Page 1 of 1

Why not open source this program?

Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:22 am
by Crand
Look, obviously whoever codes this program either doesn't have the time necessary to make this the quality program it's intended to be or doesn't listen to feedback from their customers. Seeing as how Supersearch is a product that generates recurring annual revenue, why not just open source the Newsleecher program so the growing list of problems can be fixed and spend your time on maintaining Supersearch? Ever think of selling Supersearch as a subscription service to any news reader? You can rid yourself of 90% of support issues and still make money.

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:31 am
by joolzg
As a programmer, whos paid daily for my skills, i would gladly put in a bit of time at night on getting this working.

Im happy to pay for software which works, but its getting to a point now that the betas are not properly tested and as ive just lost everything with the upgrade a fork now to open source would be good.

Keep the supersearch as your money making part and lets get this nice bit of software stable and usuable/.

Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:41 pm
by 9153465743
If you want open source you can use other software or make your own.

A risk of open source is that an other can edit / change / delete parts of the source and this can result in even more problems.

Or the source can be used to create a custom version and sell this one with an other name.

The big problems of Newsleecher are taken care of.
Some settings could be better but this is for me one of the best Usenet reader.

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:13 pm
by selgan
This program is great.
I'm not sure publishing the sources freely will grant us with a better app.
Don't misunderstand me. I DO SUPPORT OPENSOURCE.
But there's times where we have to pay for something.
Bread isn't Opensource. -g-
Furthermore, prices are really affordable and with a very good ratio "What you get / what you pay for".

Re: Why not open source this program?

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:12 pm
by Your_Name_Here
Crand wrote:Look, obviously whoever codes this program either doesn't have the time necessary to make this the quality program it's intended to be or doesn't listen to feedback from their customers.
There definitely are some problems with the NL development process. NL 3.9 Final was released more than 2 years ago (May 2008 ), there was a 3.91 beta but it was abandoned after 2 beta versions and 3.95 beta was abandoned after 3 beta versions. NL 4 has been in beta for more than a year (since May of 2009 ). I agree that "Spiril" either doesn't have enough time to work on NL or just doesn't care about customer input. Or both.

This is very disappointing and frustrating because NL is a really good program that seems to be heading in a bad direction.

However, Open Source isn't necessarily the answer. Every really successful open source project has someone (or a few people) who are in charge and keep a certain amount of control over things. Without this, it just turns into a big mess.

"Spiril" wants to sell NL and make money from it, along with making money from Supersearch. And that's OK. I've used several newsreader programs over the years and I think NL is still the best. Everything doesn't have to be free. I'm willing to pay for a good program.

Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:16 pm
by Your_Name_Here
selgan wrote:Bread isn't Opensource. -g-
Actually, bread *IS* open source. Anyone can make their own bread if they want to. Most people don't want to be bothered with making their own bread so they pay someone else to do it for them.

If you go to the store and all the bread tastes terrible, what will you do? Will you make your own bread or will you complain that they need to make better bread?

Software is the same.

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:32 am
by selgan
Actually BREAD ISN'T OEPENSOURCE and here is why.
Better bread (I'm French and i know what i'm speaking about) have secret recipes.
You can make your own bread, as well as you can, if you're a developper, make your own apps.
But doing a good app isn't easy. It needs secret recipes too.
Furthermore we're debating about an useless topic.
This application is the property of his author.
I'ts to him to decide what he wants to do with it.
Remember the beginings of ACDSee or Paint Shop Pro, and you should understand why the author still wants to develop it.
If you're not satisfied with the way things goes, don't buy or renew your licence. It's the best way to express your disagrement.
(PS Hope there wasn't too many big mistakes)

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:15 am
by Jed
Newsleecher is one of the main reasons that I still run Windows. I'd love to see a Linux version and if it were open source I would certainly put some time into helping to port it.

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:51 pm
by Downstream
Maybe a solution is to keep NL closed source but Spiril gets some help from a few good programmers.

Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:15 am
by Crand

ok, Selgan. some bread isn't open source. I think a better example we should use for open source is the Polio vaccine. Dr. Salk developed this product and he knew its importance to the success of our society so he gave it to the world royalty free. The Polio vaccine is open source. But I digress as this application isn't bread or a vaccine for Polio.

Some have made the argument that Spiril (whoever that is) intends to develop this program with the singular intent to sell it to the highest bidder. As you can see from my post, I've been registered in the forum since 2004 so I've been around a bit. Don't you think the time to sell has come and gone? More importantly, where do you go for binary downloads? I live in Phoenix, AZ and Cox Communications flags all HD media with the "copy once" flag so I can't watch HD recordings on any other computer than my Media Center PC. On my desktop PC I use newsleecher to download TV I've already recorded if it's good enough to store. How long do you think cable companies will let something like this go on? How long do you think the RIAA or MPAA will let us all download anything we want to? Eventually NNTP will become a protocol that nobody wants to touch and any investor who looks at what Spiril (whoever that is) has built wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot cattleprod. The second we think NNTP is untouchable, some lawyers will come along and sue this program into submission. Who in the hell wants to invest in something with that much liability? What's Shawn Fanning up to these days?

Given the time I've used this program and the amount of money I've spent on it combined with the insignificant number of requests for changes I've made, I think I'm entitled to be more than a little pissed off here. If Spiril (whoever that is) created a new section of this forum to evaluate possible developers and managed it like any other community project in existence, this program could survive any lawsuit and become something we all want it to be. There have to be a great number of people on this site capable of assisting in the development and maintenance of this program and it would be a shame for Spiril (whoever that is) to let it go to waste. The biggest competitor to open source is a developer with a product good enough for you not to bother. Anybody with the time and skills to make something like Newsleecher could easily put its lights out. Like Intel, nVidia and AMD, competition breeds innovation. If Spiril (whoever that is) rests on his laurels long enough, somebody will come from behind and gladly accept my money.

Left in the hands of a single programmer without enough time to fix crippling errors, I fear this program might become something unusable in the near future. As it is right now I have to be very careful how I do things in this damn program to keep from wasting a lot of time. To all you people who might make the arguement that this is part of the beta process, you are entirely wrong. This is HALF of the beta process. The other being fixing the damn problems we send to the developers.


Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:23 pm
by jayw654
Newsgroups aren't going anywhere they have been around for years for legitimate reasons and people still use them for legit reasons. Companies and schools still use them and are still use to communicate around the world. You could argue that the music industry should stop making cd's because people pirate them but obviously they are still making money off them or they wouldn't still be around. Just because people pirate cd's doesn't make cd's the problem. May be we should also while we're at just stop the entire internet because a group of people use it to pirate and let's forget all the legitimate uses for the internet.

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:20 am
by Crand
jayw654 wrote:May be we should also while we're at just stop the entire internet because a group of people use it to pirate and let's forget all the legitimate uses for the internet.
I don't doubt there are some out there who would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Is Spiril (whoever that is) spent his (her) time trying to find an effective way to censor newsgroups and defeat binary posters he (she) could make infinitely more money than this little program makes him (her).

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:39 am
by jayw654
What's wrong with binaries? Maybe I have a home movie I want to send to a few people. I could password protect it with winrar and send it or do the same with some music I wrote. Blocking binaries isn't the answer. Plus to censor newsgroups it has to be done at the server. I doubt any Newsgroup provider would do that as it would do that as it would be censorship. Most newsgroup aren't in the business of censorship or filtering pirates as it would be next to impossible and eat all their profits to do it. This is not cost effective. In fact most providers just simply give out free encrypted connections and it's not really to protect the user as it is to protect themselves as this helps shield them from lawsuits from the not-so-legitimate user doing illegal downloads. If the ISP's can't see it, it's not happening right? If there is no evidence there can't be a lawsuit. It is exactly like the ISP's They want to make money not police.