Simutrans vs. OpenTTD

[Ters]

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]

"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]

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]

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...

[wlindley]

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]

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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".

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.

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...   

[Ters]

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

[prissi]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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 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.