Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: BEAR <bearlabs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 10:40:54 -0400
Peter Strempel wrote:
After a good nights sleep, I reread my previous post. Think I missed the tone a bit, sorry for that. Was already in a bad mood and then your post ticked me off, though it wasn't really so bad. Lesson learned? Don't read rgg when already in a bad mood. :-)
Replacing the stone files has been possible since several versions. Documented in the manual:
http://www.pandanet.co.jp/English/glgo/manual/ch03s03.html
(also available offline, it's in your glGo installation directory)
Hard to find, admittedly. The manual is rather bad, partly overdocumented and other things not documented at all. It needs a rework, but I'm not overly good at writing documentation, nor overly interested in it.
Anyways, you can replace the images and sound, now you know, issue solved.
There are no plans to make glGo shareware. Not now, not in the future. Already getting enough flames for not being open-source. :-)
> When "demanding" features, or even when criticizing a product, one
> would do well to keep in mind what one paid for the product.
Well, even though I probably missed the tone a bit in my earlier post, I still stand to the statement about the programming machine and human being - I suppose I can say that without offending anyone. Thing is, when I look at my Inbox, I can count the number of "Thank you" I got within the last year on one hand, while the number of requests, demands, flames and threads are a constant flow. I am no professional support desk, and I have only limited time and resources for the whole project.
I do not mind constructive criticism, not all all. That's welcome, and many glGo features were implemented because of user suggestions, not because I came up with them. So overall a good thing. However, if people demand I treat them as in "the customer is king", it's a bit over the edge.
Telling me certain things in the software are bad is good. Telling me why one dislikes things is good. Suggesting alternatives, options, new features is good. But *demanding* from me to do something is not good. In many cases the difference between a demand and a suggestion is a fine line, but then it's about how something is said. Some people treat everything associated with IGS as the punchbag of the online Go community, and then wonder why they get ignored. There is a German saying I fail to translate properly into English, something around the lines of "The tone creates the music". Suppose you know what I mean. :)
Peter
Sure, Peter... my tone could have been a bit more gentle as well.
From out here as a user, my concern is that your software has become the defacto IGS software. I was more than satisfied with WinIgc, fwiw. But for reasons that I am not privy to that software is no longer being supported.
I also like that IGS supported various independently developed clients, so that one was not "stuck" with only on idea of how to interface with the server and play Go. There are some other servers that one can play Go on, but their one and only client is not so good to look at or use. Furthermore these single client, single server sites' client software is extremely inflexible and non-customizable. To me, I saw IGS as enlightened in this regard.
As far as open source vs. shareware is concerned my interest, and I am sure most users of IGS's interest, is to simply have good flexible client software to *use*. Few care how that happens, just that it does happen.
As I said, I would be happy to pay a one time "license fee" as I did with WinIgc in this sort of situation. I am sure many others would be more than satisfied with that option. Free is fine too from the users point of view, if that can be made to work. ;_) But if "free" is what is keeping things from moving forward, or preventing expedient development, maybe "free" is not so good?
I can understand the pressures that you must have regarding this software, I think in large part that is because somehow you have become now the defacto IGS client provider. If I want to see ratings or watch a review I have to use your client. As the commands and protocol changes more, one can use the older clients less and less.
It took quite a while for the prior IGS clients to become as sophisticated and as flexible as WinIgc became. Quite a few versions and years went by first. The various clients grew over time in concert with the same growth curve of the internet and the home PC hardware. Your glgo comes *after* this has already happened, so there is an obvious demand or need to *begin* where these left off, rather than back at "square one." So you are in effect "playing catch up" from the start. Which is quite frankly a difficult thing to do quickly.
I admit freely that I know virtually nothing about how IGS or Panda operates, makes decisions or policy, but as I noted your glgo is in effect *the* client software for IGS now. I know nothing about how or why that has come about. But clearly that status or position brings with it rather obvious issues and ramifications. The horse is out of the barn now, and the genie is out of the bottle. The only question I can see that matters now is how is it going to be delt with and handled from here onward.
_-_-bear
.
- References:
- The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: Harry Sigerson
- Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: Peter Strempel
- Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: BEAR
- Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: Peter Strempel
- Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: BEAR
- Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- From: Peter Strempel
- The sound of that stones on the Goban
- Prev by Date: Re: Other names of Go
- Next by Date: Re: Scoring of ancient chinese games
- Previous by thread: Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- Next by thread: Re: The sound of that stones on the Goban
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
