Non-viewable scripts

[SweetLadyMell]

Hi all ^^

Okaydee, I'm officially ... scripting... nothing fancy yet, I have too much yet to learn, still, some concerns float to the surface.

Can I make an object set so that the scripts inside are invisible to the user? I usually right-click on an object I like to see who created it, and some clearly are scripted yet the scripts (though visible as items in the list) cannot be opened to be viewed. Verrrrry handy stuff...

So, how's that done?

Thanks

Mell

xxx

[Rolig Loon]

Set your script to no mod.

If you want people to not even know that the script is there, you'll have bury it somewhere non-obvious. Make the root prim of your object a tiny transparent prim, for example, put the script in it, and hide it inside your object

[SweetLadyMell]

Yay!

Thanks, all questions answered!

Somewhere I did want an invisible script too, now...I know how

Thanks

Mell

xxx

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

Set your script to no mod.

If you want people to not even know that the script is there, you'll have bury it somewhere non-obvious. Make the root prim of your object a tiny transparent prim, for example, put the script in it, and hide it inside your object

---

You can run, but you can't hide. I'll just enable beacons. I sometimes do this on stuff I purchase, just to make sure I'm not getting more than I pay L$0 for.

;-).

[Life Camino]

Many scripts can work just as well in a child prim as in a root prim.  If you don't want people to know the script is there, you can hide it in a child prim, depending on what the script does, of course.  Scripts in the root prim always show up upon initial inspection of the object contents.

[Rolig Loon]

---

Life Camino wrote:

Many scripts can work just as well in a child prim as in a root prim.  If you don't want people to know the script is there, you can hide it in a child prim, depending on what the script does, of course.  Scripts in the root prim always show up upon initial inspection of the object contents.

---

True, except ...

1. Scripts that respond to a touch or collision event will only work in the child prim that they are saved in.  If you want the entire object to respond to touch/collision, your script has to be in the root prim.
2. Scripts that move the object can be VERY tricky, especially if they are supposed to move child prims separately. You take your life in your hands by placing a movement script in a child prim unless it was designed to go there.  (As a specific example, the LINK_THIS parameter in llSetLinkPrimitiveParams refers to the specific prim that the script is in, so putting it in the wrong prim can lead to unexpected results.)
3. Scripts that look for items in the object (sounds, textures, objects to rez ...) will look in the same prim that the script is in.  If you put a rezzer script in a child prim, for example, but put the object you want to rez in the root prim, nothing will happen.
4. Scripts that change a prim property (color, hover text, particles, ... ) will act on the prim they are in, regardless of which prim that is.  You just need to be sure which prim you meant to change.

[Rolig Loon]

Yeah, some customers are just too smart.  Still, you can hide things remarkably well from the average person, and even most above average ones. :smileytongue:

[Perrie Juran]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

Yeah, some customers are just too smart.  Still, you can hide things remarkably well from the average person, and even most above average ones. :smileytongue:

---

I'm wondering why someone would be trying to hide the (no mod) script to begin with?   

I guess SweetLady has her reasons.

[Rolig Loon]

I can't guess her specific reasons, but I can think of situations when it's good to obfuscate things a bit.  Splitting up scripting functions and other assets and burying a few key parts in non-obvious spots makes it harder for a casual thief to figure out how your device works.

[irihapeti]

i think the main reason is as OP says. that they are new to scripting. We all pretty much go thru this kinda thing when we new to something

after a time most people work out that is a waste of time to try hide a script in a object. bc to any person who observe the object can know that is scripted by its behaviour

is best I think to just set to no-mod and put scripts in the prims where it will do the most good (like most simply)

+

also as well. By observing the behaviour of a scripted object then for reasonably competent/experienced scripters can work out what you would have to do to write own script(s) to mimic that behaviour. Is just a matter then for that person to decide if is any value for them in spending time doing that

when people get more experienced (and OP will be the same in time) then they come to understand this. So they not bother trying to get tricky. Just focus on making good products as a whole (model+texturing+script)

+

the really good ones (people) go on to learn about/apply business strategy, financial acumen, marketing and customer support

even when what they doing dont always have a commercial objective. Like is a artistic endeavour or similar

meaning that what ever we make (commercial or non-comercial) for others, is not much good if is not managed well, or is not marketed so that nobody knows about it anyways. even when the made thing is technically pretty good or excellent even

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

I can't guess her specific reasons, but I can think of situations when it's good to obfuscate things a bit.  Splitting up scripting functions and other assets and burying a few key parts in non-obvious spots makes it harder for a casual thief to figure out how your device works.

---

that makes sense.

thanks

[SweetLadyMell]

Well, hiding as such is not the reason, I mean, if something does some..."thing", it stands to reason there is a script, no sense in assuming otherwise, and no sense in insulting the people in assuming they'd not be aware of the script. I just like the script to be non-editable, and (if possible) not viewable too...if the user can see there is a list of stuff (scripts, sounds, animations) in that prim, so be it, just...dont tinker with the workings and come cry that it's "bwoken"....

Hehe :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

Mell

xxx

[Dora Gustafson]

---

SweetLadyMell wrote:

Well, hiding as such is not the reason, I mean, if something does some..."thing", it stands to reason there is a script, no sense in assuming otherwise, and no sense in insulting the people in assuming they'd not be aware of the script.

I just like the script to be non-editable, and (if possible) not viewable too...

if the user can see there is a list of stuff (scripts, sounds, animations) in that prim, so be it, just...dont tinker with the workings and come cry that it's "bwoken"....

---

I guess it has been stated in the thread more than once: if the script is No-mod it can't be edited and it can't be viewed.

If it could be viewed the source could be read and modified and the script would be modifiable.

:smileysurprised::smileyvery-happy:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dora Gustafson wrote:

---

SweetLadyMell wrote:

Well, hiding as such is not the reason, I mean, if something does some..."thing", it stands to reason there is a script, no sense in assuming otherwise, and no sense in insulting the people in assuming they'd not be aware of the script.

I just like the script to be non-editable, and (if possible) not viewable too...

if the user can see there is a list of stuff (scripts, sounds, animations) in that prim, so be it, just...dont tinker with the workings and come cry that it's "bwoken"....

---

I guess it has been stated in the thread more than once: if the script is No-mod it can't be edited and it can't be viewed.

If it could be viewed the source could be read and modified and the script would be modifiable.

:smileysurprised:

:smileyvery-happy:

---

I've worked on systems in which things are viewable but not modifyable (read/no-write). This allows one to safely learn by inspection. You can copy such things but you cannot break them or the things that depend on them. I think that might satisfy Mell's requirement. However, that is not the way SL works. You can only protect the operation of a script by making it unreadable.

[irihapeti]

is ok Mell to ask any question. Why this or that. and what this or that. Like what are the options, are there any, etc

so is all good (:

+

sometimes when answering a pretty straightforward question that has a pretty straightforward answer I can end up wandering off in the bushes somewhere not only trying to answer the question but also trying to answer a whole bunch of other questions that never even got asked. Which gets a bit cloudy confusing sometimes

so sorry about that

the basics is that the answer says more about the person answering than the question will ever say about the person asking the question

like is no such thing as a silly question. So please just ask about anything you want to know about. Anytime ok

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

is no such thing as a silly question. 

---

I once attended a "brainstorming" class, given by professional... well I don't know what they were, but they were getting paid, so they were professionals. The chief cheerleader (that's it, they were professional cheerleaders!) got up in front of the class and boldly stated "There is no such thing as a stupid question", to which I replied, "Of course there are. Your claiming otherwise isn't going to get us to ask them. We do that in the shower." It's okay to lower the barriers to free thinking, but you don't do that (for me ;-). by claiming something that's demonstrably false.

Many of the things said in that class seemed counterintuitive to me, but intuitive to everybody else. Although I've accomplished more in a team than as an individual, my best ideas come to me when I'm alone, often while doing something completely unrelated to the big problem I'm working on at the time. That might be while wandering the aisles of a toy store, laying in a corn field, taking a shower or painting a chair. I've also learned that if I go to bed at night thinking about something other than the biggest problem before me, I'm less likely to wake in the morning with potential solutions. So, I don't try to push challenges out of my mind before bed, I embrace them.

In the many years since I made myself unwelcome in that class, there's been some interesting research that suggests that brainstorming (as taught in that class) is less productive than the way I work, or maybe even counterproductive. I love collaboration, but in the way we collaborate in SL, not in the way we collaborate face-to-face in RL.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20031001/strategies.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts?language=en

https://hbr.org/2013/04/the-truth-about-creative-teams/

All that said, I also tell people there's no such thing as a silly question. Sometimes it's best just to fit in.

;-).

[Perrie Juran]

From one of my favorite movies.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Well, there ya go!

I'd have picked a different unflattering revelation for that fella, but I'm a prude.

And the "manager" of that meeting gives you some indication of what it might be like to invite me to a one. One way or another, I'm going to drive it, even if into a ditch.

[irihapeti]

clarify

there is no such thing as a silly question when the answer is unknown to the asker. Like when the answer is sought from another, who is not the asker

can seem silly tho to a observer when you ask and answer your question out loud. Sometimes they might think you a weirdo even. And even ask sometimes if you are. And you go: Yes correct. And they go: okkaaay !! umm! i have to go now. And you go: k then. I see you next time. And they go: ummm! suuuurrrre!! umm! bye!!. And after they gone you go: hehe!

is not silly either when ask answer your own question. bc as you say sometimes that works really well in finding a answer. One that makes sense to you

even if a observer might question why you talking to yourself or maybe your/my/our imaginary friend. Or friends sometimes. Like when have a group collab brainstorm with ourself. Which can get a bit heated (noisy even) sometimes when the topic under consideration by our many self and friends is contentious. Which happens quite a lot when I am a group discussion with myself. The noisey part

jejjeje (:

[Dora Gustafson]

There is no such thing as a silly question!
is very ambiguous because 'silly' attach to question and not the person asking the question or anything else

When interpreted like:

It is not silly to ask a question!
makes much more sense, but then again that may not be what was meant

:smileysurprised::smileyvery-happy:

[Madelaine McMasters]

A silly person can ask a silly question. And that reminds me... are you Dora the Explorer?

I think it's harder for a stupid person to ask a stupid question. The nature of a question depends both on the question and the person asking it. A person meeting the textbook definition of "stupid", who's inquiring about something everybody else knows in hope of understanding it, is asking an intelligent question. It's much the same for children. An intelligent, well educated person, ignorant of the situtation, might ask a burgler if he needs help carrying his box of loot out of the apartment she shares with her roomies. Those privy to the full context in hindsight might consider the question stupid.

It's when we know we're ignorant of something, we make no effort to learn it, and advertise ourselves as knowledgeable that we run the greatest risk of doing stupid things or asking stupid questions. Stupid questions come from people who should have known better.

"There's no such thing as a silly (or stupid) question" is a pretty good and clichéd admission of the ubiquity of ignorance.

I ask silly, stupid and mean questions all day long. I'm fairly public with my silliness, as I can reasonabily argue it stems from some level of intelligence. I'm more circumspect with my stupid and mean questions, as they are internal tools for prodding my brain into tackling problems from different directions, much as irihapeti describes as talking to herself. Absent the context for asking myself those questions, others might get the impression that I'm stupid, or mean. They might be right, but why risk detection?

;-).

[irihapeti]

for me is my upbringing (and other exposures since) that influences mostly how I take stuff to mean

like: Dont ask such a silly question

the implication (for me) is that is not the question that is being named silly. Is implied that the person asking is silly bc of the use of Dont

next: That is a silly question

again (for me) is implied that the person asking is silly. stupid even. The person says silly but they imply stupid

so: That is a stupid question

the implication here is same as above. Just more direct

+

next: Oh! dont be silly. For goodness sake think about it before open your mouth

or: Maaan! you are so stupid. You big doof !!

is upfront these. True or not

+

like I say tho is just how I take them to mean when I hear

so when I say: There is no such thing as a silly question

then from this pov I will say straight out if I think the asker is being wilfully silly or wifully stupid by asking the question. And not imply it by alluding to it by seeming to give the question a moral dimension in itself

Moral might not be the right word tho. But something like that

+

is interesting thought

does a question sans asker have a moral dimension in itself?

if so can it have more than one moral dimension? One for the asker and one for the listener. If this is so then would not everybody who heard the question asked recognise it as such all in the same way? Or does the moral of the question have weak properties which the listener(s) can discard easily and substitute their own moral(s) to it?

but am now in a do { circle } while(1) loop I think (:

[Dora Gustafson]

It is an interesting analysis you come up with

:smileysurprised::smileyvery-happy:

I will not try to take it any further, English is not my native language so I am on thin ice

[Estelle Pienaar]

I loooooooove how this conversation went off-topic!     :matte-motes-inlove: