ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption 
Author Message
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

This message announces the release of freeWrap version 6.2

The freeWrap program turns TCL/TK scripts into single-file binary executable
programs. freeWrap can wrap TCL/TK applications that consist of multiple
script and binary files. freeWrap combines all the files together into a
single executable file.

freeWrap 6.2 is based on TCL/TK 8.4.12
freeWrap 6.2 now includes encryption for wrapped applications.

freeWrap executables are freely available for both Linux and Windows.

Instructions and source code for building freeWrap on both Windows and UNIX
platforms is also freely available.

The following additional variations of freeWrap are also available for
download:

     freewrapPLUS        a windowing application that includes TCL/TK along
with the BLT and TkTable extensions

     freewrapTCLSH       a console-only application which includes only TCL.

Please visit the freeWrap home page:

          http://www.*-*-*.com/

Changes implemented in version 6.2
------------------------------------
   1. FreeWrap 6.2 is based on TCL/TK 8.4.12.

   2. The freeWrap::getStubSize procedure has been corrected to return the
proper stub size. It was returning too small a value.

   3. A new encryption mechanism has been incorporated into freeWrap. All
wrapped files are encrypted by default.

   4. The freeWrap documentation has been converted to PDF format.

   5. Expanded the instructions for building freeWrap. See the new PDF
documentation file.



Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:33:50 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption
Is there a Starkit/Starpack vs. FreeWrap somewhere? I would be curious
to know the pros and cons of each as compared with each other.

Robert



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:59:49 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:

> This message announces the release of freeWrap version 6.2

> The freeWrap program turns TCL/TK scripts into single-file binary executable
> programs. freeWrap can wrap TCL/TK applications that consist of multiple
> script and binary files. freeWrap combines all the files together into a
> single executable file.

> freeWrap 6.2 is based on TCL/TK 8.4.12
> freeWrap 6.2 now includes encryption for wrapped applications.

Thank you. I'm one of those who missed the encryption ability of the
old freewrap.


Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:30:50 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:

> Is there a Starkit/Starpack vs. FreeWrap somewhere? I would be curious
> to know the pros and cons of each as compared with each other.

Not sure. For me it's just a matter of preference/taste. I personally
'hate' Starkits (hate is a strong word, I know, but my feelings for it
is that strong) and prefer FreeWrap.

Here's a short list of pros and cons in my experience:

Starkit/Starpack:
PRO - Supports a large number of platforms.
PRO - Is used by more people.
CON - Your Tcl code must fit in to the Starkit universe.
CON - Starpacking is a multi-step process (once you've made you code
Starkitable)

FreeWrap:
PRO - Simple, single-step wrapping.
PRO - FreeWrap will wrap YOUR CODE (instead of having to make your code
wrapable).
PRO - Built-in access to the Zip Virtual FileSystem so you can process
Zip files.
PRO - A version is available compiled with BLT and TkTable.
PRO - Supports generating executable with customised icon.
CON - Only supports Windows and Linux.

I used FreeWrap mainly because Starkits did not exist back then when I
wanted to wrap my project. Later when Starkits arrived I tried to
migrate my code to it but got frustrated because Starkits expects the
directory structure of my code to comply to its format. So I stuck with
FreeWrap.

Since I haven't used Starkits much feel free to add to the PRO/CON list
so that Robert gets a better picture for comparison.



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:06:42 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:

> FreeWrap:
> CON - Only supports Windows and Linux.

I think that it would be no problem porting freewrap to FreeBSD or
Solaris.

--
That should probably be written:




Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:09:19 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:



> >> Is there a Starkit/Starpack vs. FreeWrap somewhere? I would be curious
> >> to know the pros and cons of each as compared with each other.

> > Not sure. For me it's just a matter of preference/taste. I personally
> > 'hate' Starkits (hate is a strong word, I know, but my feelings for it
> > is that strong) and prefer FreeWrap.
> > <snip>
> > I used FreeWrap mainly because Starkits did not exist back then when I
> > wanted to wrap my project. Later when Starkits arrived I tried to
> > migrate my code to it but got frustrated because Starkits expects the
> > directory structure of my code to comply to its format. So I stuck with
> > FreeWrap.

> I'm not sure what troubles you had in "porting" code for
> starkits, but all you have to do is maintain code that
> operates in a "self-relative" manner (like basing all paths
> on the main scripts [file dirname]).  That is good practice
> for general coding anyways though.

The trouble is the need to "port". With FreeWrap I didn't need to port
anything. FreeWrap readily took my working script and turned it into an
exe. Maybe it's also because I've gotten so used to FreeWrap's years
before Starkits appeared that I couldn't get myself to work the
'Starkit' way.


Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:10:53 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:

> Not sure. For me it's just a matter of preference/taste. I personally
> 'hate' Starkits (hate is a strong word, I know, but my feelings for it
> is that strong) and prefer FreeWrap.

> Here's a short list of pros and cons in my experience:

> Starkit/Starpack:
> PRO - Supports a large number of platforms.
> PRO - Is used by more people.
> CON - Your Tcl code must fit in to the Starkit universe.

Have you ever tried 'qwrap' command in sdx?

If you want just a one script file, qwrap will do it for you.

Quote:
> CON - Starpacking is a multi-step process (once you've made you code
> Starkitable)

You can write a script to starpack everything. Since it's a matter of  
vfs::mk4::Mount, you can do anything you like. You're not limited to any  
tool :-)

Quote:
> FreeWrap:
> PRO - Simple, single-step wrapping.
> PRO - FreeWrap will wrap YOUR CODE (instead of having to make your code
> wrapable).

If you don't source other files, it WILL work. otherwise I agree it's a  
bit harder, but worth it.

Quote:
> PRO - Built-in access to the Zip Virtual FileSystem so you can process
> Zip files.

Starkits can do this. There's vfs::zip included.

Quote:
> PRO - A version is available compiled with BLT and TkTable.

dqkit supports that :-)

Quote:
> PRO - Supports generating executable with customised icon.

You can do that with newer tclkits.

--
WK



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:42:08 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption
: Here's a short list of pros and cons in my experience:
: Starkit/Starpack:
: PRO - Supports a large number of platforms.
: PRO - Is used by more people.
: CON - Your Tcl code must fit in to the Starkit universe.
: CON - Starpacking is a multi-step process (once you've made you code
: Starkitable)

There is additional CON. If you don't just use opaque tool and want to
understand how your code works, you have to learn about metakits - what
is it, how it is used and how it is related to starkit/starpack.

Freewrap uses zip archive instead of metakit. Probably any person who
like to learn how the things work, already knows what zip archive is and
how to operate it.

To be honest, we should add additional PRO - there is metakit filesystem
builtin, and if you want to use metakit as database, you can do it. But
why bother with metakit, if there is SQLite?

: FreeWrap:
: PRO - Simple, single-step wrapping.
: PRO - FreeWrap will wrap YOUR CODE (instead of having to make your code
: wrapable).
: PRO - Built-in access to the Zip Virtual FileSystem so you can process
: Zip files.
: PRO - A version is available compiled with BLT and TkTable.
: PRO - Supports generating executable with customised icon.
: CON - Only supports Windows and Linux.

There is additional PRO - freewrap is designed to be easily rebuild with
neccessary extensions statically compiled in. So, if you need to use
compiled extension, you can just build your own version of freewrap with
this extension statically compiled in. It eliminates security risk of
having to write compiled code into temporary user-writtable files.

I'm thinking to create 'universal' windows-scripting version of freewrap
with following extensions:

1. Tile - to make interface look native
2. Tcom - to operate with ActiveX objects
3. Michael Schwarz printing extension - to do native printing
4. winhelp extension - to be able to use help files in application.

In my opinion this set of extension would cover most needs for simple
system administration automation (with addition of script-only extension
such as tcllib, which can be easilywrapped)

--



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:09:09 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption
Yeah ,.. i needed this ... currently files can be extracted directly
with no source-code protection. Assume this takes of that ..


Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:56:14 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:
>> PRO - Built-in access to the Zip Virtual FileSystem so you can process
>> Zip files.
>Starkits can do this. There's vfs::zip included.

However, it's been my experience that with large files, zvfs is much
faster than vfs::zip.

When I tested them, to decide which to use in my application, it was on
an 800 mhz machine running Windows.  The zvfs extension in Freewrap was
somewhere between 5 and 10 times faster than vfs::zip for my
application.



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:12:22 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:




>>>>Is there a Starkit/Starpack vs. FreeWrap somewhere? I would be curious
>>>>to know the pros and cons of each as compared with each other.

>>>Not sure. For me it's just a matter of preference/taste. I personally
>>>'hate' Starkits (hate is a strong word, I know, but my feelings for it
>>>is that strong) and prefer FreeWrap.
>>><snip>
>>>I used FreeWrap mainly because Starkits did not exist back then when I
>>>wanted to wrap my project. Later when Starkits arrived I tried to
>>>migrate my code to it but got frustrated because Starkits expects the
>>>directory structure of my code to comply to its format. So I stuck with
>>>FreeWrap.

>>I'm not sure what troubles you had in "porting" code for
>>starkits, but all you have to do is maintain code that
>>operates in a "self-relative" manner (like basing all paths
>>on the main scripts [file dirname]).  That is good practice
>>for general coding anyways though.

> The trouble is the need to "port". With FreeWrap I didn't need to port
> anything. FreeWrap readily took my working script and turned it into an
> exe. Maybe it's also because I've gotten so used to FreeWrap's years
> before Starkits appeared that I couldn't get myself to work the
> 'Starkit' way.

I've written several apps that I later wrapped as starkits/starpacks --
never had to change a line of code to get it to wrap.  Then again I never
had to change a line of code to get my scripts to work on Linux vs Windows
(don't have access to Mac, but would also suspect no changes).

Exactly what are these "porting" issues that Freewrap people belive are
required.

I've seen several threads where people have problems with compiled
extensions and Freewrap, is this an issue? (never have followed the threads)



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:01:31 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:


> : Here's a short list of pros and cons in my experience:
> : Starkit/Starpack:
> : PRO - Supports a large number of platforms.
> : PRO - Is used by more people.
> : CON - Your Tcl code must fit in to the Starkit universe.
> : CON - Starpacking is a multi-step process (once you've made you code
> : Starkitable)

> There is additional CON. If you don't just use opaque tool and want to
> understand how your code works, you have to learn about metakits - what
> is it, how it is used and how it is related to starkit/starpack.

> Freewrap uses zip archive instead of metakit. Probably any person who
> like to learn how the things work, already knows what zip archive is and
> how to operate it.

> To be honest, we should add additional PRO - there is metakit filesystem
> builtin, and if you want to use metakit as database, you can do it. But
> why bother with metakit, if there is SQLite?

> : FreeWrap:
> : PRO - Simple, single-step wrapping.
> : PRO - FreeWrap will wrap YOUR CODE (instead of having to make your code
> : wrapable).
> : PRO - Built-in access to the Zip Virtual FileSystem so you can process
> : Zip files.
> : PRO - A version is available compiled with BLT and TkTable.
> : PRO - Supports generating executable with customised icon.
> : CON - Only supports Windows and Linux.

> There is additional PRO - freewrap is designed to be easily rebuild with
> neccessary extensions statically compiled in. So, if you need to use
> compiled extension, you can just build your own version of freewrap with
> this extension statically compiled in. It eliminates security risk of
> having to write compiled code into temporary user-writtable files.

> I'm thinking to create 'universal' windows-scripting version of freewrap
> with following extensions:

> 1. Tile - to make interface look native
> 2. Tcom - to operate with ActiveX objects
> 3. Michael Schwarz printing extension - to do native printing
> 4. winhelp extension - to be able to use help files in application.

> In my opinion this set of extension would cover most needs for simple
> system administration automation (with addition of script-only extension
> such as tcllib, which can be easilywrapped)

You should add in TWAPI.


Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:04:28 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

: > In my opinion this set of extension would cover most needs
for simple
: > system administration automation (with addition of
script-only extension
: > such as tcllib, which can be easilywrapped)
: >
: >
: You should add in TWAPI.

Of course. And may be fiddl

--



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:31:23 GMT  
 ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.2 released - Now with encryption

Quote:



>> FreeWrap:
>> PRO - Simple, single-step wrapping.
>> PRO - FreeWrap will wrap YOUR CODE (instead of having to make your code
>> wrapable).

> If you don't source other files, it WILL work. otherwise I agree it's a
> bit harder, but worth it.

If this is the basis of the "porting" issue with starkits vs.
freewrap, then you simply aren't writing portable code in the
first place.  Your Tcl code should be written that you can
move the whole project to a different directory, even to a
different OS, without any code needing to change.

--
   Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy
   http://www.ActiveState.com/, a division of Sophos



Sat, 05 Jul 2008 00:30:52 GMT  
 
 [ 25 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.1 released

2. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 6.0 released

3. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 5.61 released

4. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 5.6 released

5. ANNOUNCE: Release of freeWrap version 5.5

6. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap version 5.4 released

7. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap version 5.3 released

8. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 5.2 released

9. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 5.1 released

10. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 5.0 released

11. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 4.4 released

12. ANNOUNCE: freeWrap 4.3 released

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software