Wish list :)

troc · #1 11-08-2002, 15:10

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.

troc · #2 12-08-2002, 22:48

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 · #3 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

jubal · #4 13-08-2002, 00:04

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 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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.

troc · #8 15-08-2002, 22:39

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

troc · #9 15-08-2002, 22:47

I'd also like to point out that the word free isn't used on the site, please redirect my post(s) accordingly.

Solitaire · #10 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 · #11 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.

troc · #12 16-08-2002, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Solitaire
in my experience free software has never been synonymous with open source.

Quote:

Now posted by Troc
in my experience free software has always been synonymous with open source

troc · #13 16-08-2002, 00:52

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 · #14 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 · #15 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.