Bobzilla69
2011-03-23 03:34:57
Hi,
The main reason i am making this is, i suppose, the stuff "Timer"(Train) was working on and the threads where people bash closed source.
everyone seemed to bash him for wanting to make a closed source project, i personally dont see anything wrong with this, yeh sure its a community and we should share all of the knowledge we have, dont get me wrong i completely support this, but it simply looks to me that everyone that supports open source will put any closed source persons project down because they want it to be open source.
maybe its just me but there seems to be a big bias to any closed source project.
bet i get de-repped for saying my opinion
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 04:00:38
tl;dr, closed source + one person updating == failure, indubitably. You may be interested in the read though. :)
A very big reason why closed source is inherently bad is because it disallows the majority of people to contribute or even figure out what's wrong. Not all closed source things are bad (unless you're RMS, and if you want to know why some people think closed source is bad, check with him. Most of what he says is it's about freedom, but it's not like we have much of that anyway), necessarily.
Winblows definitely has a market. It's good at what it does for it's market. Just as Mac OS X is good for it's audience. The reason that people bitch about Microsoft and Apple being shitty is because people want things to be open so that they can learn, create, manipulate, and everything else they want, as it'd be open and they could make their computer just show a dragon and play dragon noises whenever anyone walks by their computer.
Keep in mind most people who say they want things open don't have any idea what they're talking about. It's just like people who use Ubuntu to say they use Linux because Microsoft and Apple are shitty and closed source. It's like the hipsters of losers who just want another thing to say they're different about.
I'm not saying I'm not one of those people by the way. At least not when I started using ubu. Now I see the benefits of open software and I love it. It makes things way easier.
Anyway. The reason Simba was made (for the most part) was because SCAR, being closed and maintained by a single person, took forever to update, and when it did update, bugs were, obviously, an issue. And since only one person could push new versions and do any updating, it would be difficult to find out what the problem was, fix it, and then have other people fix it (as they'd have to wait for Freddy to upload an updated version). It just leads to failure, really.
But with Microsoft and Apple it works for them. They have people that really understand the inner workings of what they're doing, so most of them know it forward and back (albeit Microsoft has pushed themselves into a corner with getting so big, and Apple seems to be doing the same thing as they continually expand). With GNU/Linux, many more people can find out what's wrong, update things, etc., as they can see exactly how everything works.
So the problem with RRL was because it would inevitably take the same path as SCAR, imo. I never really looked through it, but closed source + only a single person pushing updates (he actually gave access to IceFire and pyro, but he'd be the one doing most of the work, most likely). It wasn't that it was a bad idea (to rewrite reflection) or anything, really. It was just that it was closed and only maintained by him that it would have failed indefinitely.
Sorry for the wall of text.
His shit wasn't closed source. The license just prevented redistributing/modifying or something. I don't remember what license it was but yeah.
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 04:20:06
It was essentially closed, as he said he wouldn't take contributions from anyone from SRL, and the license disallowed you to modify it.
It's a good thread topic regardless.
nielsie95
2011-03-23 04:23:35
From: Bobzilla69
but it simply looks to me that everyone that supports open source will put any closed source persons project down because they want it to be open source.
That's not true. You always have the fanatics, though.
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 04:25:53
From: nielsie95
That's not true. You always have the fanatics, though.
lol read: Richard Stallman.
cycrosism
2011-03-23 04:27:49
Smart was closed sourced for years and years.
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 04:29:07
It was also private. Not that SMART was an exception to the RMSs among us.
footballjds
2011-03-23 04:31:33
From: cycrosism
Smart was closed sourced for years and years.
good point…
and i don't think the bias against closed source is helpful…
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 04:38:12
:< Not to be a e-peen whore, but my post has some points on why closed source is bad.
Bobzilla69
2011-03-23 05:03:21
Thanks all for replying, i want this to be a good discussion and not a flame war :)
From: i luffs yeww
Sorry for the wall of text.
Thanks it was a good read.
i understand that one man project are mainly going to fail, not always unless you are extremely dedicated in what you are doing.
i only recently started using ubuntu at work and i have to say i dont like it, that might be because i have used windows for so long but its just not as nice for me to use, i have yet to uninstall it so i am still trying to get to grips with it.
From: nielsie95
That's not true. You always have the fanatics, though.
yes i realize what i said was a bit of a stereotype but your right there are the fanatics that do it and the people that just want to jump on the bandwagon and it really annoys me.
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 05:10:16
If you need help with Ubuntu, #srl can help a lot. ;) And I can with a number of things if you ever want.
But anyway, like I said, most people who complain about closed source are Internet wannabe skiddie hipsters. Not saying that all people who want open source are, but most are. :p So don't take it too seriously, if you can.
I'm a fan of open source because I like to see how things work. Learning is my #1 favorite thing to do, so when software is open I usually just read through it and that's it. I wouldn't care if I couldn't modify and redistribute it (most of the time), as I just want to learn by reading through and testing stuff. With RRL I was a bit upset about the license, but not overly upset to the point where I thought it was bad (RRL itself).
To be honest, the reason that people were against RRL was because of Timer, not because of RRL, really. It was Timer and his license choice.
Flight
2011-03-23 05:25:38
From: Bobzilla69
…will put any closed source persons project down because they want it to be open source.
bet i get de-repped for saying my opinion
He put down open source projects. :/ Infact, he put down just about everyone's work.
Gu3st...
2011-03-23 07:31:19
From: footballjds
good point…
and i don't think the bias against closed source is helpful…
How is that a good point?
Bobzilla69
2011-03-23 07:31:44
From: i luffs yeww
If you need help with Ubuntu, #srl can help a lot. ;) And I can with a number of things if you ever want.
But anyway, like I said, most people who complain about closed source are Internet wannabe skiddie hipsters. Not saying that all people who want open source are, but most are. :p So don't take it too seriously, if you can.
I'm a fan of open source because I like to see how things work. Learning is my #1 favorite thing to do, so when software is open I usually just read through it and that's it. I wouldn't care if I couldn't modify and redistribute it (most of the time), as I just want to learn by reading through and testing stuff. With RRL I was a bit upset about the license, but not overly upset to the point where I thought it was bad (RRL itself).
To be honest, the reason that people were against RRL was because of Timer, not because of RRL, really. It was Timer and his license choice.
yes i agree with you its nice to know how its all working, but most people will never actually change anything like me, i suppose most of RRL's problems did stemmed from before it was created.
footballjds
2011-03-23 10:58:25
From: Zyt3x
How is that a good point?
A number of people have said that closed source(or rather one developer) projects have failed.
This is not always the case however.
If something is free i don't see the need for closed source. but hey, to each his own. Open minded is better then open sourced so be open about not being open, :p
Gu3st...
2011-03-23 12:12:54
From: footballjds
A number of people have said that closed source(or rather one developer) projects have failed.
This is not always the case however.
If something is free i don't see the need for closed source. but hey, to each his own. Open minded is better then open sourced so be open about not being open, :p
Ah right :) Microsoft surely didn't fail with Windows by the way :p And most of the games out there has not failed
i luffs yeww
2011-03-23 12:21:24
From: Bobzilla69
yes i agree with you its nice to know how its all working, but most people will never actually change anything like me, i suppose most of RRL's problems did stemmed from before it was created.
As I agree with you! :) 99% of people don't care if it's open or not. Most don't even know that there's a choice/option/chance/whatever. They just think that everything is coded and that's how things work.
And within that small 1%, probably 50-75% don't actually care if it's open or not, they just say they want it because they're Internet wannabe skiddie hipsters, as I said. :p It's the remaining 25-50% of that 1% that actually do use open source projects in a different way, because they're open.
tarajunky
2011-03-23 13:35:38
From: Zyt3x
Ah right :) Microsoft surely didn't fail with Windows by the way :p And most of the games out there has not failed
Most people don't believe that Microsoft or major game developers might hack you and steal your monies.
We are in a "cheating community", so everyone deserves high scrutiny. I think Benland deserved to be trusted with a closed source SMART, and that has proven to be justified. Even then, I didn't embrace it for a long time.
Timer? I don't think SRL should endorse any closed source project he is offering. There are surely some here that will be willing to trust him and try out his project, and perhaps with time others will come to embrace it.
But don't expect me to use it anytime soon.
pyroryan
2011-03-23 14:16:26
From: tarajunky
Timer? I don't think SRL should endorse any closed source project he is offering. There are surely some here that will be willing to trust him and try out his project, and perhaps with time others will come to embrace it.
But don't expect me to use it anytime soon.
The source to his project can be viewed. So it is "open-source" in a sense. However, he restricts modification and redistribution rights (IIRC).
footballjds
2011-03-23 15:20:41
From: MylesMadness
…
looks pretty "open source" to me!
**BANNED The Man
2011-03-23 17:01:20
From: Bobzilla69
it simply looks to me that everyone that supports open source will put any closed source persons project down because they want it to be open source.
No, closed sauce is put down when people (timer/train), come on to the forum, "release" a half done project saying it is better than SRL (Ref) and disallow any changes.
Wanted
2011-03-23 19:07:47
I don't understand why people think RRL is closed source. You can track the development and source just like you can SRL, or simba, or any other project here
except if you want to do something with the source you can't just do whatever you want.The ranting about RRL being closed source, is a joke.
Edit:
Not even under the same license
(3:09:14 PM) Timer: It's been under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ for almost a week now.
Anyways, open source programs are always a good thing to have.
Anyways, you're right, there's a lot of bias towards closed source projects, that some how automatically always makes it a bad thing.
cycrosism
2011-03-24 01:08:25
From: i luffs yeww
If you need help with Ubuntu, #srl can help a lot. ;) And I can with a number of things if you ever want.
Maybe ask for ubuntu help on Freenode #ubuntu, from what I have experianced on #SRL you just get told to google it.
Bobzilla69
2011-03-24 03:31:26
From: Wizzup?
http://villavu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57394&highlight=open+source
Thanks Wizzup? i will have a read of that thread after i get to work, have some free time then :)
Wizzup?
2011-03-24 04:52:11
From: IceFire908
I don't understand why people think RRL is closed source. You can track the development and source just like you can SRL, or simba, or any other project here except if you want to do something with the source you can't just do whatever you want.
Timer himself admitted in the thread that it wasn't open source. We've had about 1 page on the thread discussing the definition of open source on the same thread. The conclusion was that his license was not open source (as I pointed out from the start); and that's final. I don't see how you can question this yet again. Doesn't seem much point to question the definition again?
Nava2
2011-03-24 09:01:28
footballjds
2011-03-24 09:56:17
From: Nava2
There is a difference between open and free.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
"Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code."
footballjds
2011-03-24 11:07:38
From: Wizzup?
Timer himself admitted in the thread that it wasn't open source. We've had about 1 page on the thread discussing the definition of open source on the same thread. The conclusion was that his license was not open source (as I pointed out from the start); and that's final. I don't see how you can question this yet again. Doesn't seem much point to question the definition again?
From: Nava2
Taken from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Wizzup? It appears that people's definition of open source to closely resembles free software. Open source really only means the source code is available for public scrutiny. Whether or not changes can be made depends on the type of license.
Wizzup?
2011-03-24 14:07:17
From: footballjds
Wizzup? It appears that people's definition of open source to closely resembles free software. Open source really only means the source code is available for public scrutiny. Whether or not changes can be made depends on the type of license.
It also appears that
Wikipedia does not agree with you. It also appears that the license you're talking about is not on the
the list of opensource licenses. As I have stated before (and we all found out, so I don't know why you're all asking this again) that Open Source isn't just ``I can view your source''.
Wanted
2011-03-24 14:09:51
From: Wizzup?
Timer himself admitted in the thread that it wasn't open source. We've had about 1 page on the thread discussing the definition of open source on the same thread. The conclusion was that his license was not open source (as I pointed out from the start); and that's final. I don't see how you can question this yet again. Doesn't seem much point to question the definition again?
Obviously the most important aspect of open source is that other people can see exactly how it works.
Besides, the license has already changed over a week ago.
footballjds
2011-03-24 14:55:24
Since you believe Wiki is right this is what it says:
Of, or relating to a product which is licensed to permit modifications and redistribution of its source code.
Timer's
License has share-alike:
..Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work…
you can mod and re-distribute it. I fail to see how i was wrong in saying it's Open Source
Dan Cardin
2011-03-24 14:55:29
you're just getting into semantics when you try and say something isn't open source when its source is in fact available. The Source is Openly viewable, IE Open source. you may disagree with his license choice, (past license now i suppose) but nonetheless, you can view the code, and change how it works and whatnot (despite not being able to distribute that) so it seems pretty sourcy to me.
Gu3st...
2011-03-24 15:12:54
From: Dan Cardin
you're just getting into semantics when you try and say something isn't open source when its source is in fact available. The Source is Openly viewable, IE Open source. you may disagree with his license choice, (past license now i suppose) but nonetheless, you can view the code, and change how it works and whatnot (despite not being able to distribute that) so it seems pretty sourcy to me.
With the past licence you couldn't even modify it legally
Wizzup?
2011-03-24 15:15:03
From: Dan Cardin
you're just getting into semantics when you try and say something isn't open source when its source is in fact available. The Source is Openly viewable, IE Open source. you may disagree with his license choice, (past license now i suppose) but nonetheless, you can view the code, and change how it works and whatnot (despite not being able to distribute that) so it seems pretty sourcy to me.
Footballjds: Just because Timer changed his license very recently
still doesn't make it open source. It's still not listed on the
Open Source Licenses list as I mentioned in my previous post.
I will only say this one last time, if source is visible to everyone, it doesn't mean it's Open Source. You can disagree with it as much as you want; but it's true. It's not that hard to understand, is it? It's Open Source when you have an open source-compatible license. Please, stop posting the same over and over because I will sure do so.
Icefire is right (for once), it's an
aspect of open source that you can view it, but that doesn't make it open source.
SIMPLE.
Gu3st...
2011-03-24 15:34:50
From: Wizzup?
Footballjds: Just because Timer changed his license very recently still doesn't make it open source. It's still not listed on the Open Source Licenses list as I mentioned in my previous post.
I will only say this one last time, if source is visible to everyone, it doesn't mean it's Open Source. You can disagree with it as much as you want; but it's true. It's not that hard to understand, is it? It's Open Source when you have an open source-compatible license. Please, stop posting the same over and over because I will sure do so.
Icefire is right (for once), it's an aspect of open source that you can view it, but that doesn't make it open source. SIMPLE.
It can be open source without being in the list….
Nava2
2011-03-25 00:19:05
From: Zyt3x
It can be open source without being in the list….
Its not accredited though.
Also:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Timer's license does not do this.
This thread about RRL is just feeding a troll, though. Why not move on past the discussion of Timer's license?
grats
2011-03-25 00:25:34
From: i luffs yeww
It was essentially closed, as he said he wouldn't take contributions from anyone from SRL, and the license disallowed you to modify it.
It's a good thread topic regardless.
It was, as wizzup? said: "as closed source as open source gets"
basically you could see the code but that's all
lordsaturn
2011-03-25 00:48:03
From: Zyt3x
It can be open source without being in the list….
Depends on your definition of open-source. Apparently in this thread we have differing opinions.
Two stances.
- One is the implied definition, implied by the term itself "open source", which is that open source is defined by source that is released to the public, regardless of whether it's license permits modification.
- The other stance is the technical definition, which is "a product which is licensed to permit modifications and redistribution of its source code." Note that this says modifications AND redistribution. Now this being a programming forum I hope that most of you will realize that for the statement to be true, both conditions must be satisfied.
I personally go with the technical definition, as that is almost always the correct definition. We use language to describe our world, not the other way around. :duh:
Also don't know if anyone noticed this :p
Smartzkid
2011-03-25 01:21:41
My definition of open source: any code you can use without getting sued.
He's not going to sue us => his code is open enough for me.
Wizzup?
2011-03-25 07:31:02
From: Smartzkid
My definition of open source: any code you can use without getting sued.
He's not going to sue us => his code is open enough for me.
Eh, I'm pretty sure you'd want it to be legal too.
Gu3st...
2011-03-25 07:52:21
From: Wizzup?
Eh, I'm pretty sure you'd want it to be legal too.
Nah, Smartzkid is badass. :cool:
cycrosism
2011-04-03 08:14:03
Firefox has a hole in its port blocking scheme that allows people to spam an unsuspecting IRC daemon with whatever he desires.
How it works? Well, a new implementation of cross-protocol scripting was used to automatically fill a HTTP form to send a POST to port 6667 and shove a bunch of IRC commands down the socket. Although Mozilla banned most of the fun ports years ago, 6667 – the default port for IRC servers, wasn't on the list. Think of all the other TCP ports that are in common use these days that aren't covered in Mozilla's banned list.
Which browsers are infected?
Firefox - all versions
Seamonkey - all versions
Which browsers aren't?
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Apple Safari.
Because closed-source commercial products are simply better.
Gu3st...
2011-04-03 08:17:58
From: cycrosism
Firefox has a hole in its port blocking scheme that allows people to spam an unsuspecting IRC daemon with whatever he desires.
How it works? Well, a new implementation of cross-protocol scripting was used to automatically fill a HTTP form to send a POST to port 6667 and shove a bunch of IRC commands down the socket. Although Mozilla banned most of the fun ports years ago, 6667 – the default port for IRC servers, wasn't on the list. Think of all the other TCP ports that are in common use these days that aren't covered in Mozilla's banned list.
Which browsers are infected?
Firefox - all versions
Seamonkey - all versions
Which browsers aren't?
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Apple Safari.
Because closed-source commercial products are simply better.
I lmao'ed at this. You're basically saying "there's a bug in some software but this bug doesn't apply to all software, therefore the other software is better in all ways".
Boreas
2011-04-03 11:52:24
From: cycrosism
Firefox has a hole in its port blocking scheme that allows people to spam an unsuspecting IRC daemon with whatever he desires.
How it works? Well, a new implementation of cross-protocol scripting was used to automatically fill a HTTP form to send a POST to port 6667 and shove a bunch of IRC commands down the socket. Although Mozilla banned most of the fun ports years ago, 6667 – the default port for IRC servers, wasn't on the list. Think of all the other TCP ports that are in common use these days that aren't covered in Mozilla's banned list.
Which browsers are infected?
Firefox - all versions
Seamonkey - all versions
Which browsers aren't?
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Apple Safari.
Because closed-source commercial products are simply better.
You forgot a browser for the not infected list:
Joe Schmoe's SuperAwesomeBroswer
Joe made it by taking the Firefox source and adding the port to the block-list, and then released it as open source. OK so I just made that up, but the point is someone could do that (and probably has for all I know), whereas the same can't be said for an issue in a closed source browser.
MylesMadness
2011-04-03 12:04:19
From: cycrosism
Firefox has a hole in its port blocking scheme that allows people to spam an unsuspecting IRC daemon with whatever he desires.
How it works? Well, a new implementation of cross-protocol scripting was used to automatically fill a HTTP form to send a POST to port 6667 and shove a bunch of IRC commands down the socket. Although Mozilla banned most of the fun ports years ago, 6667 – the default port for IRC servers, wasn't on the list. Think of all the other TCP ports that are in common use these days that aren't covered in Mozilla's banned list.
Which browsers are infected?
Firefox - all versions
Seamonkey - all versions
Which browsers aren't?
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Apple Safari.
Because closed-source commercial products are simply better.
It blows my mind that you can draw so many false conclusions in one post…
masterBB
2011-04-03 12:11:35
From: MylesMadness
It blows my mind that you can draw so many false conclusions in one post…
It's not just mind blowing, it also made me realize, maybe infinity does exist.
sm0k3
2011-04-03 13:33:19
From: Bobzilla69
bet i get de-repped for saying my opinion
Lolz i saw that .. :lolz harder: