{Spam?} [ale] (reasonably) mature GUI solutions in Linux

[Jason Day]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:52:56AM -0400, Bjorn Dittmer-Roche wrote:
> Can't you just remove the debugging symbols (an option to javac) or is it
> worse than that (I guess you need function names, don't you)? Another

No, it's worse than that.  Remember, even though java is compiled, it
compiles to bytecode, which is then interpreted (ignoring the option of
using a native compiler, of course).  The bytecode is easily converted
back into source.

> option for java is to compile to machine code using one of many packages
> available for that. Unfortunately gcj, the linux/gnu java to machine
> compiler doesn't do guis yet. Can anyone reccomend an obfuscator for java?

Besides the aforementioned Euphoria, a search for "java obfuscator" on
freshmeat.net returned 6 results:
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=java+obfuscator&section=projects&x=0&y=0

I stand by my original statement, however: no matter what kind of
obfuscation is performed, a knowledgable Java programmer can convert a
.class file into a .java file.  Obfuscators make this more difficult, of
course, but frankly they don't raise the bar that high.  If you are
really concerned about keeping your source secret, java is not the
language for you (unless you use a native compiler).

> PS why is {spam} in this subject heading?

You'll have to ask James Kinney :-)  His response had the spam tag in
it, I'm guessing it's a MailScanner/spamassassin [mis]configuration.

Jason
-- 
Jason Day                                       jasonday at
http://jasonday.home.att.net                    worldnet dot att dot net
 
"Of course I'm paranoid, everyone is trying to kill me."
    -- Weyoun-6, Star Trek: Deep Space 9