Starcraft2 won't have LAN support?!?
Doug Jacobs
will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to
connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment
about piracy as the reason for this.
What the heck are they thinking? One of the reason Blizzard was such a
great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the
gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of
Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate
copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their
sales.
I've also heard that Diablo3 will also lack LAN support, for the same
vague reaons
I just don't get it.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Ross Ridge
>According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2
>will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to
>connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment
>about piracy as the reason for this.
>
>What the heck are they thinking?
The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD
key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to
Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until
someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be
a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online
will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997
anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used
(by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development
and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
>One of the reason Blizzard was such a
>great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the
>gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of
>Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate
>copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their
>sales.
Yah, spawn copies definately wasn't going to happen. Blizzard doesn't
need to this anymore, the Blizzard and Starcraft names will sell millions
of copies without this.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
JR
wrote:
Well... I rememer there were a lot of complains, by non-game
companies, that employees were cloging up office networks with games
of Warcraft, etc...
shawn
<rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Doug Jacobs <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>>According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that Starcraft2
>>will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each player will have to
>>connect to Battle.net via the internet. Blizzard made some vague comment
>>about piracy as the reason for this.
>>
>>What the heck are they thinking?
>
>The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD
>key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to
>Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until
>someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be
>a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online
>will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997
>anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used
>(by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development
>and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
Actually that's not true. People may have Internet access but often
when they are using LAN play it's at a different location where
Internet access is either not available or where it's not allowed.
Think of people getting together in a club house or people wanting to
play after work. As far as it being a huge amount of time I doubt
that's the case since they've already done much of the base work in
the past, and it's likely that they did some work on it for D3/SC2.
>>One of the reason Blizzard was such a
>>great company was that they didn't put such ridiculous requirements on the
>>gamer like this. Heck, you could even spawn a multiplayer-only copy of
>>Starcraft for your friend to use so you didn't have to buy 2 separate
>>copies. That was great, and I'm sure it actually helped increase their
>>sales.
>
>Yah, spawn copies definately wasn't going to happen. Blizzard doesn't
>need to this anymore, the Blizzard and Starcraft names will sell millions
>of copies without this.
Unfortunately that's true. These games have such a brand name
recognition that even if they sucked they would probably still be a
best seller.
cyg
"Doug Jacobs" <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:-cGdnQ-Hm6Og2NfX...@posted.rawbandwidth...
> I've also heard that Diablo3 will also lack LAN support, for the same
> vague reaons
>
> I just don't get it.
Think of these as gradual steps toward a battle.net monthly fee. First, they
have to make sure that everyone is forced to use battle.net, otherwise
there's no point. Then, there will be "premium" features for those who want
to pay (imagine a Hellgate model for D3 -- perhaps not so far off from the
truth?). Then, eventually, you will have to pay the same fee to play
Warcraft IV multiplayer as you do to play World of Warcraft.
I'm just glad that I was never really a big fan of Starcraft -- I had
shelved the game after finishing the campaign, and then I only got Brood War
because in college all my dorm friends were playing the game on the LAN...
oops. Looks like I'll be skipping the purchase of SC2.
Basically, Blizzard knows that they can do whatever they want with SC2 and
the sheeple will follow. That means making people go through battle.net to
play with two computers in their own house. That means selling the
single-player game across three different boxes. That means, in all
likelihood, forced installs of Warden and other spyware that is already
being used to collect data from people's computers.
No game is worth this.
Doug Jacobs
>>What the heck are they thinking?
>
> The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD
> key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to
> Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until
> someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be
> a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online
> will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997
> anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used
> (by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development
> and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
From my memories from the first Starcraft, CD key generators were already
a problem with people trying to register their legitimate CDs only to be
told their CD key had already been taken. Then comes the adversarial call to
tech support wherein the customer had to convince Blizzard he wasn't a
pirate. I can't see how this online-only system addresses this problem.
Yeah, it's not 1997 anymore, and internet access is more ubiquitious than
ever, but some folks are still doing the LAN-party thing. Even then,
there are still instances where it'd be nice to have a LAN game,
especially since certain places, like colleges, restrict certain types
of internet traffic.
> Yah, spawn copies definately wasn't going to happen. Blizzard doesn't
> need to this anymore, the Blizzard and Starcraft names will sell millions
> of copies without this.
Maybe so, but it was still a terrific way to help sell the game, and
treated the customers like responsible adults, instead of the normal
"guilty of piracy until proven innocent" mentality that's become all too
common in the PC game industry.
Doug Jacobs
>>I just don't get it.
>
> Well... I rememer there were a lot of complains, by non-game
> companies, that employees were cloging up office networks with games
> of Warcraft, etc...
Yeah, my friends and I spent a few hours after work playing Starcraft and
Diablo on the LAN...
But this is just my point. As an office IT manager (who was one of the
aforementioned "friends" ;) ) I'd prefer to keep such traffic local,
rather than buring up the WAN connection. Most offices are at least
100mbps, if not gigabit, but the WAN connection could still be a measely
T1. If you're going to be playing with local friends, why involve the
internet? That just doesn't make sense. Why not simply include a highly
simplified version of the server that someone runs on their computer to
host the game? Even limiting it to 4 players would be fine, with larger
skirmishes requiring Battle.Net.
Ross Ridge
> The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only letting one CD
> key play online on the Internet at a time. By forcing LAN games on to
> Battle.net it should be an effective anti-pirary measure, at least until
> someone comes up with a fake Battle.net server. Even then that'll be
> a pain enough to use that most would be pirates looking to play online
> will still be detered. It's hard to blame them really, it's not 1997
> anymore, everyone has Internet access and LAN play would so little used
> (by legitimate players) that it would be hard to justify the development
> and QA time necessary to implement it anyways.
Doug Jacobs <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>From my memories from the first Starcraft, CD key generators were already
>a problem with people trying to register their legitimate CDs only to be
>told their CD key had already been taken. Then comes the adversarial call to
>tech support wherein the customer had to convince Blizzard he wasn't a
>pirate. I can't see how this online-only system addresses this problem.
Better key generation seems to have largely solved that problem.
It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to make difficult enough so
"causual" pirates find it easier to just buy the game.
>Yeah, it's not 1997 anymore, and internet access is more ubiquitious than
>ever, but some folks are still doing the LAN-party thing. Even then,
>there are still instances where it'd be nice to have a LAN game,
>especially since certain places, like colleges, restrict certain types
>of internet traffic.
I'm not sure why colleges residences would be restricting access to
Battle.net. Unlike P2P networks, games take up very little bandwith.
On a office LAN, where they'd restrict access so people don't play
games instead work, sure it'll get restricted, but offices are also a
hotbed of piracy so I'm not sure it's going to make much difference to
legitimate users.
>Maybe so, but it was still a terrific way to help sell the game, and
>treated the customers like responsible adults, instead of the normal
>"guilty of piracy until proven innocent" mentality that's become all too
>common in the PC game industry.
Well, so long as playing the single player campaign doesn't also require
Battle.net, I don't think it really going to make much difference to
people. CD check for offline play, CD-keys for online play has been
the standard in PC games for a long time now.
Ceowulf
In all honesty, here is my prediction:
Within 2 weeks there will be a "patched" version which allows people to
connect to home bnet servers, allowing us to LAN with impunity without
the need to connect to an online bnet.
--
Ceo-
Ross Ridge
>In all honesty, here is my prediction:
>
>Within 2 weeks there will be a "patched" version which allows people to
>connect to home bnet servers, allowing us to LAN with impunity without
>the need to connect to an online bnet.
If it were any other game, I'd disagree with you, but given Starcraft's
popularity, especially in Korea, I can see it happening though it'll
probably take more than two weeks. Even then I think it'll be enough
of a pain to download and setup that it'll keep most people honest.
Ceowulf
> Ceowulf <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote:
>> In all honesty, here is my prediction:
>>
>> Within 2 weeks there will be a "patched" version which allows people to
>> connect to home bnet servers, allowing us to LAN with impunity without
>> the need to connect to an online bnet.
>
> If it were any other game, I'd disagree with you, but given Starcraft's
> popularity, especially in Korea, I can see it happening though it'll
> probably take more than two weeks. Even then I think it'll be enough
> of a pain to download and setup that it'll keep most people honest.
Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to
setup. So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in
the making.
--
Ceo-
cyg
"Ceowulf" <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote in message
news:4a5b4964$0$9745$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to setup.
> So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in the
> making.
But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking
to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2.
Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of
a year before we see a usable grey-market server. As well, most of the
existing servers were developed at a time when there were no legal
hindrances; this time Blizzard is likely going to start filing lawsuits on
day one, which will affect at least in some way the willingness to create
and distribute bnet emulators.
Ceowulf
I can't argue with that logic unfortunately :/
This really is a bitch, from day one my friends and I were planning on
purchasing Starcraft 2 and some epic lan's were planned. We _never_ have
net connections available when we lan as we always use a hall of some
sort. Even if we did get a net connection, having 8+ people all having
to connect through a single connection to the bnet server to play with
is ludicrous.
If this plan of theirs is a reality when it's released, they've lost the
sales of my friends and I. I can't say we will be unique in our
decisions either.
--
Ceo-
David Lamb
> "Ceowulf" <non...@toknow.askifyoudo> wrote in message
> news:4a5b4964$0$9745$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Private battlenet server software already exists and is a pinch to setup.
>> So the adapation of Starcraft 2 to use them will not be long in the
>> making.
>
> But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking
> to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2.
> Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of
> a year before we see a usable grey-market server.
Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal?
criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits.
Sheldon England
> ... some epic lan's were planned. We _never_ have
> sort.
This bit fascinates me.
So ... you would rent a hall, then you all pack up your home PCs and
transport them to the rented hall, and then you each sit at your own PCs
on rented tables in one big room and play a game together?
I can't conceive of even relocating my PC, let alone gaming together
like that. Wouldn't it be more convenient to play via the Internet from
the comfort of your den or home office?
Are there many people who play LAN games still? Is it just Starcraft or
other games?
- Sheldon
Doug Jacobs
> But that is with unprotected clients. Undoubtedly Blizzard will be looking
> to encrypt and otherwise obfuscate the packets that are transmitted by SC2.
> Reverse engineering is possible, but it will probably be the better part of
> a year before we see a usable grey-market server. As well, most of the
> existing servers were developed at a time when there were no legal
> hindrances; this time Blizzard is likely going to start filing lawsuits on
> day one, which will affect at least in some way the willingness to create
> and distribute bnet emulators.
Such laws and lawsuits will only be effective against Americans.
Fortunately, America does not have a monopoloy on smart, talented
programmers.
Doug Jacobs
> Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal?
> criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits.
They have to be careful. The DMCA is unconstitutional as written.
So if Blizzard starts waving the DMCA around indiscriminately it could
result in not only having the case thrown out, but the DMCA thrown off the
books entirely. This is why there are people trying to goad companies
into suing them because of DMCA violations.
Besides which, the American law only applies within America's borders.
Any attempt to try and sue someone in, say, Canada for creating a
workaround to this problem will only result in a bunch of legal red tape
and negative publicity for Blizzard.
David Lamb
> David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal?
>> criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits.
> into suing them because of DMCA violations.
More power to them, but I hope they have a big legal defence fund!
> Besides which, the American law only applies within America's borders.
I'd like to believe that, but there's this thing called
"extraterritoriality" that us non-Americans find very annoying; the US
of A is really good at finding ways to extend its laws beyond its own
borders.
Ceowulf
> Ceowulf wrote:
>> ... some epic lan's were planned. We _never_ have net connections
>> available when we lan as we always use a hall of some sort.
>
> This bit fascinates me.
>
> So ... you would rent a hall, then you all pack up your home PCs and
> transport them to the rented hall, and then you each sit at your own PCs
> on rented tables in one big room and play a game together?
You hit it on the nail :) We buy pizza, get beer, play games, talk shit,
insult reach other, burp, belch, fart, you name it :) It's a great time
and an excellent excuse to have a boy only social event ;) Yes our gf's
all hate it, and that's their right. We've all said they are more than
welcome to come and be our beer wenches afterall! hehe
> I can't conceive of even relocating my PC, let alone gaming together
> like that. Wouldn't it be more convenient to play via the Internet from
> the comfort of your den or home office?
More convenient maybe, but a great deal less fun and social. And really
it's not even that convenient, nothing beats face to face communication
when planning strategy.
> Are there many people who play LAN games still? Is it just Starcraft or
> other games?
Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of
Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and
the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple
people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing
one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to
military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
We also play DoTA (Warcraft 3 - Defence of the Ancients custom map),
Titan Quest, Call of Duty and so on.
But I've got to stress it's not just the games, it's the socialising :)
--
Ceo-
shawn
wrote:
>cyg <nom...@example.com> wrote:
What's more to the point smart talented programmers can pretend to be
from anywhere. With TOR and proxy servers and other methods it's
entirely possible to create a server and release it to the wild
anonymously. You won't get the joy of telling everyone of your
accomplishment but you also won't end up being sued or jailed for your
accomplishment either. (That last bit is going to make a number of
people that might be interested in the challenge look elsewhere for a
challenge to overcome.)
Ross Ridge
>What's more to the point smart talented programmers can pretend to be
>from anywhere. With TOR and proxy servers and other methods it's
>entirely possible to create a server and release it to the wild
>anonymously.
It's a moot point really. The smart talented programmers that will
eventually come up with Battle.net emulation for Starcraft 2 will most
likely come from somewhere in Asia or maybe Eastern-Europe.
Mike S.
wrote:
>Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of
>Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and
>the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple
>people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing
>one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to
>military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
That is exactly what I did with a friend of mine. I did not care for
the military fighting part of the game. My friend did not really like
the base building part of the game. So we each played the portion we
did like on the same race. It was definitely fun.
Sheldon England
> You hit it on the nail :) We buy pizza, get beer, play games, talk shit,
> insult reach other, burp, belch, fart, you name it :) It's a great time
> and an excellent excuse to have a boy only social event ;) Yes our gf's
> all hate it, and that's their right. We've all said they are more than
> welcome to come and be our beer wenches afterall! hehe
That honestly sounds like a lot of fun. Though I would probably want a
second PC to do this. (No pizza fingers get anywhere near my machine!)
>> Are there many people who play LAN games still? Is it just Starcraft
>> or other games?
>
> Yes, quite a few I think :) And there are _lots_ of games. Age of
> Empires 2 still gets a good stomping, it has the best maps (big), and
> the best base building concepts around. In addition it allows multiple
> people to play the same race! Meaning you can have two people playing
> one race. One person can be devoted to base economy, the other to
> military and so on. It's a huge amount of fun.
>
> We also play DoTA (Warcraft 3 - Defence of the Ancients custom map),
> Titan Quest, Call of Duty and so on.
I can understand the advantage of that.
I have only once played a LAN game -- Warcraft 2 (a long, long time ago)
and we were in two rooms. We couldn't see each other but we could hear
the taunts and screams of agony. Now with Vent and in-game voice for MMO
playing it's about the same ... I can hear their joy or pain but not see
it.
> But I've got to stress it's not just the games, it's the socialising :)
Fair enough. I was just surprised that people would still LAN. Across
the street from where I work is a business that, according to the window
signage, is all about hosting LAN parties. I figured it was just a front
for drug dealing or a gang but maybe it's legit! :p
Thanks for the reply and info.
- Sheldon
Ceowulf
It really is isn't it? The chap I usually paired up with a base building
whiz. Whereas I was a sneaky, aggressive and comprehensive on the
military side. Especially with the huge maps, you could have multiple,
walled, well hidden bases from which to operate from.
My favourite trick was to, at the soonest possible stage, set up a small
forward base inside a targets outer perimeter, usually behind their main
base in a small nook of the map they were unlikely to explore.
Ah, fun :)
--
Ceo-
Ceowulf
> Ceowulf wrote:
>> But I've got to stress it's not just the games, it's the socialising :)
>
> Fair enough. I was just surprised that people would still LAN. Across
> the street from where I work is a business that, according to the window
> signage, is all about hosting LAN parties. I figured it was just a front
> for drug dealing or a gang but maybe it's legit! :p
>
> Thanks for the reply and info.
Haha my pleasure, it probably was just a front! ;) But no those places
exist and there are I can guarantee, at least several in every city :)
--
Ceo-
Magnate
news:Xfc7m.94$3m2...@newsfe06.iad...
But that's largely our fault for electing such pathetically weak politicians
who let them do it.
David Lamb
> "David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>> "extraterritoriality" that us non-Americans find very annoying; the US
>> of A is really good at finding ways to extend its laws beyond its own
>> borders.
>
> But that's largely our fault for electing such pathetically weak
> politicians who let them do it.
That applies to letting them change out intellectual property laws, for
example -- but then there's things like that law that punishes American
directors of non-American companies that took over Cuban assets once
owned by Americans. Nothing much that Canadians could do about that one
(we never restricted trade/tourism), except mock them: Milliken, our
local MP, "proposed" a joke bill punishing American companies that took
over property once owned by Loyalist.
Doug Jacobs
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>> David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>> Plus, doesn't the American DMCA make reverse-engineering illegal?
>>> criminally so? That might be a bigger threat than lawsuits.
>> This is why there are people trying to goad companies
>> into suing them because of DMCA violations.
>
> More power to them, but I hope they have a big legal defence fund!
Some of the efforts are directly backed by the EFF and ACLU. It would be
an amusing case, to say the least...and I'm sure the courtroom would be
packed by cheering geeks :)
>> Besides which, the American law only applies within America's borders.
>
> I'd like to believe that, but there's this thing called
> "extraterritoriality" that us non-Americans find very annoying; the US
> of A is really good at finding ways to extend its laws beyond its own
> borders.
Well, that's true. I'm reminded of a certain teenager from...Norway was
it? who was arrested - in his home - by the FBI for reverse engineering,
and then posting a program to crack the CSS encryption on DVDs, thus
allowing DVDs to be played under Linux which had no official DVD player
software at the time. The US government considered the DeCSS program to
be a war munition, which spawned many interesting attempts by the Linux
community to show how stupid the rules were. One programmer was facing
deportation after his visa had expired. So he had the first 100
characters of DeCSS tatoo'd onto his back - thus making him "illegal for
exportation". It worked. The court ruled he couldn't be deported unless
the offending bit of code was erased from his body. Tshirts with the
DeCSS source code printed on them were all the rage amongst Linux geeks
back then.
Anyways, the whole mess just ended up showing what a bunch of a-holes the
MPAA was, and just how dangerous-stupid the DMCA is. If Blizzard wants
that sort of infamy, be my guest.
Doug Jacobs
> It's a moot point really. The smart talented programmers that will
> eventually come up with Battle.net emulation for Starcraft 2 will most
> likely come from somewhere in Asia or maybe Eastern-Europe.
Ah, yes. Where the smart talented programmers are all too often
unemployed and bored. Usually a bad combination.
John Doe
> Doug Jacobs <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>> According to today's Joystiq article, Blizzard confirmed that
>> Starcraft2 will not support local multiplayer via LAN. Each
>> player will have to connect to Battle.net via the internet.
>> Blizzard made some vague comment about piracy as the reason for
>> this.
>>
>> What the heck are they thinking?
>
> The only anti-piracy measure that works on the PC is only
> letting one CD key play online on the Internet at a time. By
> forcing LAN games on to Battle.net it should be an effective
> anti-pirary measure
Yup, that is an obvious truth and it is the answer to the original
question. Blizzard know it, and that is why they do it.
John Doe
> Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
lol
We feel their pain.
Farley
>> Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>> It's a moot point really. The smart talented programmers that
>>> will eventually come up with Battle.net emulation for Starcraft
>>> 2 will most likely come from somewhere in Asia or maybe
>>> Eastern-Europe.
Yea, sure. That's why they have never programed one OS or anything else
remotely like it.
David Lamb
Programming an OS is a massive team effort. I expect hacking a
Battle.net emulator is a much smaller job, suitable for just a few people.
Ross Ridge
> It's a moot point really. The smart talented programmers that
> will eventually come up with Battle.net emulation for Starcraft
> 2 will most likely come from somewhere in Asia or maybe
> Eastern-Europe.
Farley <far...@SPAMTRAP.net> wrote:
>Yea, sure. That's why they have never programed one OS or anything else
>remotely like it.
Oh, there have been operating systems and things like them written in
Asia and Eastern-Europe. While not quite from Eastern-Europe, the Linux
kernel came out of Finland.
In any case, writting an operating system isn't anything like hacking
a computer program. The people who end up cracking this new version of
Battle.net won't have ever written a single line of OS code. It'll be
done by hackers who's previous work include no-cd cracks, viruses,
trojans, botnets, etc...
Doug Jacobs
> Oh, there have been operating systems and things like them written in
> Asia and Eastern-Europe. While not quite from Eastern-Europe, the Linux
> kernel came out of Finland.
Linux was originally a side project by a college student which quickly
grew into an international cooperative project, with developers from
around the world...including Russia, Eastern-Europe and Asia.
> In any case, writting an operating system isn't anything like hacking
> a computer program. The people who end up cracking this new version of
> Battle.net won't have ever written a single line of OS code. It'll be
> done by hackers who's previous work include no-cd cracks, viruses,
> trojans, botnets, etc...
Viruses and trojans require some knowledge of the target OS, not to
mention C and a touch of assembly programming. Definitely not the sort of
thing you're going to get out of an introductory C programming class.
As for hacking battle.net, that will require some low level networking
experience - again not the sort of thing you're going to get out of a
"network programming for dummies" book.