View Full Version : Wish list :)
here I go, I'll prolly get burned at the stake for this, cause it might sound as heresy to those fanatics who commented at the end of the clanbase interview. I haven't seen evangelism like that out side of the mac world ;)
I think that in the interest of openess, interopability and to follow the linuxen ethos (it would also help your promotional efforts) it would be neat if you could make TS-client-linux-2.1 compatible with rw.
/me : Raise shields No. 1.
Another idea / hint / novelty / suggestion is not to lock threads when ppl suggest a suggestion.
Unless of course you feel threatened, insecure and incapable of giving a rational answer.
btw pwk.linuxfan your idea of getting TS1 released os was a great idea!
Solitaire
12-08-2002, 23:08
well seeing as it has been suggested several times and no one that suggests it bothers to search to see if it was suggested before i imagine it gets tiresome for them. why people cant respect the fact that they wanted a voice client to satisfy their needs for gaming and none were available and then they decided to write their own. the fact that they allowed others to even use it is a plus as far as im concerned. If they decided to just keep it in their clan i would not have been able to upgrade to it and imho it was an upgrade when compared to anything else that was available. they have stated many times that if they lose interest or for some other reason stop development on it they would release their source code. it has been mentioned that it would be an advantage to go open source just to get features added, to that all i can say is the listen to the suggestions and have added things they personally thought were not needed. why did they do this? because they actually listen and care what the community request which is refreshing. in closing all i can say to those that think its a shame they dont open their code for open source is you dont have to use the software and if you feel that strongly about it start your own project. anyways just my .02 cents
IMHO, creating TeamSpeak to work with buggy and now proprietary Roger Wilco (Spyware included--Gamespy, those pirates ;) ) is a BAD idea. Not to mention that the folks at GameSpy may not approve.
I am glad TeamSpeak is being developed as it is right now. As Solitare said, the devs have listened to the users and added feature after feature. And BTW, I would say that this software is free. You don't need to pay for it. They could charge for it if they wanted. So I am thankful for these talented people and their efforts.
Most users don't care if the source code is open as they will never look at it. Lurking around the forums here for a while, I have seen this subject several times.
I guess the main point is this: the devs obviously have no interest in open sourcing TeamSpeak. We only have a couple choices: (1) accept that and be thankful about the cool features they have and provide feedback/suggestions to them, or (2) find some other project that is open source or (3) make your own open source project.
Again, in my opinion, asking once about whether open source is a possibility is okay. Continually complaining, lamenting, begging, insulting etc. once the devs have said no is disrespectful, rather petty and doesn't look very good for the open source concept.
My thoughts anyway...
ScratchMonkey
13-08-2002, 05:35
Moreover, the devs have announced an SDK, which satisfies many of the needs used to justify an open source system. As long as one can plug in code in the right places, there's no need to see the engine.
Cstar_maxim
13-08-2002, 06:50
Ontop of that releasing the code could allow peeps to circumvent the security of passworded channels and other things.
I may also ask if you were to put in the blood, sweat and tears to build a project to this level, would you then release the code??? You, may answer yes, but I will believe it when I see it.
I am happy they have no plans on releasing the code, specially if that means it keeps it out of the grubby little hands of people that need to validate themself by building on some ones elses work.
If you feel so willing to help...then provide to them code that you have made and would like to see incorporated in the software of course you may be asked for justification and proof of ownership.
And as far a Roger Wilco? LOL, WHY?????
ScratchMonkey
14-08-2002, 05:50
I don't mind the code staying closed, but I wouldn't use "security by obscurity" to justify it. That hasn't worked for Microsoft. One big advantage of open source is that security fixes happen fast. Even if the devs for an OS project aren't interested in security, those users for whom security is important will get the fix written somehow, possibly by contracting it out.
Because TS is closed source, it certainly won't be running with administrator/root privileges on any host I control. Fortunately, Linux makes it easy to run the TS server as a mortal user, potentially in a chroot jail, so if someone compromises it, they can't hurt other stuff on the host.
I'd like to answer and question all of you. However it'd be
too long a post so let me address solitaire first.
Soltaire: A search for open source turns up nothing on these
forums, also the discussion thread was locked. If there were previous
discussions a link and some references woudl not have gone amis.
why people cant respect the fact that they wanted a voice client
to satisfy their needs for gaming and none were available and then
they decided to write their own.
I am having trouble respecting it; because the developers and their
acolytes have used phrases like 'free' and great 'gaming community
spirit'. I think these phrases are abused and for me they are deceptive.
It is poor choice of language. Saying that binaries
are available is more informative and truthful.
You also said that the developers like to listen. I don't think thats
true. Answers like this one from R.Ludwig:
stop telling us what todo with our project....
in a forum named *Suggestions* demonstrate it. R.Ludwig is telling me
to stop telling him what to do. i.e. he is dismissing a (repeated as
it turns out) helpful suggestion. I'd also like to point out the use of
'... our project ...', If TS was free R.Ludwig would not
---and could not correctly--- be using such choice of words..
It is said this is not the first time the open-source crops up, that
it has been raised or requested before. Apart form a lack of evidence,
how is this reconciled with assertions that the devs have listened.
Basically as long as TeamSpeak is taken from a windows to linux
user-base or environment this issue is going to get bumped up.
--- especially when that word free is used.
I'd also like to point out that the word free isn't used on the site, please redirect my post(s) accordingly.
Solitaire
15-08-2002, 22:59
ok we are arguing semantics. free as in free of monetary responsibility as in you do not have to pay anything for the software which there in makes it free and an appropriate usage of the word. and while i can see you pointing out the one suggestion they dont take heed to it is not indicative of their support of the community suggestions. No where does it say open source on their website to falsely lead someone into believing otherwise. in my experience free software has never been synonymous with open source.
Solitaire
15-08-2002, 23:02
and do not take my posts as i am against open source. its a fantastic concept and the projects that use it are nice. however its a developers choice.
Originally posted by Solitaire
in my experience free software has never been synonymous with open source.
Now posted by Troc
in my experience free software has always been synonymous with open source
:)
Cstar_maxim
Why make TS compatible with rw ?
My reasons for suggesting compatibility with RW stem from using apps like xmms and mplayer. They are protocol/codec transparent at one level yet offer you full customization and flexibility on the other. These apps are solid, very usable and elegant solutions. Don't laugh at me for wishing the same thing for TS2.1. Then again, I may laugh at you for asking such a silly question ? ;)
Cstar_maxim
16-08-2002, 01:52
As far as I am concerned
"free software" does not mean "free source code"
Software is something that is packaged. If I was opening up my source code I would say just that "open Source code" always best to say what you mean and expect others to do the same also good to understand what people are saying by what they say and not by hearing only what you want.
and as far a RW goes...well to each there own.
Have you been able to get the source code for RW yet?
Cstar_maxim
16-08-2002, 02:04
May I also say You "suggest" open source code so streniously that it is offensive.
I wish you would accually suggest something and move on when you get your answer. I can not see how you can think you are being helpfull.
ScratchMonkey
16-08-2002, 04:23
There's plenty of "free software" in the Windows world that's released without source.
BTW, if you'd like to go write your own open source project to compete with TS, try starting with the HawkVoice libraries. Since TS is a "for the love of it" project, having other free competition with different development models is a Good Thing.
I've had my fill of religious attachment to specific operating systems and applications. I now use what works. I use TS because it works better than the competition. If you write something better, I'll use it. I don't care if the source is open or closed.
Cruncher
16-08-2002, 06:59
another way to look at it is suppose you buy say microsoft office, does the fact you paid for it give you right to open sorce? if not, why should free give the same connotation? If you don't get it even if you pay for it, why would you get more for not paying for it?
A search for open source turns up nothing on these forums.
Just a note. You will notice the forums are rather 'young' even though TeamSpeak has been around for quite a while. There was a server crash and all the posts and wonderful information in them was lost a little while back. About the 20th of June these forums were put up. There were plenty of people asking about open source before on the old system. Sorry I cannot prove it, but you will need to take the word of those that were around then.
I am having trouble respecting it; because the developers and their acolytes have used phrases like 'free' and great 'gaming community spirit'. I think these phrases are abused and for me they are deceptive.
If they did use the word 'Free' they must be trying to deceive you. There is so much to gain from it. The devs are luring linux and open source people here just so they can tell them they don't want to open source the project. ;) Really, to take the buzzwords and phrasiology from a rather unique community such as the open source realm and assume that everyone else will understand and adhere to those ideas is to presume a bit too much. I think it is unrealistic to expect the normal usage of a word or phrase to be superceeded with a different, specific and specialized understanding of the word by a unique group.
R.Ludwig is telling me to stop telling him what to do. i.e. he is dismissing a (repeated as it turns out) helpful suggestion.
Hmmm...Try suggesting a feature or an idea aside from opening the source and see what happens. You suggested it, and they said no. Move on to something else then. The forums are full (well, partially full :) the old ones had lots of ideas that have been put into TS 2.0...check out some of twisty's helpful suggestions) of people giving practical "This is what I would like to see TS do. Would it work?" ideas.
I like RW even less than TS, and of course lamespy hasn't released the
source but they have a license. Clear meanings of free software, hmm
... Why don't you guys search for 'free software' on google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=free+software
The first and second hits explain what free software is. The way the
word 'free' was used in the clanbase interview was coupled with
'gaming community spirit' got me thinking. I know there is no such
thing as incorrect use of language, you guys are not wrong in
using word 'free' as you do, but it is just such a thin, empty and
shallow use of the word. As I have said earlier, saying that the
binaries are freely available is more honest, descriptive and
accurate.
Maybe these points I make about free software are unpalatable or
uncomfortable to think about, and therefor you find them
offensive. However any insults you perceive are ones you insinuate.
I am being helpful. I am being helpful by raising this issue. As TS
now stands it is in the public domain, that legal position means that
it is quite legitimate for companies to decompile, reverse engineer or
use TS and sell it on commercially with legal ---albeit not moral---
impunity. Needless to say it is the laws that dictate how we may
behave.
The devs have stated that their reason for not making it open source
is precisely the weakness it is vulnerable to now. If it was free
software, it would be legally protected from proprietary
exploitation.
T. Boonstra
16-08-2002, 19:15
Your right.....
TeamSpeak is Freeware for non-commercial use..
However you should get your facts straight. Freeware means something else then GPL.. Open Source software under the GPL license is something totally different. TeamSpeak is not (and will not be) open source
Our license specifies that you are not allowed to reverse engineer it.. that is not a GPL only thing..
If you don't like TeamSpeak, or don't like the license terms as presented, then you do not have to use it. There are other voice communications for you to use..
[Edited by T. Boonstra]
troc,
Perhaps you missed it, but in your google search example, 6 of the 10 results on the first page are for free software as in "no need to pay". (eg. Adobe, Tucows site, CNet, freeware, etc.)
I am not certain, but I doubt that TeamSpeak would be classified as public domain. The the licence information (commercial and personal) is posted on the main page.
The most relevant hits contain the words 'definition of free software'
Good point about the license, I overlooked that. However there is no license if you dl the software, thats how I made the mistake
http://www.teamspeak.org/download.php?op=getit&lid=10
My point still stands if you link into the file directly you you legally circumvent and nulify any license. That is the hole I saw. It is called deeplinking. You can solve it by adding the license to the binaries.
Solitaire
17-08-2002, 04:19
Alright ... First things first -- I'm not going to get Solitaire blamed for this potential "flame-bait", so I'll take responsibility for this post -- :) -bemis
On the subject of "free" vs. "open" software (free (beer) or Free (speech)) -- this is a tired argument -- and ultimately moot in this instance. Nowhere on the site is there any indication of *THEIR* software being "open". Period. The End. This is their project. They don't want or need the "community" to do their work for them. They want to decide the future of their project. Leavit it at that.
On the subject of pressuring them to open their code -- how rude!
This completely goes against the spirit of "the community". (the virus-like-nature of the GPL aside). One is given the impression that if Ralf is telling you to mind your own business and leave him to "his project" (which it *IS), you're probably out of line in your tone, request, or maybe he just doesn't like you. That's his prerogative.
There have been arguments (previously) on these forums stating that if the client isn't open sourced, the community will never embrace it. To this I ask "are you going to quit using KDE or other "restrictive" software on your desktop, Oracle at work, or any other project that chooses to offer their software to make your operating system more viable, and more friendly? I applaud the TeamSpeak guys for even considering a Linux client, License involved be damned!
And on the subject of licensing options, with the various laws globally on the subject of software licenses, the various mechanisms devised by individuals to circimvent them, etc .. I think the road the TS guys have taken (use our software don't sell it or reverse engineer it, please -- that's my interpretation at least) is far superior to most. The GPL hasn't even been proven in court yet (to my knowlege). Which puts it in the same legal position as the current TS license.
Anyway -- enough of this diatribe -- I'm sickened that arguments like the above claim to represent "the community" ... and if I were a TS developer, I would seriously question the future of a publicly released "alternative" client. Win32 works for most gamers, and they have the Linux copies for themselves.
T. Boonstra
17-08-2002, 12:15
/me support the idea of free beer....
Anyone willing to provide it??
Cstar_maxim
17-08-2002, 16:05
Hey Ill buy a couple cases to share with you all. :D
wolfsbayne
27-08-2002, 08:38
There's an open source speech codec on Sourceforge. The audio samples sound good.
http://speex.sourceforge.net/
Direct link to audio samples here:
http://speex.sourceforge.net/audio/samples/
We've just set up a server, and the first wish that someone had (and I understnad why) was to be able to ignore people without having to kick them from the channel or taking their voice away completely. Just like /ignore on IRC. Is this planned?
Cstar_maxim
27-08-2002, 20:07
Yes that is a moderated channel, if you wish to have a channel that is not moderated then do not select moderated when setting it up the in that channel anyone can talk at any time.
Moderating Text chats has proven very usefull for meatings and the like. I can see how it would be useful in the same situations when in vox.
please try and post to relevent threads.
I said I wanted something like /ignore. Not a moderated channel. And I wasn't asking how to moderate a channel, but stating a wish: As a user, I want to be abel to individually ignore another person.
I fail to see why my wish isn't relevant to a thread called wishlist.
Cstar_maxim
29-08-2002, 10:49
Did you read the thread?
Do you own this tread?
Does your suggestion fit with the starters wishlist?
You are welcome to start a new thread, with your unique suggestion, and maybe call it "/ignore switch" that way it won't get lost so easy and might not be writen off by people not interested in weather a program goes open source or not...
And sorry for not quite getting what you were asking for I understand now....I do not know if this is planned for but it may be able to be done withe the SDK comming out.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.