News:

Simutrans Wiki Manual
The official on-line manual for Simutrans. Read and contribute.

Simutrans vs. OpenTTD

Started by prissi, January 11, 2013, 10:54:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

prissi

is currently discussed in the TTD forum: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=63909 Just to mention if some simutrans supported want to contribute constructively there too.

VS

#1
I had a short and brutal list, but then thought that it's just going to be another simu-diss-hread, and decided to stay out of that.

edit: Oh, it's a license war. Well...

My projects... Tools for messing with Simutrans graphics. Graphic archive - templates and some other stuff for painters. Development logs for most recent information on what is going on. And of course pak128!

mEGa

I don't understood why they discuss about free or not free status of Simutrans in their topic.
Current projects in progress : improvements of few designed french paks

Fabio

I never really understood the free-as-in-free-speech-software Taliban attitude.
If the guy doesn't want to play Simutrans only because of its license I would say better for us!
Just like some no-global occupy-like leftwingers over here refusing to drink Coca Cola or eating at MacDonald's just because they're American.

The Hood

Here's one that rarely gets mentioned in any of these debates - Simutrans forum is much friendlier than TTD forum :)

Ters

Quote from: Fabio on January 12, 2013, 10:36:19 AM
I never really understood the free-as-in-free-speech-software Taliban attitude.
If the guy doesn't want to play Simutrans only because of its license I would say better for us!
Just like some no-global occupy-like leftwingers over here refusing to drink Coca Cola or eating at MacDonald's just because they're American.

I actually find Simutrans' license more left-ish than GPL, as it appears more restrictive against what could be called capitalistic exploitation. Which seems supported by the fact that most companies I know of making money of open source, use GPL for their software.

Vonjo

May be it will be fun if Simutrans and Openttd can communicate each other, where both games can exchange passengers/goods using special station/airport. There can be factories with incomplete chain, which can be completed by playing the other games. This should be easier than Simutrans to Simutrans, because passenger in openttd doesnt have destination and factory have no contract. :)
---
As with license, even public domain is not perfectly free.

Bear789

I started with OTTD a lot of time ago and then moved to Simutrans because of the passengers and goods destinations feature, and I wont' go back. That's the most important thing to me. Also, the underground mode is great, but that was added way after I started playing Simutrans so it wasn't a decisive point when I arrived here.
I must say that I liked better how diagonals were handled in OTTD, but that's a minor issue.

Ters

That all rails entering a tile are connected in every possible way is perhaps the only aspect in which I feel Simutrans is inferior to Transport Tycoon.

The Hood

Quote from: Ters on January 12, 2013, 11:43:02 AM
That all rails entering a tile are connected in every possible way is perhaps the only aspect in which I feel Simutrans is inferior to Transport Tycoon.

Related to this, diagonal double tracks take twice as much space as a result.

I'd also like to see trams coded separately (i.e. like a bus, and not needing signals like rails) so we could fit two tram tracks on a single wide road tile - this would make 2-way tram lines much easier to build in cities game.

Fabio

Actually I was not trying to politicize one license or another.
What I can't stand is ideology and extremism.

Indeed our community is friendlier, I don't know if it is because it's smaller or because we (mods and admins) managed effectively to curb this kind of arguments and to compose most of conflicts.

VS

One area where OpenTTD wins over Simutrans easily is more control over graphics. Random cargos, gradual loading, vehicle variations, detecting tile position and how it relates to surroundings, multi-tile station parts... Some of that would be nice to have.

My projects... Tools for messing with Simutrans graphics. Graphic archive - templates and some other stuff for painters. Development logs for most recent information on what is going on. And of course pak128!

prissi

However, it comes at the price that there are more than 3 times grphics which never were made into addons, because those complex descriptions of vehicles and houses.

isidoro

All those discussions about licenses bore me a lot.  I'm a big fan of Stallman, though: he was able to fight against all that unfair system of licenses with just their very weapons: Chapeau!

It is very funny that you can buy a quite expensive piece of software "AS IS".  The company assumes no responsibility if it is badly designed and you can do nearly nothing with it!  Change the word software by refrigerator or a pound of tomatoes and you'll see what I mean.

Talking about OpenTTD and Simutrans, I think that OpenTTD is a very good introduction to play ST.  I did it that way.  Probably I would have not started playing ST had I not played OpenTTD before.  It wouldn't stand a chance: I would have closed ST after 1 minute of quick review...

Some time ago, I tried to test back OpenTTD but I didn't like it.  It was very, very simple to my eyes in its plain vanilla version.  When I tried to add all the optional features, it was like a I want but I can't...  I was trying to get a ST out of a OpenTTD!  Besides, I didn't quite succeed...  Why go for the clone if I can have the original?   ;)

So the main point stated for OpenTTD in that thread is also its main weakness.


Ters

Quote from: isidoro on January 13, 2013, 02:09:41 AM
It is very funny that you can buy a quite expensive piece of software "AS IS".  The company assumes no responsibility if it is badly designed and you can do nearly nothing with it!

Such clauses are unfortunately a must in USA where someone selling coffee apparently have been sued because a customer got burned on it. That's not even a fault in the product! How would anyone dare develop software for anything but their own personal use without such a clause?

Isaac Eiland-Hall

Actually, the "hot coffee" case regarding McDonald's - I thought for a long time it was stupid, but I did some research after someone told me it wasn't - to make a long story short, McD's sold their coffee dangerously hot and they'd been warned time and time again... it was actually a legitimate case.

Ters

So now every hot drinks seller put "Caution! Contents hot!" on their cups so that they can sell dangerously hot coffee without risking being sued?

Isaac Eiland-Hall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Hot_Coffee_lawsuit

1. She tried to settle for her actual damages, but McD's refused.

2. There was already a warning on the cup.

3. McDonald's lowered the temperature of their coffee.

But please read more about the case and perhaps you might change your perception of it. Or perhaps not, but I did.

Ters

Quote from: Isaac.Eiland-Hall on January 13, 2013, 11:12:57 AM
2. There was already a warning on the cup.

If so, then that's not a relevant case. I'm interested in why they it was deemed necessary to put temperature warnings on coffee cups in the first place. There is obviously some fear against being held responsible that lies behind this and the "as is" clause in licenses. What triggered that fear? What makes it spread?

Sarlock

A warning in itself is not necessarily a way to avoid a lawsuit.  It depends on the product and its potential for harm and the attempts by the seller to make the product safe for the general consumer.  If the coffee is so hot that it can cause a serious burn/scalding then a warning may not be sufficient.  There is a responsibility on the part of the seller to not make the product as dangerous in the first place.
As always, it has to be taken on a case by case basis, but the bottom line is that a disclaimer is not an automatic abrogation of liability.
Current projects: Pak128 Trees, blender graphics

IgorEliezer

#20
Quote from: Sarlock on January 13, 2013, 08:31:08 PM
A warning in itself is not necessarily a way to avoid a lawsuit.
Yep. Say, we have a coal mining industry. It's a dangerous job, we know it. If you get a job in there, you should know that it will be a dangerous and insalubrious job, but it does not mean that this fact could be used as excuse so that the company lowers their safety measures, such as, leaving explosives open-air, not pumping water out, not using reinforced structures... but hey! it's a dangerous and insalubrious job, people know it and should deal with it "AS IS". As a company, we must provide the minimum safety so that employees would mind only on their own activities and on how to do it as safe as possible, individually.

It is unfair to force people to have control over or mind on things that are beyond their capacity, role or knowledge, i.e., I don't need to use a thermometer if I want to drink my coffee safely. ;)

rainer

Quote from: Fabio on January 12, 2013, 10:36:19 AM
I never really understood the free-as-in-free-speech-software Taliban attitude.
(...)

I am not pursuaded that the term "Taliban" is useful here. I never heard of people
taking care for license issues having killed anyone for using the "wrong" license.
Licenses are collections of legal definitions, rules, etc. I can't see any religios
points in them.

The license part of the OpenTTD thread consists mostly on misunderstandings.

Quote from Dwachs:
"So simutrans is NON-FREE because you cannot turn it into something commercial?"

Dwachs, with highest respect: "free vs non-free" and "commercial vs non-commercial"
are two seperated fields. There is non-commercial non-free software and there is
commercial Free Software - and the other way round.

"One Guest", who is arguing in that thread, has a quite strict attitude, which I won't
sign. Obviuosly, he is following the very strict line of FSF. They deny to accept Artistic
License _V1_ as "free", for it tries to restrict "commercial use". BTW: I never heared of
just one case where commercial use _was_ effectively forbidden, based on AL1. Yes,
some clauses are really weak und vague. FSF doesn't like that, OSI and Debian don't
see a problem and accept that License. I do tend to follow Debian here.

IIRC, these vague "anti-commercial clauses" were the reason for a lot of communication
between FSF and AL authors. The result was 2.0, which is far more clear, and
accepted as "free" even by FSF. BTW: Even the Perl guys are shipping their stuff
under both, AL and GLP. I am sure, they now why. : - )

For me there is no doubt: Simutrans is surely free software. Whenever someone will
start to sell it, I am highly interested to watch the negotiations at court. For now, I
bet: There will be no way to stop him.

Ah, well... Back to topic. I tried OpenTTD some years ago and came back to Simutrans
at the same evening, happily! : - )

Praises for all developers!

Fabio

Well, true that Talibans kill for their religion and open source followers don't. Sorry if it offended anyone.

Yet I see some fanatism and religious integralism in people saying they won't even download a piece of software if it's not free software. Came on! 

rainer

Quote from: Fabio on January 13, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Well, true that Talibans kill for their religion and open source followers don't. Sorry if it offended anyone.

Accepted. I hope you see more differences between Taliban and people like me. : - )
(Ok, I admit, my beard is far too long actually...)

Quote from: Fabio on January 13, 2013, 10:09:42 PM
Yet I see some fanatism and religious integralism in people saying they won't even download a piece of software if it's not free software. Came on!

Well... I beg to differ. On a first glance I would like to say that such a person is
consequent, nothing more and nothing less. You might name that fanatic, I don't.
Surely it is not religious. I do not see any reason not to respect that.

I hope we agree when it comes to _behaviour_. If people are treating other people
in a fanatic way, when they are preaching like fundamental priests, _then_ the
**** hits the fan. That's something I do not like.

Back to topic: "One Guest's" behaviour in the OpenTTD thread is not nice.
Breaking everything done to the pure facts, he is right. In his way of communicating
I see hm... "potential for optimisation".

isidoro

About the "AS IS" topic, I think it is a question of time that we see software developers follow the same path of architects, physicians, ...  since nowadays bad Computer Science can cause as much havoc as a badly build bridge, for instance.

About the taliban question, I understand Fabio's point of view, although perhaps it is somewhat expressed in the language of the south.  It is evident that Taliban behavior and a fanatic of free software (remember that the English word fan is probably a short version of fanatic) are not comparable.

But, it is not sometimes the enthusiasm of free software advocates, but their pontification about the issue, a sort of moral superiority when talking about it, that some other people don't like.  With the passing years, the very one thing I have come to believe is that there are no absolute truths, that there is no rule without exceptions.

Incidentally, as I think Fabio pointed out, there is a similar behavior with some left-wing activism.  And, odd enough, it is really common that some of those young extreme left-wing activists, with the pass of time, turn into extreme right-wing activists, with the same or more devotion, when reaching old age, specially if they are lucky to grow some money...

In the case of "Guest One", something strange is suspected when he opens a thread asking about differences between OpenTTD and ST, and a couple of posts below, he says he won't ever play ST due to its license.  I understand Dwachs' reaction: how come that the only issue above all things in the topic is the license?

By the way, I am a free software advocate and a left-wing person, but I am not 100% sure of any.  None of the machines that I use has Windows installed and I don't miss it, for sure, much on the contrary.  But I wouldn't dare look from above at people that are happy with it.  Live and let live...


Sarlock

Well said.  It does seem to me strange to have such a violent reaction to one set of "free" rules to stop someone from wanting to play the game in the first place.  But I guess if it's that important to them, it's their free choice... I can't say I'd ever make a decision to play or not play a game based on the terms of its license.  There is more than one definition of "free".  I prefer the one that makes it free to purchase and play but does not make all of the intellectual property freely available for commercial uses.  I certainly wouldn't want a for-pay game to be using my trees, for instance :) but if a free game like OpenTTD wanted to use them I'd be more than happy to offer them.
Current projects: Pak128 Trees, blender graphics

Ters

Quote from: isidoro on January 14, 2013, 12:48:20 AM
About the "AS IS" topic, I think it is a question of time that we see software developers follow the same path of architects, physicians, ...  since nowadays bad Computer Science can cause as much havoc as a badly build bridge, for instance.
Actually, we used to follow that path, but realized it was impossible. Most modern computer programs are so complex that there is no way that they lack bugs. They will eventually come crashing down given the "right" input. We still try to do our best to avoid faults, but know that our work is flawed in some way, so there are "as is" clauses, error reporting facilities and patch releases. The rest of the world seems to have a harder time understanding this.

Quote from: Sarlock on January 14, 2013, 01:08:24 AM
I certainly wouldn't want a for-pay game to be using my trees, for instance :) but if a free game like OpenTTD wanted to use them I'd be more than happy to offer them.
That's a contradiction, because OpenTTD could become a for-pay game in an instant. It might already be for all I know.

Dwachs

Quote from: rainer on January 13, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
The license part of the OpenTTD thread consists mostly on misunderstandings.

Quote from Dwachs:
"So simutrans is NON-FREE because you cannot turn it into something commercial?"

Dwachs, with highest respect: "free vs non-free" and "commercial vs non-commercial"
are two seperated fields. There is non-commercial non-free software and there is
commercial Free Software - and the other way round.
This guy asked for differences between Ottd and Simutrans because 'simutrans is non-free' in his eyes, and because of that he cannot play such a toxic, non-free game. He claims that Simutrans is non-free because he does not have the freedom to turn simutrans into a commercial product. Which is ridiculous in my point of view.
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.

VS

As I see it, the outrageous part was dragging others into a discussion - only to drive home the unrelated point about license. Troll has been well fed :)

My projects... Tools for messing with Simutrans graphics. Graphic archive - templates and some other stuff for painters. Development logs for most recent information on what is going on. And of course pak128!

prissi

When it cames to license, then OpenTTD still has the "problem" that it is based on a decompiler as the first version of the source. Just the very first version of the code still had algorithmic label like a000456 and such. Insofar this advocate is as wrong as he could be. I would rather like to compare those two game to see were each could profit. But instead very few people lay both (I know only three in three fora). Each supoorted of the games seems also quite fanatic about their favorite toy ;)

rainer

Quote from: isidoro on January 14, 2013, 12:48:20 AM
By the way, I am a free software advocate and a left-wing person, but I am not 100% sure of any.  None of the machines that I use has Windows installed and I don't miss it, for sure, much on the contrary.  But I wouldn't dare look from above at people that are happy with it.  Live and let live...

Beside of the "left-wing" thing, I would to sign that paragraph wholeheartedly.
The only remaining problem is that some "market leaders" on the proprietary side never understood
the "let live" part. :- (

Quote from: Dwachs on January 14, 2013, 07:41:06 AM
He claims that Simutrans is non-free because he does not have the freedom to turn simutrans into a commercial product.

Breaking it down the facts, this is true, somehow. Forbidding "commercial use" is contradicting to the
"Freedom No 0" - the freedom to use the program for every porpose. AL1 tries to do exactly that.

Quote from: Dwachs on January 14, 2013, 07:41:06 AM
Which is ridiculous in my point of view.

His behaviour is ridiculous, yes. But he has a point here.

Sarlock

Quote from: VS on January 14, 2013, 08:03:29 AM
As I see it, the outrageous part was dragging others into a discussion - only to drive home the unrelated point about license. Troll has been well fed :)

Absolutely!  Well fed indeed.

They are both great games that have had an immense amount of effort put in to each.  I personally prefer Simutrans because I love the complexity, but each game has its merits and worth.
Current projects: Pak128 Trees, blender graphics

Ters

Quote from: prissi on January 14, 2013, 09:49:37 AM
When it cames to license, then OpenTTD still has the "problem" that it is based on a decompiler as the first version of the source. Just the very first version of the code still had algorithmic label like a000456 and such. Insofar this advocate is as wrong as he could be. I would rather like to compare those two game to see were each could profit. But instead very few people lay both (I know only three in three fora). Each supoorted of the games seems also quite fanatic about their favorite toy ;)

So Simutrans is almost free, while OTTD claims to be free, but is possibly illegal? If so, distros accepting the latter but not the former have a very shallow perception of the world.

VS

That is not entirely certain... however, getting a 1:1 game sounds somewhat unlikely ;)

My projects... Tools for messing with Simutrans graphics. Graphic archive - templates and some other stuff for painters. Development logs for most recent information on what is going on. And of course pak128!

Lmallet

Quote from: Ters on January 14, 2013, 03:40:44 PM
So Simutrans is almost free, while OTTD claims to be free, but is possibly illegal? If so, distros accepting the latter but not the former have a very shallow perception of the world.
I was wondering the same thing.  For a long time you required files for the original graphics/sound files from TTD to make OpenTTD work.  I know that now they made OpenGFX/SFX, but I wonder about the legality.

Let's say I make a new OS, called OpenWindows, that has the same look-and-feel as MS-Windows, but had more features.  How long would it take MS to show up at my door?  :)  I know TTD is pretty much abandonware, but Microprose (or its current owner) might still be able to exercise copyright.

Ters

Quote from: Lmallet on January 14, 2013, 06:35:44 PM
Let's say I make a new OS, called OpenWindows, that has the same look-and-feel as MS-Windows, but had more features.  How long would it take MS to show up at my door?  :)

Well, there is Wine. It has been accused of not being entirely built from scratch, but only for small parts as far as I have read.

IgorEliezer

#36
Quote from: rainer on January 14, 2013, 12:50:53 PM"Freedom No 0" - the freedom to use the program for every porpose.
While I always thought for decades that something is free that's because it's free of charge, i.e., I don't need to pay for it. In fact, almost anyone that walks on the streets and sees a "free" sign in a store or whatever will assume that products are being given with no payment required, if there are restrictions about usage or purpose, no one will fit it in the "free" thing, this will be taken as another subject...

I'd like to vent something stuck in my throat -- please don't take me wrong, it is just a honest comment -- and go beyond what Fabio said:

The biggest problem that I see in the free/open-source software communities is that they are kind of ghettos that do not make software for real-life people for real-life situations. They somewhat make software (and languages) for themselves so that only themselves can use and understand... for pride, elitism, conservatism or perfectness, I don't know why, it's like an artist that makes art so perfect (according to this artist's conception) that only he and his restrict circle of people will appreciate his job.

For example, I have/had Blender, Inkscape, GIMP, Paint.NET, Scribus etc installed on my computer specially because I was an open-source/free-software enthusiastic in the past, but I had so much trouble trying to learn and use these tools that I reached the conclusion (of course I'm ignoring some specificities, they are not the same thing, it didn't go so bad)  they were made for people that have plenty of free time at home or in the office... I know these tools have a lot of potential and are powerful -- I've seen awesome things that people have made on them.

I notice too there is some resistance to implement simple features or simple GUIs that would make the life of any mortal pretty much easier. Just for giggles: using Blender is like going to a restaurant to eat olive with 10 kind of flatware (lots of setups you need to do before starting a work), while using AutoCAD or Google SketchUp is like having a hotdog on the street (everything is there ready to use)... yea, it's not healthy but still does the job... or you are fired. I sometimes saw people requesting features and the answer was "go use another software" or then "code it yourself"... perhaps it was just a dirty sinner trying to corrupt a sacred software... hehe, oops sorry.

Even Simutrans suffers a bit when it comes to making things easier for beginners... but I'm sure that some improvements have been made. Blender foundation was really bold when they changed the interface of their software, but hey, it's still a hell of software.

Back to the topic: If something can be used for any propose it should be called "all-purpose product", but as I am just a mortal with few spare time to understand geek stuff, I might be wrong... ^^'

For me, honestly, it's rather a semantic/semiotic/metalinguistic discussion than anything else. But still, we can make lots of fun out of it. Wheeee.....

sdog

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
I'd like to vent something stuck in my throat -- please don't take me wrong, it is just a honest comment -- and go beyond what Fabio said:

I notice too there is some resistance to implement simple features or simple GUIs that would make the life of any mortal pretty much easier. Just for giggles: using Blender is like going to a restaurant to eat olive with 10 kind of flatware (lots of setups you need to do before starting a work), while using AutoCAD or Google SketchUp is like having a hotdog on the street (everything is there ready to use)... yea, it's not healthy but still does the job... or you are fired. I sometimes saw people requesting features and the answer was "go use another software" or then "code it yourself"... perhaps it was just a dirty sinner trying to corrupt a sacred software... hehe, oops sorry.

This is in part true. Looking at certain Gnome conflicts at the moment and endless examples there's lots of support. However there are two other aspects to consider. Firstly there are a lot of people who consider a good GUI to be one that looks exactly like what they are used to. The wish for having everything to look like MS Office or other dominant programs is not a valid one. I very much think that good user interface design should always favour good or interesting concepts over conventions. There is no difficulty in learning new concepts, breaking routines etc. This does not take any extra time or effort at work.*

The other is twofold, new interface and design concepts can be anything from groundbreaking to rubbish. Usage finds it out. Steve Jobs was hailed as a genius for fostering new ideas, while having the money to work on excellent desin and good ergonomics, to pay professional testers. For free software the users are the testers and things are done with very limited manpower.


*helps to reduce the risk to fall into the Excell trap. You can do almost anything with Excell. While it is awkward and slow to do so, one can use things learned before. What i often see is people spending two hours of stupid clicking to avoid a few hours of thinking and learning something new. After a little while they would have the time back. Somehow they tend to prefer repetitive manual work over thinking and learning.

ps.: In my engineering studies time AutoCAD was always considered to be a toy software not fit for any work. With standard being Solid Edge and Catia.

Ters

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
The biggest problem that I see in the free/open-source software communities is that they are kind of ghettos that do not make software for real-life people for real-life situations. They somewhat make software (and languages) for themselves so that only themselves can use and understand... for pride, elitism, conservatism or perfectness, I don't know why, it's like an artist that makes art so perfect (according to this artist's conception) that only he and his restrict circle of people will appreciate his job.

For example, I have/had Blender, Inkscape, GIMP, Paint.NET, Scribus etc installed on my computer specially because I was an open-source/free-software enthusiastic in the past, but I had so much trouble trying to learn and use these tools that I reached the conclusion (of course I'm ignoring some specificities, they are not the same thing, it didn't go so bad)  they were made for people that have plenty of free time at home or in the office... I know these tools have a lot of potential and are powerful -- I've seen awesome things that people have made on them.

I notice too there is some resistance to implement simple features or simple GUIs that would make the life of any mortal pretty much easier. Just for giggles: using Blender is like going to a restaurant to eat olive with 10 kind of flatware (lots of setups you need to do before starting a work), while using AutoCAD or Google SketchUp is like having a hotdog on the street (everything is there ready to use)... yea, it's not healthy but still does the job... or you are fired. I sometimes saw people requesting features and the answer was "go use another software" or then "code it yourself"... perhaps it was just a dirty sinner trying to corrupt a sacred software... hehe, oops sorry.

Even Simutrans suffers a bit when it comes to making things easier for beginners... but I'm sure that some improvements have been made. Blender foundation was really bold when they changed the interface of their software, but hey, it's still a hell of software.

Lots of open source projects start out because someone wants a product, can't find one that satisfies their needs, and decides to make one themselves. It is only natural that they make a product that's tailor-made to their needs, because anything else gives them no benefits. The product itself is the only payment they get for their work. Changing a feature they like into a feature more suited for others essentially means working towards a reduction in ones own salary. One can't demand people to be that charitable.

Many of the biggest open source projects are actually backed by companies, universities and/or government agencies. These are able to overcome this obstacle, as the companies want the best product for their customers, who provide their income, and the developers are now motivated by normal salaries. This can also shield users from direct interaction with the developers, which aren't known for their social skills. For this to work, commercial use of the open sourced software must be allowed in some way.

Simutrans and OTTD are probably in the same boat here, though the latter might have more developers which means a potentially greater diversity among developers as to what's an improvement and more available developer time. As a developer, I'm not interested in programming features that don't suit my style of play. It's hard work for nothing, or even negative return. Not that I've contributed much to Simutrans anyway, since I'm often too exhausted from programming for money all day.

Ironically, Blender was the first (and so far only) 3D program I really figured out. But that was before they changed the user interface to be more similar to the industry standard, and before it went open source. I have never gotten the hang of GIMP, but that seems to be for the same reasons I didn't understand Photoshop.

Combuijs

Igor, you would be surprised how difficult it is to make a user-interface that:

a) is "simple" to understand
b) is intuitive to use by a lot of users
c) covers the functionality wanted by a lot of users

You will find that every user has his/her own idea of "simple", of what is intuitive and of what the wanted functionality is. And you will find that every user changes his opinions about it in the course of time.

You might find a parallel in architecture in the "less is more" paradigm of Bauhaus. You must know yourself that it is actually quite difficult to bring your own design down to the bare basics and still have a good "working" and "feeling" building.

When programmers design a user-interface they think how they can program it in the most easy way, not how the user can use it in the most easy way. That is in fact a totally different job. When a user-interface is programmed in the most easy way, there will be less errors in it and the code will be more maintainable. And time is won by not having to talk to potential users.

As for good user-interfaces, yes, they are very important. On the other hand you would be amazed what users can actually adapt to and get used to. In fact, there are even buildings made by architects that you can actually live in...
Bob Marley: No woman, no cry

Programmer: No user, no bugs



wlindley

Quote from: Lmallet on January 14, 2013, 06:35:44 PM
Let's say I make a new OS, called OpenWindows, that has the same look-and-feel as MS-Windows, but had more features.  How long would it take MS to show up at my door?

You mean like ReactOS ...?

rainer

#41
Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
While I always thought for decades that something is free that's because it's free of charge, i.e., I don't need to pay for it.

This is a speciality of the English language. Here, "free" has two meanings: "free of charge" and "free" as in "freedom". Other languages do differ: German "frei" vs. "gratis", French "libre" vs. "gratuit", similar in Spanish. If it is about "Free Software", the well known and worldwide accepted definition is about "Freedom", _not_ about "free beer".

Most Free Software people know is indeed free of charge, but this is not a must. The business
part of Free Software is running between companies. A Billion $ market.

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
The biggest problem that I see in the free/open-source software communities is that they are kind of ghettos that do not make software for real-life people for real-life situations.

That depends on your definition of "real-life situations". There is far, far more Free Software than
you can see on your desktop. I.e., most of the low level software which is issentially for the a well
working internet, is Free Software. The "market leader" on webservers, Apache, is Free Software.

Meanwhile, the wide majority of smartphones is based on Free Software.

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
They somewhat make software (and languages) for themselves...

This again depends on your definition of "themselves". This might be a company as well, which
is in urgent need of new features for existing software or even new software. This is a huge
business and a big motivation beyond the individual one.

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
...so that only themselves can use and understand... for pride, elitism, conservatism or perfectness,
I don't know why, it's like an artist that makes art so perfect (according to this artist's conception) that only he and his restrict circle of people will appreciate his job.

That might be, but this isn't question of Free/Non-free Software.
Even, if it is about "geeky behaviour", somehow autistic behaviour, you will find it in the
proprietary part as well.

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
I notice too there is some resistance to implement simple features or simple GUIs that would make the life of any mortal pretty much easier.

Same here. Try to pursuade a well known company at Redmond to implement something
in their GUI! : - )

Regarding Blender: The interesting thing is that Blender started as a proprietary project,
and failed several times. The success came when in went free. (BTW: IMO it was the same with
Simutrans) (BTW2: I love the output of Blender, but failed several times by trying to learn
to use it. I can imagine your frustration.)

Regarding GUI's: Again no question of "free vs proprietary".

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
For me, honestly, it's rather a semantic/semiotic/metalinguistic discussion than anything else.

Hm... Well, let my add "philosophy, politilogically, sociologically, legal, conceptual", then I agree.
At least, those discussions are almost always _not_ about technic. I think it is interesting
that those discussions are touching almost all science fields which are researching the
systems of human collaboration.

Quote from: IgorEliezer on January 15, 2013, 12:11:27 AM
But still, we can make lots of fun out of it. Wheeee.....

Yeah! Let' s roll! : - )

(If it is welcome and still fitting the topic...?)

isidoro

It is funny, but this topic here has taken the same path as the one in the brother's forum: a license topic...   :D

Ters

Considering this topic is about the other topic, it's not so strange.

prissi

#44
I think licenses are completely overrated; I quite well remember the day when there was Freeware, Shareware and Payware. Thus Freeware meant "no pay", because you rarely got the code for it at all. Therefore people claiming free software comes from freedom, had either not looked at the history of free software and try to instrumentalize other peoples work for politics. For the layman free software means legally no pay. But with the advancement of lawers into IP (to put it mildely) also hobby programmers seems to be obligated to adhere to legal stuff.

Furthermore, Simutrans had been more than 50% of its life as more or less closed freeware. The growth rate of downloads (an d thus users, not contributors) did not changed dramatically after going open source; the number of programmers increased without question.

But this is all boring stuff for me. I rather like the discussion about user interfaces, a favorite topic of my. I think what people consider a good user interface is just something people got used too; even if if it ignores 50% of the ergonomics.

Imho the best example are the new ribbons in MS word. In principle it is a good idea to get rid of menus (which hide a lot of functionality) and have everything shown there. But they did not do it, the whole thing is full of hidden sub submenus and the tabs are changing content on whatever is selected. No customisation is offered as way out too.

That is a combination of the worst of all worlds. Only teaching companies like it, because without customisation, everyone gets the same UI. Welcome to communism a la Apple1984!

I still wonder why so few people play both? They are both transport simulators, and gameplay is quite different. For instance time flies in TTD, thus it is ideal for a quick game. Whereas for simutrans you really need to spend more time.

yoshi

Simutrans passengers have their destinations and they transfer on their way. This make Simutrans a unique game among transport simulation games. I like Verkehrsgigant for the same reason, although in Verkehrsgigant cities don't grow and the game gets boring if you once constructed a network covering the whole city.

Isaac Eiland-Hall

The thing about change is that people don't like it.

Microsoft always get complaints with each new version of Windows. Well, as for me... I liked Windows 7, Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95 when they came out. It seems to me most others never like the new/current version, they always like one previous. This is hardly universal -- but I remember lots of complaints with each new version, and why can't things just stay like the current/last one? And then, once people get used to it, it's fine. They get used to the improvements.

Same even with the Office ribbon. MS put serious money into researching how to make things better. I personally think it's better. I think more functionality is exposed in more streamlined ways, and that's a good thing.

I also think that there are normal users (who never customize or change anything on their computers because they don't know how, and always use their mouse for everything - but not right-click, only left-click and maybe double-click), and advanced/power users, who customize things how they like and use keyboard shortcuts... That's two radically different sets of users, at a minimum. And it still works pretty well for both.

A final note: I don't have a touchscreen, and so far, I still like Windows 8.

Regarding the license debate... Let people argue about it, as long as it doesn't spread to every thread and can stay in one place so those that care can argue until they're blue in the face, and those of us who don't, don't have to see it. Certainly it's good to debate things to a point of trying to decide the best (and possible) ways of handling something - which license to choose. Then the choice is made, and people move on. What's done is done. And sure, re-examine it from time to time to make sure it's still the optimal solution... but these religious battles about licenses turn me off.

Ters

Quote from: prissi on January 16, 2013, 10:02:58 AM
Imho the best example are the new ribbons in MS word. In principle it is a good idea to get rid of menus (which hide a lot of functionality) and have everything shown there. But they did not do it, the whole thing is full of hidden sub submenus and the tabs are changing content on whatever is selected. No customisation is offered as way out too.

That principle is only true on infinitely big monitors. The worst part of the ribbon design for me was how long it took for me to notice that the little symbol in the lower right corner actually was a button that brought up more options.

Quote from: prissi on January 16, 2013, 10:02:58 AM
I still wonder why so few people play both? They are both transport simulators, and gameplay is quite different. For instance time flies in TTD, thus it is ideal for a quick game. Whereas for simutrans you really need to spend more time.

Is there an OTT? I'm perhaps the only one who holds Transport Tycoon as superior to Transport Tycoon Deluxe.

Quote from: Isaac.Eiland-Hall on January 16, 2013, 02:07:44 PM
Microsoft always get complaints with each new version of Windows. Well, as for me... I liked Windows 7, Vista, XP, ME, 98, 95 when they came out. It seems to me most others never like the new/current version, they always like one previous.

[...]

A final note: I don't have a touchscreen, and so far, I still like Windows 8.
I have always liked new versions of Windows from 3.1 onwards, except ME and Windows 8 (for professional PC use, I might get a Windows 8 phone someday).

sdog

#48
Quote from: prissi on January 16, 2013, 10:02:58 AM
I think licenses are completely overrated; I quite well remember the day when there was Freeware, Shareware and Payware. Thus Freeware meant "no pay", because you rarely got the code for it at all. Therefore people claiming free software comes from freedom, had either not looked at the history of free software and try to instrumentalize other peoples work for politics. For the layman free software means legally no pay. But with the advancement of lawers into IP (to put it mildely) also hobby programmers seems to be obligated to adhere to legal stuff.
I think you are overlooking a very important historical thread here. Unix sourcecode was at some point in time closed to the universities using it. Before while proprietary, payed for software Unix sourcecode was freely available. The attitude was, you don't need a manual, just check the source. When it was closed it was a major blow to research. The reaction was the gnu initiative.

To me it rather seems that the freeware and shareware scene of the 80s and 90s, who were in large parts hobbyists migrated to the formerly purely academic free software concepts.

And of course the free as in beer is also very important, you're long enough at universities. Can you remember ever having funds to pay for software? It's always either all-university licenses, open source or pirated.

Quote
I still wonder why so few people play both? They are both transport simulators, and gameplay is quite different. For instance time flies in TTD, thus it is ideal for a quick game. Whereas for simutrans you really need to spend more time.
Good question!
I've played both for a little while. But simutrans was so clearly superior in all aspects i like of such things (exception was signaling in openTTD) that i migrated completely. Later on i wanted to try openTTD from time to time, but it is a real pain to get any recent information of the game and set up the loads of newGrf needed that i always spent all the time i had for playing to set it up.

Conclusion is the answer to your question is also in your text. The games are similar enough that one does not get enough difference to play both of them, but they are specific enough to strongly prefer one or the other.

QuoteThat is a combination of the worst of all worlds. Only teaching companies like it, because without customisation, everyone gets the same UI. Welcome to communism a la Apple1984!
I read a couple of years ago that windows customers specifically do not want customizing. Most important are businesses, where big corporations want a uniform software landscape and they don't want their employees to fiddle around with software where they break things and need help to get it fixed. The second group were not very well learned private and small office users, who often went to courses to learn word etc.

Courses are most likely also an important part of this. North American companies tend to train their employees exactly what to do, to the most minute detail. Own initiative and learning themselves as you know it from germany are much less important. That happens even at a level where mostly computer science university graduates work. Having exactly the same interface, that preferably doesn't change over the course of ten years is important for those work/learn concepts.

Ters

Open source isn't something that benefits the man in the street. It's a benefit for those working with and understanding computer software. They can debug it without having to make sense of machine code. They can tweak it when it doesn't quite suit their needs. They can just look at it for pure acedemic or educational reasons.

Licenses come into play in order to restrict abuse of this openness. It prevents a company from taking a piece of, adding a few bits and pieces, sell it without offering the source code and make profit without giving anything in return to those making the original software. Then lawyers come in and write long texts nobody but themselves can understand in order to make the license watertight in every possible case. Older licenses like the BSD license are quite simple, but also very free.

As a developer, open source is a blessing that allows us step through code and find errors ourselves, possibly even fixing them (we've done so once, plus two cases of adding features). With closed source, we have to contact support (which means expensive support contracts), produce and feed them with meaningless logs, answer questions that are not relevant, and then wait for them to release a fix at some point. And if we're unlucky, getting the fix means upgrading to a newer version, which cause other problems for us that didn't exist in the previous version.

However, "free" is not a description I find fitting for GPL and similar licenses. They are more free than the defaults given by copyright laws, but a far cry from public domain or even BSD.