Nillow

Is it possible now to create an app for PC from a "Mac Version"?

Can it be done adding the max runtime windows file?

_____________Nillow_MaTeMa........................:

baixem o album do matema 17mp3 num pacote-->

Is it possible now to create an app for PC from a "Mac Version"?
Can it be done adding the max runtime windows file?

nillow@surfemail.com.br
-- 
  _____________Nillow_MaTeMa........................:
baixem o album do matema 17mp3 num pacote-->
http://www.organismo.art.br/matema

app-for-pc-from-a-mac

> Is it possible now to create an app for PC from a "Mac Version"?

> Is it possible now to create an app for PC from a "Mac Version"?
No.

you can use the project file(s) in the max/msp windows but there are some objects that work only on mac. 

so you have to re-edit you patch on a pc and make other runtime file (.exe)!

i've a pc and i can run my projects on a mac. i'v tryed before... the only thing is this: the max version have to be equal or hier to open de file!

you can use the project file(s) in the max/msp windows but there are some objects that work only on mac. 
so you have to re-edit you patch on a pc and make other runtime file (.exe)!

i've a pc and i can run my projects on a mac. i'v tryed before... the only thing is this: the max version have to be equal or hier to open de file!


the only way to know is try! have you a pc? can you try?

if you want i'can help you! send me the patch file or the collective file made in MAC and i'll try it on my PC.

On 28-Apr-2006, at 12:58, Nick Rothwell wrote:

> Is anyone using the collective as an obfuscation technology?

Not obfuscation but as a way of delivering functionality that 

For that matter, think anything Standalone. A standalone is 

essentially a Bundle (or whatever they're called on Windows) 

containing the runtime, a collective, and some auxiliary files. If 

you can take apart the collective, you would have access to the 

component externals and other shared libraries.

Changing this might not be the end of civilization as we know it, but 

it would probably force those 3rd parties with commercial externals 

Returning to the original question: there was some discussion on the 

list shortly after introduction of Max 4.3 (ie, the first Windows 

version of Max) about what options there were for building cross- 

platform Collectives. I seem to recall that it was possible, just 

I don't recall all details and have, for my part, simply built Mac 

collectives on Mac OS and Windows collectives on a PC. On the Litter 

Examples page I simply offer both flavors and people choose what they 

want to download. This may not work for everyone, but should cover 

Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

iCE: Sequencing, Recording & |home | chez nous|

Interface Building for |bei uns | i nostri|

On 28-Apr-2006, at 12:58, Nick Rothwell wrote:
> Is anyone using the collective as an obfuscation technology?

Not obfuscation but as a way of delivering functionality that  
otherwise requires a license.

For that matter, think anything Standalone. A standalone is  
essentially a Bundle (or whatever they're called on Windows)  
containing the runtime, a collective, and some auxiliary files. If  
you can take apart the collective, you would have access to the  
component externals and other shared libraries.

Changing this might not be the end of civilization as we know it, but  
it would probably force those 3rd parties with commercial externals  
to rethink their licensing policies.

Returning to the original question: there was some discussion on the  
list shortly after introduction of Max 4.3 (ie, the first Windows  
version of Max) about what options there were for building cross- 
platform Collectives. I seem to recall that it was possible, just  
somewhat unwieldy.

I don't recall all details and have, for my part, simply built Mac  
collectives on Mac OS and Windows collectives on a PC. On the Litter  
Examples page I simply offer both flavors and people choose what they  
want to download. This may not work for everyone, but should cover  
quite a lot of situations.

--------------    http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/    -------------
Peter Castine             +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

On 28 Apr 2006, at 15:00, Peter Castine wrote:

> Not obfuscation but as a way of delivering functionality that 

I don't follow. Does Jitter (or jitlib, or whatever) make use of 

> For that matter, think anything Standalone. A standalone is 

> essentially a Bundle (or whatever they're called on Windows) 

> containing the runtime, a collective, and some auxiliary files. If 

> you can take apart the collective, you would have access to the 

> component externals and other shared libraries.

Sure - this is where the thread started. I was wondering whether, 

given a standalone for one platform (say, Mac, since Windows doesn't 

support application bundles and resorts to leaving the innards in 

plain view), is it possible to just punt the collective file to 

another platform? I would guess only for collectives which only 

contain patchers (and not externals), and these would be very boring 

There seems to be an assumption here that wrapping a pile of 

commercial "stuff" into a collective somehow protects it from 

examination. As far as I know, C'74 have not said (i) collectives are 

good ways to protect your code, or (ii) collectives are false 

security. (And as for (i), C'74 can of course unpack collective 

files.) I treat them as weak security, up until the point that some 

bored teenager figures out the format and tells everyone, in which 

(Maybe there's an argument for an "encrypt collective so that only 

Max can open it, and in read-only mode", but the cryptographic model 

nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- 

> Not obfuscation but as a way of delivering functionality that  
> otherwise requires a license.
>
> Think Jitter.

I don't follow. Does Jitter (or jitlib, or whatever) make use of  
collectives?

> For that matter, think anything Standalone. A standalone is  
> essentially a Bundle (or whatever they're called on Windows)  
> containing the runtime, a collective, and some auxiliary files. If  
> you can take apart the collective, you would have access to the  
> component externals and other shared libraries.

Sure - this is where the thread started. I was wondering whether,  
given a standalone for one platform (say, Mac, since Windows doesn't  
support application bundles and resorts to leaving the innards in  
plain view), is it possible to just punt the collective file to  
another platform? I would guess only for collectives which only  
contain patchers (and not externals), and these would be very boring  
indeed.

There seems to be an assumption here that wrapping a pile of  
commercial "stuff" into a collective somehow protects it from  
examination. As far as I know, C'74 have not said (i) collectives are  
good ways to protect your code, or (ii) collectives are false  
security. (And as for (i), C'74 can of course unpack collective  
files.) I treat them as weak security, up until the point that some  
bored teenager figures out the format and tells everyone, in which  
case they offer zero security.

(Maybe there's an argument for an "encrypt collective so that only  
Max can open it, and in read-only mode", but the cryptographic model  
needed to support that is nontrivial.)

   nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http:// 
www.cassiel.com


The collective file format is a crossplatform format. If you want to build for PC from the mac you may, just be careful not to include any platform specific binaries. Then you get all the externals you need for the other platform and a user may run the collective using the runtime or whatever.

The collective file format is in no way "secure", and was never intended to be. It is trivial to extract Max patches from a collective and at some point we may even make the details of the format public. Until then, you can just open them up in a text editor and have a look yourself.

There have been a number of requests for various C74 created ways to encrypt Max patches over the years and generally our feeling is that we will not do it. Writing CP code is a fairly boring and unrewarding way to spend your life. We use a third party for our CP needs, and would prefer to spend our development resources on new features for users rather than running around trying to stay one step ahead of the h20s of the world.We encourage people who have algorithms they would like to protect to do the same thing.

On 28-Apr-2006, at 17:01, Nick Rothwell wrote:

> I don't follow. Does Jitter (or jitlib, or whatever) make use of 

As I understand it, you can include jitlib in a collective (you need 

to coerce Max into doing this) and then you can run jit.* objects as 

part of the collective. No muss, no fuss, no challenge, no response, 

no dongle. But this "freedom" is only inside the collective.

> There seems to be an assumption here that wrapping a pile of 

> commercial "stuff" into a collective somehow protects it from 

> examination. As far as I know, C'74 have not said (i) collectives 

> are good ways to protect your code, or (ii) collectives are false 

> security. (And as for (i), C'74 can of course unpack collective 

> files.) I treat them as weak security, up until the point that some 

> bored teenager figures out the format and tells everyone, in which 

I also consider the security weak. But all security is weak, in't?-.

I have made some half-hearted attempts at extracting externals from a 

collective, without success (I'm glad to say). I have already 

distributed a few clct's to demo Litter Pro objects and am currently 

working on a passle more. If embedded externals inextractable endure, 

excellent it is. (Say that five times fast, Yoda!)

Personally, I'm not worried if people can see how the patch works. In 

fact, I encourage it and there's nothing or very little hidden in my 

But this is my take. I know that other people use collectives with 

> (Maybe there's an argument for an "encrypt collective so that only 

> Max can open it, and in read-only mode", but the cryptographic 

> model needed to support that is nontrivial.)

On 28-Apr-2006, at 17:01, Nick Rothwell wrote:
> I don't follow. Does Jitter (or jitlib, or whatever) make use of  
> collectives?

As I understand it, you can include jitlib in a collective (you need  
to coerce Max into doing this) and then you can run jit.* objects as  
part of the collective. No muss, no fuss, no challenge, no response,  
no dongle. But this "freedom" is only inside the collective.

> There seems to be an assumption here that wrapping a pile of  
> commercial "stuff" into a collective somehow protects it from  
> examination. As far as I know, C'74 have not said (i) collectives  
> are good ways to protect your code, or (ii) collectives are false  
> security. (And as for (i), C'74 can of course unpack collective  
> files.) I treat them as weak security, up until the point that some  
> bored teenager figures out the format and tells everyone, in which  
> case they offer zero security.

I have made some half-hearted attempts at extracting externals from a  
collective, without success (I'm glad to say). I have already  
distributed a few clct's to demo Litter Pro objects and am currently  
working on a passle more. If embedded externals inextractable endure,  
excellent it is. (Say that five times fast, Yoda!)

Personally, I'm not worried if people can see how the patch works. In  
fact, I encourage it and there's nothing or very little hidden in my  
collectives.

But this is my take. I know that other people use collectives with  
different goals.

> (Maybe there's an argument for an "encrypt collective so that only  
> Max can open it, and in read-only mode", but the cryptographic  
> model needed to support that is nontrivial.)

On 28-Apr-2006, at 18:31, Peter Castine wrote:

Now, picking up from what Andrew Pask wrote on a parallel thread:

> The collective file format is in no way "secure", and was never 

> intended to be. It is trivial to extract Max patches from a collective

let's make sure we're on the same wavelength:

My concern is whether embedded externals are extractable. Someone 

else's concert may be whether embedded patches are extractable. Two 

different animals, two different security levels. I think.

Alohamora doesn't open every lock, not even for Miss Granger.

On 28-Apr-2006, at 18:31, Peter Castine wrote:
> But all security is weak, in't?-.

Now, picking up from what Andrew Pask wrote on a parallel thread:
> The collective file format is in no way "secure", and was never  
> intended to be. It is trivial to extract Max patches from a collective

My concern is whether embedded externals are extractable. Someone  
else's concert may be whether embedded patches are extractable. Two  
different animals, two different security levels. I think.

There is absolutely no "security" whatsoever in the collective file format , and we have never represented as much. If someone knows what they are doing, they can pretty much have it all, patches, externals, the lot.

If you have algorithms you need to protect, you should do it with purpose built tools.

There is absolutely no "security"  whatsoever in the collective file format , and we have never represented as much. If someone knows what they are doing, they can pretty much have it all, patches, externals, the lot.

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Fri, 28 April 2006 10:00

----------------------------------------------------

> >It is trivial to extract Max patches from a 

> >collective and at some point we may even make 

> >the details of the format public. Until then, 

> >you can just open them up in a text editor and 

> as i just started another thread about it - i 

> need to open as a max patch, a collective i have 

> build years ago - i lost the original patches

> but opening the collective in BBedit gives me

i just stumbled across this thread looking for an answer to the exact problem plaguing kasper, so i'm giving this question one more attempt.

is the lack of response because no one knows how to do it, or is it something that no one wants to share (collapse of civilization and all that).

the question is how to edit a patch where the only saved version is a mxf collective file.

Quote: Kasper T Toeplitz wrote on Fri, 28 April 2006 10:00
----------------------------------------------------
> >It is trivial to extract Max patches from a 
> >collective and at some point we may even make 
> >the details of the format public. Until then, 
> >you can just open them up in a text editor and 
> >have a look yourself.
> >
> >
>
>
> as i just started another thread about it - i 
> need to open as a max patch, a collective i have 
> build years ago - i lost the original patches
>
> but opening the collective in BBedit gives me

On 9-May-2006, at 4:12, Robert Ramirez wrote:

> is the lack of response because no one knows how to do it, or is it 

> something that no one wants to share (collapse of civilization and 

I was told that it was easy to do, but when I directly asked 

(offlist) for pointers on how, I never got a response either.

The first part of the answer is: you probably need to be reasonably 

comfortable working with a Hex Editor to do this. If your response to 

that is "What's a Hex Editor?" then forget it.

I have looked at a collective from inside Hex Edit, it looks possible 

but fiddly and I don't have the time/motivation to figure this out 

myself right now. Probably anyone who has taken the time is too busy 

with other stuff to write a cookbook recipe.

Peter Castine +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

Interface Building for |home | chez nous|

Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|

On 9-May-2006, at 4:12, Robert Ramirez wrote:
> is the lack of response because no one knows how to do it, or is it  
> something that no one wants to share (collapse of civilization and  
> all that).

I was told that it was easy to do, but when I directly asked  
(offlist) for pointers on how, I never got a response either.

The first part of the answer is: you probably need to be reasonably  
comfortable working with a Hex Editor to do this. If your response to  
that is "What's a Hex Editor?" then forget it.

I have looked at a collective from inside Hex Edit, it looks possible  
but fiddly and I don't have the time/motivation to figure this out  
myself right now. Probably anyone who has taken the time is too busy  
with other stuff to write a cookbook recipe.

--------------    http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/    -------------
Peter Castine            +---> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
                                Heavy-Duty Mathematics for Everyday Use
iCE:  Sequencing,  Recording &
       Interface  Building  for                   |home    | chez nous|
       Max/MSP   Extremely cool                   |bei uns |  i nostri|
       http://www.dspaudio.com/                   http://www.castine.de

App for PC from a Mac