Er zijn 28 reacties in dit onderwerp

[nor50]

I have always heard that OSCAM is the only one I can use, but a friend told me CCCAM also works. What is the truth...? Pros and cons if both works?

[jeanclaude]

CCcam -> easy, fast, but do use the latest version for ARM architecture

oscam  -> difficult, compex, you're in luck if it works out-of-the box with pre-installed readers, otherwhise I wouldn't touch it in a million years.

 

also don't use PLI 7.2 with CCcam as it's dead with that version of PLi (and higher ?) - at least the ARM version is.

[twol]

oscam  -> difficult, compex, you're in luck if it works out-of-the box with pre-installed readers, otherwhise I wouldn't touch it in a million years.

If you are only using basic CCcam for external providers, then converting to Oscam is so easy (there is a tool) that anyone could do it.

Otherwise it requires the ability to google and read.

[Pr2]

OScam is not that hard once you have understood the group number notion.

My advice is to assign a group number different for each reader, then you assign the readers (with the group numbers) to the users. I think it is the more easy and logical way to manage OScam.

 

So let says that you have 2 cards in you local share:

Card 1 assign it group number 1

Card 2 assign it group number 2

 

Then you have 3 users:

restroom

bedroom

office

 

If you want to provide both cards to restroom and bedroom then assign group=1,2   and if you only want to provide card2 in the office group=2

 

You can also decide to work the other way: assign a unique group number to a user and the assign the user to the reader.

But once you mix up group number between user and reader this become a real mess and you will create loop and no longer be able to manage your access.

 

The group number you assign is there to make the link between users and readers, so you need to choose once for all what the group number is used for.

[WanWizard]

CCcam -> easy, fast, but do use the latest version for ARM architecture

also don't use PLI 7.2 with CCcam as it's dead with that version of PLi (and higher ?) - at least the ARM version is.

 

These two statements contradict. There is only one CCcam, it is closed source, and binary, so either it works, or it doesn't. Nothing we can do anything about...
 

[s3n0]

Oscam softcam is much better for the purpose of sharing (if your card allows sharing, of course) and for a variety of configurable options. It has a lot of sharing options that Cccam doesn't have.

 

Cccam softcam is very simple, focused mainly on the cccam protocol, while Oscam is multi-protocol (cccam: all versions; newcamd: older versions; camd35: udp tcp).

 

Oscam softcam is very good both as a client and as a server. Cccam is used only as a softcam client. Not like a softcam server. Oscam can be used simultaneously as both client and server.

[catastrofus]

that is nonsense.

 

Cccam is used only as a softcam client. Not like a softcam server.

 

 

 

 

[s3n0]

Yes, Cccam softcam is usually used only as a softcam-client. As a Cccam softcam-server is it absolutely useless . Nothing can be set in it, unlike Oscam.

[WanWizard]

Which for any legal setup is not a problem whatsoever...

[ims]

OScam is not that hard once you have understood the group number notion.

My advice is to assign a group number different for each reader, then you assign the readers (with the group numbers) to the users. I think it is the more easy and logical way to manage OScam.

 

So let says that you have 2 cards in you local share:

Card 1 assign it group number 1

Card 2 assign it group number 2

 

Then you have 3 users:

restroom

bedroom

office

 

If you want to provide both cards to restroom and bedroom then assign group=1,2   and if you only want to provide card2 in the office group=2

 

You can also decide to work the other way: assign a unique group number to a user and the assign the user to the reader.

But once you mix up group number between user and reader this become a real mess and you will create loop and no longer be able to manage your access.

 

The group number you assign is there to make the link between users and readers, so you need to choose once for all what the group number is used for.

Is it still better to create 2 group, if both cards are same and one is as fallback and is used for all boxes home ?

I think, it works in one group too ...

[catastrofus]

that is nonsense.

 

Yes, Cccam softcam is usually used only as a softcam-client. As a Cccam softcam-server is it absolutely useless . Nothing can be set in it, unlike Oscam.

 

[s3n0]

 

that is nonsense.

 

Yes, Cccam softcam is usually used only as a softcam-client. As a Cccam softcam-server is it absolutely useless . Nothing can be set in it, unlike Oscam.

 

Oh, nooo... we have a staunch supporter of closed and potentially dangerous Cccam source code .

[catastrofus]

No, I use oscam on both ultimo4k's (one cardserver, 1 client) that I own but what you are saying about the use of cccam is nonsense.

You can use cccam as server and you can use cccam as a client.

 

Your 1ste reaction: Cccam is used only as a softcam client. Not like a softcam server.

Your 2nd reaction: Cccam softcam is usually used only as a softcam-client.

 

That's a big difference.

[s3n0]

Of course, just a fool or an inexperienced user would use Cccam as a softcam server. Cccam can therefore only be used as a softcam-client. In the position of softcam server is definitely 100 times better Oscam.

 

[WanWizard]

A lot of us have been using CCcam as a server for many, many years, without any issues.

 

While I don't debate Oscam is better, and should be used when and where possible, your statement is still factually untrue...

[s3n0]

Yes, me too, I used Cccam when Oscam did not exist and there were no Linux satellite receivers. There were only set-top-boxes with their own firm and closed firmware . But that was a long time ago. Some of these firmware also included the option of "sharing" the card over RS-232 or over a computer network. Later the CCCAM protocol was also used. But since when Oscam has existed, I've only been using Oscam (if possible and if it can be used within the same household - not over the Internet). No better Softcam I've never seen in my life. It is possible to set everything there and its code is open (if necessary it is always possible to add the necessary functions).

One thing I hate and do not support is the misuse of card-sharing over the Internet for a fee for pirates. All I admit is to get the decode card at home for 2-3 TVs. Because it is extreme hyenism if the provider is asking for the same money from me and from my father, even though he is sitting in the next room in the same house. This is hyenism and for this purpose Softcam is definitely better (if it works, of course).

[jeanclaude]

 

CCcam -> easy, fast, but do use the latest version for ARM architecture

also don't use PLI 7.2 with CCcam as it's dead with that version of PLi (and higher ?) - at least the ARM version is.

 

These two statements contradict. There is only one CCcam, it is closed source, and binary, so either it works, or it doesn't. Nothing we can do anything about...
 

 

in that case, please explain to my why the SAME CCcam binary is working perfectly under PLi 7.1 and is failing miserably under PLi 7.2 ? see my messages here : https://forums.openp...dpost&p=1147065

it's not the closed source binary that has changed, it's your PLi source code which somehow broke the CCcam working.

Veranderd door jeanclaude, 3 april 2020 - 07:56

[s3n0]

@jeanclaude:

 

Binary files have some dependencies on the libraries that are installed on the system, as well as the Linux kernel version. Unfortunately, when upgrading or changing an Enigma distribution from another development team, some libraries may be missing altogether or they may be different versions - a compatibility problem will arise. So it's not an OpenPLi bug, but a Cccam development bug.

Unfortunately, the source code of the Cccam softcam is officially closed. Nowhere on the internet can you find freely available source code for Cccam softcam. If you find it, it's some old version of the source code, and especially the pirate. Yes, source codes can be obtained, but they will never have a single source or a single and common source, as is the case with Oscam. The Cccam source codes you find (if you can even find them) will not be one hundred percent.

It is also possible to perform so-called reverse engineering - machine code stepping or debugging with the help of system tools for Linux programming. And then you add your own code to the binary (it is necessary to know the Assembler of a particular processor and also knowledge of executable modules / files in Linux system). It's a more complicated way.

Veranderd door s3n0, 3 april 2020 - 12:13

[WanWizard]

in that case, please explain to my why the SAME CCcam binary is working perfectly under PLi 7.1 and is failing miserably under PLi 7.2 ? see my messages here : https://forums.openp...dpost&p=1147065

it's not the closed source binary that has changed, it's your PLi source code which somehow broke the CCcam working.

 

Afaik the issues in that thread are lcd4linux and VU+ specific related. Lcd4linux hijacks Enigma, which causes timing issues,which causes long(er) zap times and softcam glitches. Which seem to bother CCcam more than Oscam.

 

I have removed lcd4linux (and in new builds it is not present by default anymore), and have seen no issues anymore.

[jeanclaude]

I do not use lcd4linux, and I have tested this on my Gigabyte Ultra 4K receiver.

 

@s3n0 : CCcam is indeed closed source, but it seems to work on most distributions including PLi up to version 7.1 - something has changed with PLi 7.2 so it will probably be some dependency indeed, which seems to happen frequently with PLi, as with each new version more & more plugins are not working any more, and it's all the auther's fault, I know.