The state of the world is sad when the purpose of running as a regular user isn't to prevent the out of control user from running amuck, but to prevent the corporate software slime from taking control of our computers without asking
But why should people be frowned upon simply for using Windows as one of the platforms for development? MacOS is equally proprietary, and honestly given the way I've seen Apple behave about their business, they would be Microsoft if they had the power to be. Somehow, however, they escape the "proprietary" talks. If you are speaking in ideological terms, MacOS deserves just as much disdain and hatred as Windows does, it is just as proprietary. I see no real flaw in supporting Windows if your application supports MacOS, both are proprietary operating systems. So if you are going to hate on the basis of "ideals" you should at least make sure they are consistent.
And who cares if someone is developing for Windows only, the code is open source port it yourself if it's really important to you. They are basically giving away there work as it is, if you really have a need for this application on another platform, go to it.
I, myself, as a developer often make applications to fit my own personal needs. If I believe these applications could be of use to someone else, I'm usually ready and willing to give them away, and with OSS I would be willing to give the source away also in hopes that the end user could even possibly be able to improve upon the code I have produced (perhaps pick out some of my errors, add new things I didn't think of, etc). However, I believe in my case that asking me, as a person that primarily uses Windows as my platform (I have my reasons), to develop for platforms I have no plans on ever using or no ability to debug/test in is a little too much. I'm already giving you the blueprints to do with this software what you please, and if that's not good enough then frankly don't bother using my work. I am working here for free, for the joy of the work and the usefulness of the final product and if I'm not hip enough because I didn't develop for whatever platform you are using, then I guess I just can't be part of the OSS "community" if that's the attitude.
I would seriously recommend Python http://www.python.org/ to someone who hasn't had any programming experience. Although I've only picked up this language recently and after I already had knowledge of several other languages. It scales nicely, and it is very similar in many aspects to other languages. The way it works on whitespace helps you to learn how to tab and format code in other languages. The great thing is that the distribution also includes a tutorial. I know you are looking for another answer, but the only way to learn how to program is to look at a language, read a book/tutorial and play around with it. Python is a great language to do this with. Take my advice if you are doing this in your spare time: if you aren't having fun don't do it. Coding isn't for everyone, but if you enjoy picking through your own code and finally finding your mistakes, or the pleasure of seeing something you had in your head become a reality, then give it a shot. Remember that everyone makes stupid mistakes coding and just have fun with it.
If we ban the sims 2 for allowing us to see mannequinely naked sims when we ourselves have to get a cheat code to do so, then we should ban barbie and *gasp* skipper too because you can take their clothes off, and skipper is underage for christ sakes!
You seem to have your own issues will cell phones, but practically everyone owns one of those and they are probably going to take off as far as mobile gaming goes because it's just convenient (you already have the thing on your person anyway).
However, I am not sure that in the console market that independent developers really have that much of a shot to make a great game. I honestly think that if EA or another mega-million dollar company feels threatened in a certain market, they can make it completely monopolized in one way or another.
I tend to think that this evil effect on the gaming industry often makes innovation very shortcoming.
For example: look what happened with EA and Madden. ESPN 2k5 came out for the PS2 and not only got in a price-slashing war with the long time front runner Madden, but also whipped the game in innovation, the presentation was much better and most of the gameplay actually worked, unlike Madden's so-called gameplay feature additions.
So what happens? The NFL license gets sold exclusively to the highest bidder, which is of course EA. EA cranks out another one of their "update the rosters and add some kind of irritating features" upgrades for 2006 and now we have no real alternative to deal with. The little guy in this case, ESPN, just gets crushed under the weight with no chance of making another game until the year 2010...
Most major corporate game makers don't give a jack shit about real innovation, they just want to put enough into a game that people keep on buying it. And as you see with the EA/Madden story if they feel threatened enough, they'll simply leave you without an alternative in the industry.
I honestly hope that indie games do have a future as I think they fill a need that many gamers have that is simply unattended to by the major companies. Much like indie anything else does for its brand of mass media.
Doesn't anyone else find this news slightly foreboding after the announcement that MS and Yahoo would be joining IM networks soon? I believe that if Google could get enough of AOL to be able to make AIM congruent with their open standard IM protocol, this could be better news than anything else. A Google version of AIM sounds like such a better idea than MS/Yahoo (two particularly awful IM programs) competing with AOL (who has the most users by far) and Google. I can only hope this is one of the reasons Google is interested.
Americans are becoming more and more sollicited everyday. There used to be a day when the Internet was the only safe haven from this barrage of useless garbage that would probably only work on morons. Then companies noticed a need to advertise on the Internet as it grew in popularity, but the thing they didn't take into consideration was the idea that people on the Internet are no longer a captive audience.
If you want to watch TV live, get used to advertisements. Commercials have you at their will. Sure you can get up and get a snack, but still, that advertisement is forced to be on your screen.
The Internet is the beginning of a new age. The "On-Demand" age (Comcast has to now follow suit with TV I suppose). We now choose our own content on the Internet, if something is too irritating, we don't have to see it.
Not only that, but the Internet allows us the ability to fight back. We may not have control of everything, but we can certainly manipulate what is taking up our screen. The fact of the matter is that most savvy computer users are too smart for the ads you use to target them. The ads become annoying, and when something on a smart user's computer becomes annoying, an entire website pops up to stick it to whatever the annoyance is.
We may not be able to prevent the Fiesta Bowl from becoming the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or prevent networks from airing 10 minute shows and 20 minutes of commercials, but if we could we would, and on the Internet, we damn sure can.
It's a race of innovation. The only problem is that as fast as advertisers think they are finding ways out of being blocked (making the ad take up the whole page or whatever), technology catches up just as fast. Because the people who know how to work a computer are more annoyed by the advertisement then a company is intent on them being seen.
Simply put, if you want to advertise to consumers on the Internet, you should try to stop insulting their intelligence first. Try to blend into the wonder that is the web instead of sticking out and irritating people. People who don't want your product aren't going to be convinced by flashing red ads anyway. This is why Google Ads make sense.
Trillian is great and everything. But the fact that this client is popular should show industry leaders that it's addressing a common need here. It is almost like a hack to get around the fact that we aren't all freely able to communicate with each other simply because greedy companies want you to have to stare at their particular company name in order to communicate with their particular user set.
I'll tell you what a successful IM client could do. Build a trillian like interface that imports all your old contacts while also establishing its own free protocol. Allow you to backwards communicate with the people who haven't caught up yet and then people from other networks eventually stop using what they are using as everyone migrates to the same client, without losing any information.
Let's be honest here, there's quite a few things that aren't very profitable.
Internet browsers are no longer profitable, they are free, they come with your OS and if the one you like doesn't, you can download it for free.
FTP clients are as such also unprofitable. When's the last time you ever even saw an advertisement in one of these? They'd probably all be free if it weren't for the fact that the average joe doesn't even see the need for one of these anymore (the browser does it, stupid).
IRC clients I can't think of as being much of a business.
Usenet clients are mostly free to shareware. There might be money to be made in spamming usenet, although I don't see how... Most users don't even use this either.
E-mail clients are again not very profitable. Most are freeware, some are inexpensive and all of them have a little thing in common: that they don't do much to stir up business.
Now when you look at the things I just listed above, why do you think that IM clients should be any different? My opinion is that the internet has progressed to a stage, like the stage when other standards were invented, where IM needs a complete, open, and defined protocol. The only way people should make money off IMs is by people buying their client for extra feature sets.
The way I look at it is that IM has progressed to the level where it needs a defined standard and has probably been at this point for years. Just think what the internet would be like if every web browser only was able to access a certain sub-net of pages instead of having one web simply because every company decided to make their own HTTP type protocol incompatible with everyone else's. For those of you who remember old school Compuserve and AOL the image isn't too pretty...
This is yet another thing that companies are going to have to take on the chin and not make much money on. The truth is that the power should lie in the hands of the companies to make people want their particular IM client. Right now, people are forced to either use an all-in-one client or download a million clients not for additional features or innovation, simply because they can't talk to their friends.
AOL had the idea, fine, but AOL also needs to learn that sometimes in this particular business having the idea isn't quite enough to make a fortune on it. If you need an example, ask Xerox how they are feeling right about now.
IM has grown beyond segregation, and it's about time we had an Internet standard in this like we have for every other established protocol...
I would almost argue the same about P2P networks, but that issue is a little more complex.
Slashdot Mirror
The state of the world is sad when the purpose of running as a regular user isn't to prevent the out of control user from running amuck, but to prevent the corporate software slime from taking control of our computers without asking
But why should people be frowned upon simply for using Windows as one of the platforms for development? MacOS is equally proprietary, and honestly given the way I've seen Apple behave about their business, they would be Microsoft if they had the power to be. Somehow, however, they escape the "proprietary" talks. If you are speaking in ideological terms, MacOS deserves just as much disdain and hatred as Windows does, it is just as proprietary. I see no real flaw in supporting Windows if your application supports MacOS, both are proprietary operating systems. So if you are going to hate on the basis of "ideals" you should at least make sure they are consistent. And who cares if someone is developing for Windows only, the code is open source port it yourself if it's really important to you. They are basically giving away there work as it is, if you really have a need for this application on another platform, go to it.
I, myself, as a developer often make applications to fit my own personal needs. If I believe these applications could be of use to someone else, I'm usually ready and willing to give them away, and with OSS I would be willing to give the source away also in hopes that the end user could even possibly be able to improve upon the code I have produced (perhaps pick out some of my errors, add new things I didn't think of, etc). However, I believe in my case that asking me, as a person that primarily uses Windows as my platform (I have my reasons), to develop for platforms I have no plans on ever using or no ability to debug/test in is a little too much. I'm already giving you the blueprints to do with this software what you please, and if that's not good enough then frankly don't bother using my work. I am working here for free, for the joy of the work and the usefulness of the final product and if I'm not hip enough because I didn't develop for whatever platform you are using, then I guess I just can't be part of the OSS "community" if that's the attitude.
I would seriously recommend Python http://www.python.org/ to someone who hasn't had any programming experience. Although I've only picked up this language recently and after I already had knowledge of several other languages. It scales nicely, and it is very similar in many aspects to other languages. The way it works on whitespace helps you to learn how to tab and format code in other languages. The great thing is that the distribution also includes a tutorial. I know you are looking for another answer, but the only way to learn how to program is to look at a language, read a book/tutorial and play around with it. Python is a great language to do this with. Take my advice if you are doing this in your spare time: if you aren't having fun don't do it. Coding isn't for everyone, but if you enjoy picking through your own code and finally finding your mistakes, or the pleasure of seeing something you had in your head become a reality, then give it a shot. Remember that everyone makes stupid mistakes coding and just have fun with it.
If we ban the sims 2 for allowing us to see mannequinely naked sims when we ourselves have to get a cheat code to do so, then we should ban barbie and *gasp* skipper too because you can take their clothes off, and skipper is underage for christ sakes!
Now our kids will be hooked on bad food and bad games...All at the same time. (And you thought that stupid jungle gym they had was bad).
People actually bother to sit at McDonalds? I always figured you had to be so ashamed you are eating it that it was proper to eat in the car...
You seem to have your own issues will cell phones, but practically everyone owns one of those and they are probably going to take off as far as mobile gaming goes because it's just convenient (you already have the thing on your person anyway).
However, I am not sure that in the console market that independent developers really have that much of a shot to make a great game. I honestly think that if EA or another mega-million dollar company feels threatened in a certain market, they can make it completely monopolized in one way or another.
I tend to think that this evil effect on the gaming industry often makes innovation very shortcoming.
For example: look what happened with EA and Madden. ESPN 2k5 came out for the PS2 and not only got in a price-slashing war with the long time front runner Madden, but also whipped the game in innovation, the presentation was much better and most of the gameplay actually worked, unlike Madden's so-called gameplay feature additions.
So what happens? The NFL license gets sold exclusively to the highest bidder, which is of course EA. EA cranks out another one of their "update the rosters and add some kind of irritating features" upgrades for 2006 and now we have no real alternative to deal with. The little guy in this case, ESPN, just gets crushed under the weight with no chance of making another game until the year 2010...
Most major corporate game makers don't give a jack shit about real innovation, they just want to put enough into a game that people keep on buying it. And as you see with the EA/Madden story if they feel threatened enough, they'll simply leave you without an alternative in the industry.
I honestly hope that indie games do have a future as I think they fill a need that many gamers have that is simply unattended to by the major companies. Much like indie anything else does for its brand of mass media.
Doesn't anyone else find this news slightly foreboding after the announcement that MS and Yahoo would be joining IM networks soon? I believe that if Google could get enough of AOL to be able to make AIM congruent with their open standard IM protocol, this could be better news than anything else. A Google version of AIM sounds like such a better idea than MS/Yahoo (two particularly awful IM programs) competing with AOL (who has the most users by far) and Google. I can only hope this is one of the reasons Google is interested.
Americans are becoming more and more sollicited everyday. There used to be a day when the Internet was the only safe haven from this barrage of useless garbage that would probably only work on morons. Then companies noticed a need to advertise on the Internet as it grew in popularity, but the thing they didn't take into consideration was the idea that people on the Internet are no longer a captive audience. If you want to watch TV live, get used to advertisements. Commercials have you at their will. Sure you can get up and get a snack, but still, that advertisement is forced to be on your screen. The Internet is the beginning of a new age. The "On-Demand" age (Comcast has to now follow suit with TV I suppose). We now choose our own content on the Internet, if something is too irritating, we don't have to see it. Not only that, but the Internet allows us the ability to fight back. We may not have control of everything, but we can certainly manipulate what is taking up our screen. The fact of the matter is that most savvy computer users are too smart for the ads you use to target them. The ads become annoying, and when something on a smart user's computer becomes annoying, an entire website pops up to stick it to whatever the annoyance is. We may not be able to prevent the Fiesta Bowl from becoming the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or prevent networks from airing 10 minute shows and 20 minutes of commercials, but if we could we would, and on the Internet, we damn sure can. It's a race of innovation. The only problem is that as fast as advertisers think they are finding ways out of being blocked (making the ad take up the whole page or whatever), technology catches up just as fast. Because the people who know how to work a computer are more annoyed by the advertisement then a company is intent on them being seen. Simply put, if you want to advertise to consumers on the Internet, you should try to stop insulting their intelligence first. Try to blend into the wonder that is the web instead of sticking out and irritating people. People who don't want your product aren't going to be convinced by flashing red ads anyway. This is why Google Ads make sense.
Trillian is great and everything. But the fact that this client is popular should show industry leaders that it's addressing a common need here. It is almost like a hack to get around the fact that we aren't all freely able to communicate with each other simply because greedy companies want you to have to stare at their particular company name in order to communicate with their particular user set. I'll tell you what a successful IM client could do. Build a trillian like interface that imports all your old contacts while also establishing its own free protocol. Allow you to backwards communicate with the people who haven't caught up yet and then people from other networks eventually stop using what they are using as everyone migrates to the same client, without losing any information.
Let's be honest here, there's quite a few things that aren't very profitable.
Internet browsers are no longer profitable, they are free, they come with your OS and if the one you like doesn't, you can download it for free.
FTP clients are as such also unprofitable. When's the last time you ever even saw an advertisement in one of these? They'd probably all be free if it weren't for the fact that the average joe doesn't even see the need for one of these anymore (the browser does it, stupid).
IRC clients I can't think of as being much of a business.
Usenet clients are mostly free to shareware. There might be money to be made in spamming usenet, although I don't see how... Most users don't even use this either.
E-mail clients are again not very profitable. Most are freeware, some are inexpensive and all of them have a little thing in common: that they don't do much to stir up business.
Now when you look at the things I just listed above, why do you think that IM clients should be any different? My opinion is that the internet has progressed to a stage, like the stage when other standards were invented, where IM needs a complete, open, and defined protocol. The only way people should make money off IMs is by people buying their client for extra feature sets.
The way I look at it is that IM has progressed to the level where it needs a defined standard and has probably been at this point for years. Just think what the internet would be like if every web browser only was able to access a certain sub-net of pages instead of having one web simply because every company decided to make their own HTTP type protocol incompatible with everyone else's. For those of you who remember old school Compuserve and AOL the image isn't too pretty...
This is yet another thing that companies are going to have to take on the chin and not make much money on. The truth is that the power should lie in the hands of the companies to make people want their particular IM client. Right now, people are forced to either use an all-in-one client or download a million clients not for additional features or innovation, simply because they can't talk to their friends.
AOL had the idea, fine, but AOL also needs to learn that sometimes in this particular business having the idea isn't quite enough to make a fortune on it. If you need an example, ask Xerox how they are feeling right about now.
IM has grown beyond segregation, and it's about time we had an Internet standard in this like we have for every other established protocol...
I would almost argue the same about P2P networks, but that issue is a little more complex.