any honest person or business is likely to commit, you don't need to see the code and doing so won't benefit you in any way. So why expect the author to make analysis of his work easier than it need be?
That aspect of this thread apart, I have to wonder at the motivation behind some of the posts knocking NATS. So what if their software is as vulnerable to cheating sponsors as any other? That doesn't make them guilty of anything worse than maybe over-hyping that it hasn't got any shave features built in and their promise to go after anyone who adds their own. Maybe they will do that, maybe not, but no-one has suggested they have already turned a blind eye to such abuse.
Which all makes it a bit odd that in this thread anyway, they have come in for more flack than Mansion, who actually were caught supporting sponsors with features intended to cheat their affiliates.
|