REQUEST: Linux version

[Vegetable]

Geez man, what crawled up your ass? This is a forum for PUBLIC discussion, as long as you aren't spamming, then you're allowed to post. Bladebla was just showing how he, and quite a few other members of this forum, wish you would stop complaining about it not being open source, because "They have nothing to lose and everything to gain". I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that one of the problems of open source, is that people could take the source, and just add something really crappy like a different colored window. Imagine if you had spent months on an emulator, and you were very proud of your work. You decide to open source it, and then 20 new emulators showed up with names like dolf or phino or whatever, and they had barely any difference to your project, but they said that the source was completely theirs. Do you see now? It would make you want to just tear your damn head off. If they want to release the code, they will, no matter what you say.

 

[Kethinov]

Geez man, what crawled up your ass?

From the tone of your post I should ask you the same question. I've been nothing but civil and met with nothing but absurdly angerly dismissive replies.

This is a forum for PUBLIC discussion, as long as you aren't spamming, then you're allowed to post. Bladebla was just showing how he, and quite a few other members of this forum, wish you would stop complaining about it not being open source

Those two sentences are self contradictory. I'm allowed to post, yet I'm not allowed to "complain" about the emulator not being open source?

Do you see now?

No. What you're (attempting) to talk about is forks. No one uses a fork if it's nothing but a rehash of the original. The original gets upgraded more often and is written by (obviously) better programmers.

Only when a fork surpasses the original does it get any real attention.

A lot of people believe that forking is a failing of open source, but I don't. Let me give you an example. Let's pretend Dolphin doesn't support save/load state, but it's open source. Someone who really wanted that feature could fork the project and add save load state. The original developers might then realize that that feture is important, and will simply download the fork's source code, examine it, and add it to their program. They've not only added a new feature which may not have otherwise been added, they've also saved the time of having to code it from scratch.

Sometimes forks can spawn an entirely new form of the original though. Someone might take OpenDolphin and fork it to er... heh... OpenSeal (bad pun, I know.) which takes a completely new approach to core design. The different approach is based on Dolphin, but might run Metroid Prime perfectly where the original would fail. But perhaps the fork isn't perfect. At the expense of running Metroid Prime, it breaks compatability with other games.

Now you have two emulators. Not a unified project.
But I see that as a lot better than a less developed unified project with less features.

Such are the benefits of open source and forking.

 

[raid517]

Well like eveyone is saying, give the guys a break, there is nothing less attractive than Linux or Windows zealots extoling the vitues of their prefered OS. I merely commented that it makes no sense to assume that open source software development is an entirely random process, since it is infact a highly organised and structured process. Nor should one assume that because a task seems hard that it need involve any more work for the author of any initial work - since open sourcing allows others to do the work and take some of the strain off the original author. Maybe someone will - maybe no one will - but the point is the author need do nothing - and logically it need not affect his own core project.

If he doesn't want a particular 'fix' or 'improvement' written into his software, he can still call the shots. It is after all, still his project. No one is in any position to make him accept anything. They could always fork the project, but if their additions are buggy and don't work - clearly people will express a preference for whatever version is best and will return to the original version. Broken and/or buggy code is unlikely to prove popular.

GJ

 

[raid517]

Geez man, what crawled up your ass? This is a forum for PUBLIC discussion, as long as you aren't spamming, then you're allowed to post. Bladebla was just showing how he, and quite a few other members of this forum, wish you would stop complaining about it not being open source, because "They have nothing to lose and everything to gain". I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that one of the problems of open source, is that people could take the source, and just add something really crappy like a different colored window. Imagine if you had spent months on an emulator, and you were very proud of your work. You decide to open source it, and then 20 new emulators showed up with names like dolf or phino or whatever, and they had barely any difference to your project, but they said that the source was completely theirs. Do you see now? It would make you want to just tear your damn head off. If they want to release the code, they will, no matter what you say.

No you can't do that under an open source licence either, copyright will always remain with the original author, no matter how much others might change it. That is why you still see the little © copyright symbol with Linus Torvalds name after it whenever people talk about the Linux kernel. So even if it was just an ego thing, people would always have to acknowledge you - and you can still change the licence at any time to a closed source one again. (Since as I said, the copyright holder always retains control).

 

[Falcon4ever]

added a new item to the forum rules:

No Porting request...

Only time will tell if you guys will be lucky in future.
( in the meanwhile just use windows )