Rejected Private Scripts Not Needing Checks

Discussion in 'Client & Site Suggestions' started by toxxic, Oct 11, 2015.

  1. Today in the development chat, we were talking about the slowness of the current system, and ways to get around it.
    One great suggestion that got a lot of support from people was this:

    [​IMG]

    Currently I, like many other developers, are releasing the source code directly and just having everyone given it run it in intellij. While this is an alright method, their is no difference to just allowing us to submit as private and let those we were going to give the source code, the option to run it from the SVN.

    If the plugin is changed to public, it will need a check.
     
    vipertrek79 likes this.
  2. What's wrong with waiting the extra time for a private script bot to be pushed? The current private bot implementation is fine, and it protects both parties. If your code doesn't make it past the peer review/checks, then it's because there's an issue with the code, just like any other bot, public or premium.
     
    Aria likes this.
  3. " While this is an alright method, their is no difference to just allowing us to submit as private and let those we were going to give the source code, the option to run it from the SVN."
     
  4. There's the fact that you don't need to give them the code, they don't need to compile it, you have access to controls allowing you to remove access if they don't hold their end of the deal etc.

    Then there's the user's side, they have that extra guarantee that the code will be safe, it's in their bot selector during a normal boot, no need for booting with the sdk parameter.

    There are quite a few differences, but they mainly exist just to protect both parties.
     
  5. We are not going to ever sacrifice security and user experience for a day or two of speed. If you choose to do so on your own that's your prerogative.

    P.S. I don't think many developers are doing this, especially since we now have dev tools that gives you control over allocating access.
     
    Qosmiof2 likes this.
  6. I wasn't even the one to suggest this idea, but it was a good one. You don't have to specifically target me for relaying a good idea to the forums.
    #fuckurself.
    Remove the suggestions board if you're going to be rude.
     
  7. Not sure what part of my post you found rude. I was just stating our stance on it.
     
  8. Giving out source directly is a very big mistake which I've made myself in the past (very recently even). Keep your stuff secure, for yourself, and distribute it through the safe environment RuneMate provides, no matter how much of a delay it can cause. Sooner or later you will be shot in the back by your own bullet if you don't.
     
    Arbiter likes this.
  9. You seem awfully offended for posing an idea that wasn't even yours to begin with and having it be calmly rejected. From the perspective of another Bot user, this seems like a zero point idea. #1 for the most part, any script bot that's useful is already around, if it's not, it will be soon. No regular user would want to use a bot a couple days early just to risk something for zero reason. That's just being lazy and impatient. No one was trying to be rude to you, nor am I, in my reply, just offering simple logic to justify the choice made in response to your suggestion.

    No one wants anything but the best for this community and its users. Keep yourself safe and the other users.
     
    Arbiter likes this.

Share This Page

Loading...