Bob The Builder
-
Content Count
665 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Bob The Builder
-
-
Thanks a lot for this.
Any chance you can add "contains" which returns true/false if a string contains a string.
This is something that's harder than it should be in Ubot.
-
Nicely told Blumi.
I believe releasing/working on new v5 was the biggest mistake, and from the very start I had a feeling that the only reason behind it was getting more new customers/money. They've added a bunch of new features to (by my opinion) attract the customers (since we already had most of the features via plugins) but as whole it never worked and it still doesn't. :/
There are things like Email and certain web things that were working in v4, (and 3) and don't work in 5, and support basically told me it is now a feature request and if enough people ask for it, they will do it which I wouldn't hold my breathe. Right now email doesn't even working for me and most of my bots I need to re-write require email. That was before Eddie left too.
-
Hey bob,
Long time no see...
I wasn't aware eddie left, would be curious to know the future plans for ubot as well.
Hey,
Been a while since I used Ubot, trying to get back into it as I have some bots I need to update.
-
Since Eddie left a while ago, is there anyone currently working on Ubot codebase?
-
I am trying to edit some old scripts and add some new ones that send emails.
I have a local mail server that does not require username/password and uses IP white listing.
In Ubot 4 this was not a problem, in UBot 5 it seems to fail and will not allow me to send mail using just IP and port.
-
I think you should make the field TO: optional in the email command if using BCC:
If your goal is to blinding send emails, being forced to use TO: as well defeats the purpose.
-
I kinda disappointed. While I think a scheduler is important I think FTP commands are more important. Simply because they can be used on many different levels.
I just do not see a scheduler as being more important than FTP commands or OCR for that matter.
I'm just saying.
Plus it is easy to schedule using windows.
-
I had to do this myself, and I noticed there wasn't any help on this anywhere. Here is how I did it, works pretty good. I am subtracting 3 hours to compensate for the time difference. Just change it to how many miliseconds to you need to compensate for.
set(#date, $eval("var now = new Date(); var d = new Date(now - 10800000) d.getFullYear() + \'.\' + (d.getMonth()+1) + \'.\' + d.getDate();"), "Global")-
1
-
-
i realy dont understand why the sethteam is not offer a service for ubot like that?
i mean, seth is always looking for a biz to make money with...
like we saw on the botbank and the horrable pricepolitics on it.
so here is a way to do more money with ubot. offer a protectionsystem inside ubot.
I spoke with them in the past about this and the only protection they had in their mind was to offer it tied to the bot store but I think that's not happening either.
If the market was bigger I'd offer something myself but it just isn't worth the time involved to sell a couple of copies.
Unfortunately there are no good solutions. That's why Andy gets away charging $600 for an ebook wrapper with no support or updates.
-
Thanks for your input, but i'll test some systems first because $595 for a "protect gold" (which is almost the same price as i paid for a uBot Studio Dev license) makes no sense.
It is worth it if it was a well made protection system and you sold a lot of apps. Unfortunately it isn't.
-
I'll contact a well known company to try their software and licensing system.
The problem is the way Ubot is done. It is .net but it uses an obfuscation system so .net packagers will not work as they cannot spawn ubot files properly. If you just wrap it (like Protect Gold does) and just drop it in the file system, you need to put protection inside Ubot code to interface with the wrapper, or someone can just yank the file off the file system and by pass your protection. Almost all the commercial products do this, but they only do so in Visual Studio code (like C#), none of them have this protection code available in Ubot syntax. Ubot is very limited in what it can do, and most of the protection systems couldn't be replicated in Ubot anyway.
I looked at a lot of solutions, and tried many ways to embed ubot into a C# application and spawn it without writing to the operating system the file. C# just cannot start the main class in a Ubot file without shedding the obfuscation module.
-
Starting at $97 for the "Protect Gold" about 1,5 year ago the current price at $595 is FAR from realistic.
At that pricing you really should consider other software protection on the market that is harder to crack and in use by bigger companies.
Seriously Andy, your "Protect Gold" goes from $97 to $297 to $595.
What's next?
$10K?
It isn't updated either, considering it is a kludge put together with ebook software it is very overpriced. Only thing, it is the only thing that really works right now. Commercial software packages don't really work. I've tried many of them.
-
Just curious are there any ubot complied bots that are raking in mega dollars? I'm sure there are and I'd like to check them out, if you guys know of any..
I don't think there is. The most successful bots are likely used privately to solve problems and save a lot of money. There are a few WSO that use ubot but nothing really big.
Some have done well selling coding services but in the end it is similar to minimum wage.
-
Any news on that, since february 2012... ?
It is well before Feb 2012 when I made the first request for it. It isn't going to happen anytime soon. It is not something they feel is important.
-
I don't think this is possible in 4.0 since there are no mouse commands. I believe it might be possible in 3.x.
You could write a c# program that is called from ubot. Would take some work but should be doable.
-
I wonder if any experienced ubotters have made a supreme backlinking tool that would rival the likes of Senuke and Magic Submitter? Something made strictly with ubot 4 only.
For many reasons it just isn't possible. You can make sub-bots that do parts of it but making one big tool just isn't going to happen.
-
Works good. Similar to what I came up with. I didn't want to have to shell out.
Thanks TheJake.
-
It seems like this shouldn't be too difficult for them to do yet it is the most annoying aspect of the developer addition. I haven't created a bot that uses the Play/Pause/Stop button pretty much ever. I understand for newbies and simple bots its fine but for anything slightly complicated you're gonna end up using UI Buttons. Whenever I sell a bot I my email is full of people asking why the Run/Stop/Pause doesn't do anything and asking why its there. Its really my biggest complaint at this point.
Been told this is likely coming but it has been a while and it doesn't seem to be a priority.
-
+1
I hope they listen to us this time as pretty much all those features have been requested on different threads several times but the changes have never been made for example the ubotbrowser.exe brand was requested since november last year which is a simple change but yet several updates have come along already and something so simple have not being done.
Are they really listening to us, this section and the requests being made here?
This thread has some really great suggestions but the question remains
Will the dev team do this changes?
Reagards,
P0s3id0n
I think they listen just limited what you can do with one developer and what is important to us isnt always to them.
-
Anyway we can get this Eddie? This seems like a very simple addition but would be a huge help for coding with threads and other tasks.
-
Interesting. My comments were from a general perspective. As in a 10,000ft level looking down. Compiled vs. Interpretive. Compiled will be faster (given proper programming).
And concerning the competition you mentioned...well...I have nothing good to say about them. If I thought it was a worthwhile product it would be in my toolbox.
Well ubot isn't compiled and nether is the "compiled bots" it is run via an interpreted runtime (.net). But running in "compiled form" without ubot studio does perform better (albeit still slow depending on complexity).
-
Visual studio makes ubot look like hello world in terms of lines of code. Yet it performs very well even on older machines, on my super computer it screams.
Ubot is not all that complex (although extremely useful and potentially powerful) that it should perform so slowly.
-
A compiled bot will always run faster than a bot inside of UBot Studio. The reason is that it is compiled in a manner where the CPU can process it.
Now...
UBot Studio is a compiled program as well. Its function is an interpreter. It translates our requests into a form of the compiled code but in an interactive mode. That's how we can start, stop, pause and even step through the code in a controlled manner.
In most compiled languages this is how it works.
So there is no speeding up UBot Studio unless you want to remove functions and make it smaller.
So when you compile a bot (saving as an EXE file), you are really saving the executable code that UBot Studio is translating into a file for the CPU to process.
Now, the include file. In v3.x, that was our way of importing .ubot code into our bot. It was not compiled so therefore it had to be interpreted as well. So when it was used in a compiled bot it had to be interpreted when it was encountered so now that means it had to phone home to do that. The Bot Bank is the same thing (I am guessing...I dont use it and never will).
Now you see why UBot Studio is superior to other competitor products. They are selling the interpreter engine and do not offer a compiled version. My guess is that they do not have a clue as to how to make their code executable.
I highly doubt they don't know how to, Zenno specifically said they don't want cheesy bots being sold but I am pretty sure it is more they want to sell more licenses. Rumors are Zenno 4 is going to support compiled bots so this will no longer be ubot's crutch.
-
A compiled bot will always run faster than a bot inside of UBot Studio. The reason is that it is compiled in a manner where the CPU can process it.
Now...
UBot Studio is a compiled program as well. Its function is an interpreter. It translates our requests into a form of the compiled code but in an interactive mode. That's how we can start, stop, pause and even step through the code in a controlled manner.
In most compiled languages this is how it works.
So there is no speeding up UBot Studio unless you want to remove functions and make it smaller.
So when you compile a bot (saving as an EXE file), you are really saving the executable code that UBot Studio is translating into a file for the CPU to process.
Now, the include file. In v3.x, that was our way of importing .ubot code into our bot. It was not compiled so therefore it had to be interpreted as well. So when it was used in a compiled bot it had to be interpreted when it was encountered so now that means it had to phone home to do that. The Bot Bank is the same thing (I am guessing...I dont use it and never will).
Now you see why UBot Studio is superior to other competitor products. They are selling the interpreter engine and do not offer a compiled version. My guess is that they do not have a clue as to how to make their code executable.
I disagree. If they abandoned WPF I bet it would speed up a ton.
Is everyone Still Using Ubot 4?
in General Discussion
Posted
Email is also broken in Ubot 5 and they don't' seem to want to fix it, saying it is now a "feature" request, even though it worked fine in 4 and doesn't work in 5. There are no upgrades to 4 anymore, but there really aren't many updates to 5 either since there is no full time developer anymore. When they finally get one, still will take a while before they understand ubot.
Ubot 4 was always slow, but Ubot 5 is worse. Whenever a scheduled ubot starts from schedule or manually it locks up entire computer for 2-5 seconds on a powerhouse machine.