[QUOTE=CountNoobula;35892944]It's simple: It's our project, we don't want it opensource.[/QUOTE]
Decompiling is allowed, right?
[QUOTE=Jookia;35892977]Decompiling is allowed, right?[/QUOTE]
Just what part of 'No' didn't you understand?
-snip-
[QUOTE=Fear_Fox;35892847]What would be the point of buying a software if you can just compile it yourself from the code?[/QUOTE]
How do you think Redhat Linux works? They sell technical support and assistance as the "Enterprise" version of a Linux based OS (y'know, that thing that you're an idiot to buy normally?). It's perfectly possible to have a paid product open source.
[editline]9th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=voodooattack;35893060]Just what part of 'No' didn't you understand?[/QUOTE]
Well they still aren't distributing the source technically, so it's still not open source.
It's going to get decompiled anyway at some point for the funsies anyway, that just happens.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35893182]How do you think Redhat Linux works? They sell technical support and assistance as the "Enterprise" version of a Linux based OS (y'know, that thing that you're an idiot to buy normally?). It's perfectly possible to have a paid product open source.
[editline]9th May 2012[/editline]
Well they still aren't distributing the source technically, so it's still not open source.
It's going to get decompiled anyway at some point for the funsies anyway, that just happens.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily; they could pass it through GCJ, good luck decompiling that to Java source again.
[QUOTE=voodooattack;35893227]Not necessarily; they could pass it through GCJ, good luck decompiling that to Java source again.[/QUOTE]
I never said it'd be successful :v: Anyway, this is a retarded argument to continue.
[QUOTE=voodooattack;35893227]Not necessarily; they could pass it through GCJ, good luck decompiling that to Java source again.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's always disassembly... *shudder*
[QUOTE=Fear_Fox;35892847]What would be the point of buying a software if you can just compile it yourself from the code?[/QUOTE]
I think the GPL for example only requires you provide source code to paying customers if your product costs money.
As the lead developer on this project Its time I say a few things.
1) Jookia, hows it going? Do you realize that almost every single question you have asked has been a) in bad taste, b) redundant to the highest degree, c) not helpful in any way possible to the development of this IDE and finally d) annoying to both us and the rest of every active member on this Facepunch thread. Frankly some of the questions you are asking are freakishly embarrassing for a developer of your caliber (so I hear). Everyone else here has the decency to respect the ongoing development on this project, but you insist on trying to find some or other reason to criticize us on almost anything we say or post here.
Also, really dude, we don't owe you an explanation for any decision we make at this point because frankly its our project, and we are still busy discussing it. For you to act as though you are entitled to know the reason for every decision we make, is not only pathetically annoying, but it shows that you cant let things play out and progress in a logical and steady manner, like every other Facepunch member is doing.
Regarding your comment on "can I decompile this", be my guest. You'll be trying to do that for years at the rate we scramble our intellectual property. Did you honestly think we don't know what we are doing with regards to deployment? Id be appalled if you honestly thought most developers don't know how to defend their code.
2) I would also like to thank mostly everyone on this thread for positive and constructive criticism regarding the look and feel. The second we saw people didn't like it, we immediately went and pushed forward with the theme manager to try and show everyone who still didn't get it, that yes literally every pixel is customizable.
3) We are getting a lot of posts somewhere along the lines of, "will it support INSERT_SOMETHING_HERE". The simple answer to this question is, if you can think of it, then you can make a plugin for it. The plugin system is so versatile at this point, you can pretty much consume any event thats fired in the entire IDE
4) opacity... opacity... opacity... I love this argument. Let me quote something that was said in the first post by Shaun. "every pixel is adjustable" Frankly, we are giving you another option that most IDE's don't give you. Not everyone has a cluttered desktop like I do and might actually have a really good picture that can (when mixed with the proper theme) actually blend in extremely well. Picture a red theme, thats clean and not distracting to the end user. The overlay this onto a red picture of some sorts (maybe a screen shot of a game or something), and you actually end up with pixel blending that looks exceptionally brilliant. It also means that you can see activity (should you want it) behind the editor itself. This activity might be relevant to what you are actually doing, such as a Skype chat, runtime test or even content streaming from the web thats indicating that there is functionality with the application you are currently writing.
5) The openGL is for some really advanced features that are on their way. Process diagrams, UML diagrams, tree and scope views, right click navigation circles, overlay panel distributers, contextual modelers and even a 3D tree based programing system that works on logic blocks rather than procedural text based programming is all part of the long list of awesome innovations and features that we are going to bring to the table. No its not meant to replace your IDE at this current point in time, yes it IS MEANT to challenge existing and old programming practices with regards to physically building the application. The IDE itself makes use of native widgets, so you don't lose any functionality that some people were worried about, BUT you have the added and gained functionality of building a HARDCODE module that can take any mind-blowing programming idea to literally.. the next level.
6) licensing... we are still discussing this, and literally have nothing planned or set in stone yet. We are still working with our options and weighing up the pro's and cons of each option.
Now Jookia, Im expecting you to flame back from what I've seen on this thread. I am however positively hoping that you are going to not take this in a "bashing manner" and rather just contribute. I actually welcome your contributions, but then they need to be reasonable and in a positive manner. Every negative comment that doesn't help us or anyone else thats already helping, will literally just be ignored. I say this with a lot of respect, and I really do look forward to any contributions you have in the future.
Thanks again to everyone for helping us kick start this project. We really cant wait to provide you all with a beta, and it will eventually come, but we just need more time to refine this and get it to a much more usable point.
Dylan out.
[QUOTE=CountNoobula;35892706]We WILL NOT make it opensource[/QUOTE]
Well, I was on board for actively using this IDE when it released, but now I guess I'll stick with what I have. I prefer customization straight down to the source level.
Don't take it as if I'm being rude (that is, if you initially interpreted it as such), it's just a personal preference I have when I use an IDE.
[QUOTE=esalaka;35893412]I think the GPL for example only requires you provide source code to paying customers if your product costs money.[/QUOTE]
Even if that's true, which I don't think it is, some paying customer will inevitably leak it.
[QUOTE=Bluefire;35893552]Well, I was on board for actively using this IDE when it released, but now I guess I'll stick with what I have. I prefer customization straight down to the source level.
Don't take it as if I'm being rude (that is, if you initially interpreted it as such), it's just a personal preference I have when I use an IDE.[/QUOTE]
We totally respect this :) But we hope to make this so good that you want to switch ;)
[QUOTE=Fear_Fox;35892847]What would be the point of buying a software if you can just compile it yourself from the code?[/QUOTE]
What's the point of buying games when you can just torrent them?
While I support and respect the notion of open source, I think it is incredibly close-minded to instantly decide not to use something based purely on the fact that it won't be open source. If the customisation and plugin system is as good as these guys say it is, you might find you don't [I]need[/I] to be able to modify it a a source code level.
Each to their own, I guess. Just my two cents.
[QUOTE=Chris220;35893640]While I support and respect the notion of open source, I think it is incredibly close-minded to instantly decide not to use something based purely on the fact that it won't be open source. If the customisation and plugin system is as good as these guys say it is, you might find you don't [I]need[/I] to be able to modify it a a source code level.
Each to their own, I guess. Just my two cents.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry about Jookia; he just drank the Richard Stallman koolaid.
I'm far more likely to try/install free (libre) and open-source software. For regular consumer stuff, I think most people aren't going to see the difference between 'freeware' and open-source (most are totally content with garbage trial/nagware), but for something that's targeting [i]other software developers[/i], I think it's a much harder sell.
If you're planning to charge money though, it's an entirely different ballgame. IMHO, you've got a lot of work to do if you plan to make this a commercial product.
Guys I just can't take you seriously after seeing "[i]EVERY PIXEL IS CUSTOMIZABLE[/i]" a million times :v:
[QUOTE=icantread49;35893971]Guys I just can't take you seriously after seeing "[i]EVERY PIXEL IS CUSTOMIZABLE[/i]" a million times :v:[/QUOTE]
pixels[78][89] = Colour::Green.
pixels[400][328] = Colour::Red.
There's my sweet skin.
I agree that it's stupid to refuse to use something simply on the basis that it's not open source, however IF you choose a paid license, that may be a bigger concern. There are plenty of free IDEs that I'm already familiar with, and sure there are some annoyances with each of them but depending on price I wouldn't be willing to pay for a new IDE just to get around it.
[QUOTE=calzoneman;35900757]I agree that it's stupid to refuse to use something simply on the basis that it's not open source,[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to refuse to use software simply because it isn't open source. Quick example, security software cannot be trusted if you do not have access to the source code. It may work, it may not, but you will never be able to verify if there are backdoors or if the product works as advertised.
There's also nothing wrong with voting with your wallet and using open source products rather than commercial software when you have the choice.
I will usually go with an open source solution before a comercial/freeware one even if the OS one has fewer features.
Usually its because there is more chance of the OS solution to be multiplatform than the commercial one, and I hate getting usee to a program only to find I have to swap to a different one if I want to be on linux/windows
I think it's becoming a "blemish" of sorts on one's project to not be open source, especially if your company's yearly profits aren't in the millions. (In which case it's accepted as a hopeless cause)
I actually sorta agree with this emerging mentality, not because I'm a open-source nazi, but because the only reasons I see for not being open-source are old-fashioned thinking, fear, and smallness. I feel the same feelings when I make software; that protective feeling, that somehow I'd be exposing myself and my project to horrible things if I released it as open-source. But what are the actual arguments against it (open-source)?
It's 2012. If you don't acknowledge the fact that no IP is safe in the face of popular demand (something you presumably want), then you are a dinosaur. So unless you are doing something in your code that is completely unique and can't be replicated very easily, then what exactly are you protecting by not letting anyone see your code? I'd go so far as to say it's somewhat unethical- Trying to desperately hold onto your ideas and not let anyone else benefit from them, when it won't really cause you to lose anything, is rather small-minded in my opinion.
finally, a ricer ide
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;35901485]I think it's becoming a "blemish" of sorts on one's project to not be open source, especially if your company's yearly profits aren't in the millions. (In which case it's accepted as a hopeless cause)
I actually sorta agree with this emerging mentality, not because I'm a open-source nazi, but because the only reasons I see for not being open-source are old-fashioned thinking, fear, and smallness. I feel the same feelings when I make software; that protective feeling, that somehow I'd be exposing myself and my project to horrible things if I released it as open-source. But what are the actual arguments against it (open-source)?
It's 2012. If you don't acknowledge the fact that no IP is safe in the face of popular demand (something you presumably want), then you are a dinosaur. So unless you are doing something in your code that is completely unique and can't be replicated very easily, then what exactly are you protecting by not letting anyone see your code? I'd go so far as to say it's somewhat unethical- Trying to desperately hold onto your ideas and not let anyone else benefit from them, when it won't really cause you to lose anything, is rather small-minded in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Software patents could cause a major problem for small companies starting up who release their source code
[QUOTE=Icedshot;35901632]Software patents could cause a major problem for small companies starting up who release their source code[/QUOTE]
I don't follow, could you explain this?
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;35901864]I don't follow, could you explain this?[/QUOTE]
If someone has patented a particular method of doing something, a company who has released their source code compared to a company who hasn't might be sued for implementing a patented method of doing something, whereas the company who has not released their source wouldn't have this problem
If you look at the current patent bashing going around, personally I wouldn't risk being sued by some random company who patented some incredibly broad technique while trying to start selling a product
[QUOTE=Icedshot;35901908]If someone has patented a particular method of doing something, a company who has released their source code compared to a company who hasn't might be sued for implementing a patented method of doing something, whereas the company who has not released their source wouldn't have this problem
If you look at the current patent bashing going around, personally I wouldn't risk being sued by some random company who patented some incredibly broad technique while trying to start selling a product[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting point but I imagine it mostly applies to large companies; I rather doubt microsoft or apple are going to deploy their lawyers to take down a comparatively microscopic company, it would be a PR nightmare.
[QUOTE=Icedshot;35901908]If someone has patented a particular method of doing something, a company who has released their source code compared to a company who hasn't might be sued for implementing a patented method of doing something, whereas the company who has not released their source wouldn't have this problem
If you look at the current patent bashing going around, personally I wouldn't risk being sued by some random company who patented some incredibly broad technique while trying to start selling a product[/QUOTE]
I do not endorse software patents, but I find this a poor argument. I'm not going to tell people to keep their code closed in order to avoid lawsuits because they infringed on another person's patent.
On the other hand, open sourcing your code can protect you in court if your code is prior art to a patent that emerges later on. If you have a timestamped git checkout on github that dates previously to the idea of the 'inventor', you're covered.
[QUOTE=gparent;35902444]I do not endorse software patents, but I find this a poor argument. I'm not going to tell people to keep their code closed in order to avoid lawsuits because they infringed on another person's patent.
On the other hand, open sourcing your code can protect you in court if your code is prior art to a patent that emerges later on. If you have a timestamped git checkout on github that dates previously to the idea of the 'inventor', you're covered.[/QUOTE]
If you have the money to defend yourself, great. Small companies starting up though might not, and lawsuits are costly and time consuming. Plus, if you lose, you might be out of a relatively large amount of money
I'm not saying you shouldn't either, but that's one potential reason why startup companies might not be in favour of immediately open sourcing everything
Doesn't matter anyway, open-source is not going to happen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
