From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
FreeRideSkier ·
Currently the Web URL module opens the default browser and then executes the URL.
Whilst this is great if you want to open a webpage or open your email software, what if you want to communicate with a remote server and don’t want Internet Explorer to appear?
For example: I have written a php application on my web server to send me an SMS or automatic Email when an event occurs.
http://www.MyWebServer.com/SendSMS.php? Data=xx
http://www.MyWebServer.com/SendEmail.php? Data=xx
If I execute this in Synthmaker it still opens my default browser, when for this type of message this in not necessary. This actually works but it spoils the look of SM with IE sat on top 🙂
Basically a simple POST message would suffice.
mayo ·
+1
becuase this can be used also in protection, for example checking the serial number with the server and if it's blacklisted, lock the plugin or something...
but it requests to implement also the ability to get a return value from that URL, for example from php (return value 1 = serial not blacklisted, continue / return value 0 = serial blacklisted lock or exit)
MegaHurtz ·
+1 JAVA 😉
sunsynth ·
me likey +1 🙂
DigitalWhiteByte ·
+1 😇
aliasant ·
Hmm. Woudnt that make SM the new favourite toy for noob hackers? Maybe even pro ones ?
Creating a spy/snoop app would be very simple.
Not sure I would like that. Would never be able to trust an app from SM with that possibility.
I have enough trying to teach my firewalls what apps can or can not phone home.
philter5 ·
+1
@ aliasant: i agree with you in some things but there are enough easy ways to prevent any damage,
data loss or theft files. for example, use a tool like sandboxie if you open/edit/view files that you don´t trust.
very easy to handle , after a while you will not even recognize that the app is running!
stays in background and works fine. nothing else. you can also surf VERY safe in the WWW using Sandboxie.
Sandboxie - GREAT app!
aliasant ·
philter5 wrote: +1
@ aliasant: i agree with you in some things but there are enough easy ways to prevent any damage,
data loss or theft files. for example, use a tool like sandboxie if you open/edit/view files that you don´t trust.
very easy to handle , after a while you will not even recognize that the app is running!
stays in background and works fine. nothing else. you can also surf VERY safe in the WWW using Sandboxie.
Sandboxie - GREAT app!
Sure there are easy ways for those with the knowledge and time but most "normal users" dont have that.
We are, or aspire to become, developers. Its different for us.
My main concern would be the general reputation of an application that is widely used by hackers.
Dont want people to say: ""Oh. Made with Synthmaker. Isnt that the same that they use for hacking, spying and stealing?""
I would love the ability to have my app phone home. Would make the whole serial protection thing so much easyer.
But Im not sure the cost is worth it?
I did have a look at that Sandboxie app and it looks interesting but since IM on a 64bit I will wait for a more stable version.
Also. When I see a new app like that talking about "trust no other app" I emediatly go suspicious.... hmm... A bit paranoid I think 🙂
trogluddite ·
Internet copy protection is also guaranteed to drive some legitimate (i.e. honest and paid up) users away. My music machine isn't internet enabled - can't stand all that firewall/anti-virus/anti-this/anti-that software eating my CPU at unpredictable times when my DAW is running on the edge already - I've had to do re-takes too many times in the past because of CPU 'splats' from app's running in the background.
Even on the machine I use for the internet I disable all auto-update features etc. - I want to be in control of when I'm online - and I don't want developers thinking it's OK to fill my inbox with advertising/spam (or worse) just because I bought one of their products.
I simply won't use any software that insists I expose myself to these risks. Maybe the likes of me and aliasant are paranoid - but it's served me very well so far.
P.S. Ever noticed the correlation between fools who download cracks, and the people who moan that their PC 'doesn't work as well as it did when I bought it' - I have a few friends I refuse to help with PC problems any more because they get what they deserve.
MegaHurtz ·
I concur it`s not really paranoid I think. Although things like JAVA are so powerfull people find the time to make these
ammazing apps. I would dream of the day I can draw up my own interactive flash anims on my synths.
FreeRideSkier ·
If we are lucky enough to get some networking tools, because that's what this is all about. Let's look at the up side, the idea is nothing to do with copy protection but expandability and communication.
We could give our applications:
OSC (to communicate with other music apps without midi)
UDP (expand the IO using network addressable I/O cards (like the phidgets boards), to control disco lights or make home/studio automation software etc.
TCP (control our apps from different locations be it on a secure LAN, WLAN or over the web). Such as networked distributed audio.
http: (talk to other network devices like IP CCTV cameras and web cams great for the studio control room)
Imagine this as an awesome SM project:
A midi sequencer communicating live through OSC to several computers with SM generated synths, samplers, drum machines and FX racks. Then the frequency analysis of the music determining a live light show using UDP to talk to an I/O board with 32 lights, and several servo controlled spot lights.
Several IP CCTV cameras focused on the stage with intelligent sequencing control to a backstage projector showing different angles of the band on a big screen.
Use distributed audio (like Cobranet) to send delay compensated audio the each PA speaker, with individual EQ etc.
Then the whole live stream with sound and video can be streamed live to the internet using http:!
This is why we are interested in expanded the networking, not copy protection!
SM is no longer a Synth only tool, in fact it should be called something like 'Plug-in Factory' as all of the above is possible if you only think outside of the box!
trogluddite ·
FreeRideSkier wrote: This is why we are interested in expanded the networking, not copy protection!
Agreed, I also feel that there is a little too much emphasis on copy protection in many threads just lately. That said, I have the advantage of SM and music being a hobby rather than my main source of income - so I don't have anything I feel needs protecting. As I said, my reticence about using the web is that I want to retain control and not be forced by a developer into a dependence on always having a connection.
Networking audio/visual tools as you suggect is a much more exciting use of the technology - I'm especially interested in its potential as a means for collaboration amongst artists from different disciplines and those who can't physically get together. The difficulty with that at the moment is in pushing developers and manufacturers into adopting a set of standards - it's no accident that MIDI/DMX are still going strong; they're the most recent (1980's!) standards recognised across the entire music industry. Even digital ins/outs come in several flavours that often aren't included as standard.
I've been using a Yamaha mLAN system for the last few years, as it lets me distribute audio/MIDI via a virtual patchbay across my music setup in three different rooms - at least that's the theory - but the vested interests of Korg/Roland etc. mean that networking all of my devices has ended up being a nightmare of patches and bodges. OSC looks to have even more potential, but I don't see much movement from any of the big names towards wholeheartedly embracing it just yet, which is such a shame.
Amongst the people I jam with regularly - I'm the 'machine operator'; the others are great players, but can't get their heads around a sequencer - to make this distributive stuff work it has to be easy - one protocol, one cable, simple terminology.
Sorry if that sounds negative still, but I've spent a lot of money and computer time investing in 'the next big thing' over the years only to be disappointed - I hope that communities like the one here at SM can do our little bit to help change that by being the 'bridge' between the technology and the creativity.
MichaelBenjamin ·
copyprotections suck ass, while networking is fine, but this doesnt belong to a vst plugin and does offer too much potential for bullshit programming. more voice management features, more flexible actual dsp code possibilities are much more important than this.
rl ·
Sorry for repeating myself over and over again: But this request could be a good example of the usefulness of a software development kit. So if a user wants HTTP POST he should be able to implement that by his own. I'm with Michael here: SM should concentrate on the core features.
aliasant ·
rl wrote: Sorry for repeating myself over and over again: But this request could be a good example of the usefulness of a software development kit. So if a user wants HTTP POST he should be able to implement that by his own. I'm with Michael here: SM should concentrate on the core features.
Totally agree.
Users should have the possibility to write their own inputs and outputs so that any developer can customize SM for their specific needs.
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].
SynthMaker