The Future of Big-O Software and AIM+

[DADINK13]

I haven't checked the download counter for a long time, but I can just imagine how many people download it per hour.



Some things just don't die. Ever.

[insomica]

Downloads 1,871,284

We will soon be at 2mill downloads

[Walker]

Yea, It is Only A Matter of Time.

[[]DaT_MaNN03]

yep the counter goes up quite a bit each day prolly about a thousand or so. shouldn't be too much longer till we hit 2 mil

[dat]

well.. i've been checking this forum / site for many many months, and now i feel the need to finally post. needless to say, i, like everyone else, was / am very dissapointed to find that no future versions of aim+ will be released. i can't say that i understand why you decided this. before the flames come, i know you 'said' you were being attacked digitally.

1) its good to see that you let others control your life. if someone beats you up to take your lunch money, does that mean you'll stop bringing money to school? if someone makes fun of your house / car / cat / etc, are you going to get rid of it? and again, before the flames come, i'm not comparing the 'attacks' that big-o was receiving to getting made fun of. i'm bringing across the point that you don't let people influence your life for the worse. (but this is essentially your decision, and my belief)

2) if someone doesn't want you to release something, you release it to the world, and let the world decide where to go from there. (reading in between the lines: GPL the software) i completely understand if you guys don't have time to update / continue work on this software. but why would you keep it to yourself? did you use bad variable names, and you're worried about your highschool comp sci teacher seeing it? just release the source, and see how much better that'll make the world of instant messanging. projects will start to pop up all over the place, with additions to the program that you never dreamed possible or would never have the time to implement. i think the absolute worst thing anyone could ever do is take a great dying program's source code to the grave with them just because don't want to share your intellectual property..

just take a step back and think about why you created the program in the first place. most likely, it was for yourselves, so that you could someway add a log viewer to aim, or get rid of those annoying ads. why would you make another set of programmers recreate the wheel? technology doesn't get a chance to grow when most of the effort is spent recreating something that was already done before you. and before the flames come on this one, i'm not talking about commercial software. i'm talking about free software. i can not ever think of a reason when free software (like this) shouldn't be released under GPL. you have nothing to lose by releasing it under GPL. but everyone else has so much to gain.

finally, i'm not attacking you guys as programmers or people. i think you've proven yourselves to be worthy programmers up to this point. i do, however, disagree with your reasons not to continue with the program. but that's besides the point and that doesn't mean that it has to die. it would be a huge shame to see everyone jump over to deadaim or trillian because you want to kill this project and keep everything to yourselves. and before anyone writes back saying how terrible of a person i am for writing these beliefs, realize that i'm being completely honest here, and will not hide my beliefs because of online attacks against me.

[Timelessblur]

I think it been made clear that the attack where well over the limits and it was not a dissatoin that came easily to them. Oh and you know if you made an post like that at the deadAIM site they would of banned you for it. Here you are not banned. But on the topic I do not think that it ever going to come out. Think about it the attacks where bad enough to make them want to stop even working on it so you get the idea.[/code]

[dat]

it seems that you missed the point of my last post.

i'm not comparing the 'attacks' that big-o was receiving to getting made fun of. i'm bringing across the point that you don't let people influence your life for the worse. (but this is essentially your decision, and my belief)

i don't care the reasons behind it, because all i know truthfully is that they let someone else influence their lives, letting the bad guy win. but, all of this of course is besides the point.

i do, however, disagree with your reasons not to continue with the program. but that's besides the point

see.. "besides the point"

if you made an post like that at the deadAIM site they would of banned you for it.

i'm not going to change my beliefs because i might get banned. that would just be plain stupid. (and as a side note, i don't use deadaim.. i was just using it as an example)

realize that i'm being completely honest here, and will not hide my beliefs because of online attacks against me

see.. not going to hide my beliefs.

and finally.. the point of my last post was to....... (the suspense.. ) :

if someone doesn't want you to release something, you release it to the world, and let the world decide where to go from there. (reading in between the lines: GPL the software) i completely understand if you guys don't have time to update / continue work on this software. but why would you keep it to yourself? did you use bad variable names, and you're worried about your highschool comp sci teacher seeing it? just release the source, and see how much better that'll make the world of instant messanging. projects will start to pop up all over the place, with additions to the program that you never dreamed possible or would never have the time to implement. i think the absolute worst thing anyone could ever do is take a great dying program's source code to the grave with them just because don't want to share your intellectual property..

and there was the point of my last post. to release it under GPL if you cannot carry on the project yourself. if you can't do it yourself that's fine. let other people / everyone do it.

END POINT

[Michael]

I do have to commend dat for speaking his/her mind in such a responsible manner. Much nicer to read some statement like that, rather than the typical whining and babyish comments that some other users posts. You guys might not agree with dat's opinion and thoughts, but I think it's worth reading what he/she had to say.

[Timelessblur]

I will admite that is is very well writen but everyone of those reason have been stated many of times. It was explain more in detaled some where earily. Also the Q&A post else where explains a lot. It just I lost count how many times I have seen those thing posted.

[harra]

dat,

As a paid programmer, I know there can be many reasons for not wanting to release your source to the Open-Source community. I utilize this great program for my Pocket PC that allows us to get a much better interface for reading the various publications from my Church (i.e. Bible, magazines, talks, etc), but the author won't release his compiler he wrote for creating custom content to the open source community. The reason is because it has potential for being a profitable venture for him. There could be some facet of how AIM+ is constructed that Ryan (and Ryan is the developer, Mark is the Forum Administrator) doesn't want "out in the open" because it could prove profitable for him in future ventures. We don't know, but from being a long standing member here, I don't believe Ryan makes decisions without weighing the pros and cons carefully.

I can also tell you are a fan of the GPL model. As a programmer, I am also a fan of the GPL model because it does allow one to learn new stuff and to be a part of something bigger than themselves (i.e. Linux), but not all programmers are fans of the of the GPL model.

P.S. Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the debate. It goes to prove that you can make a dissenting comment about a discussion without filling it with profanity to get across the point that you don't agree with something.

[dat]

I will admite that is is very well writen but everyone of those reason have been stated many of times. It was explain more in detaled some where earily. Also the Q&A post else where explains a lot. It just I lost count how many times I have seen those thing posted.

You say you've lost count. Do me a favor and count how many times you've gotten an answer to my only question in my first post: "Why not release it under GPL?' (not being a smartass). I've checked every page (of the 55 pages) and I've checked the answer thread. There, they only stated this:

At this point, we've seriously considered probably everything that you can think of, and that includes open source. Seeing AIM+ simply die was really near the bottom of our wishlist. I'm pretty sure we're not going to make it open-source right now, but it's certainly not an impossibility.

This just states that they aren't going to release the source, but no reason why.

The reason is because it has potential for being a profitable venture for him. There could be some facet of how AIM+ is constructed that Ryan (and Ryan is the developer, Mark is the Forum Administrator) doesn't want "out in the open" because it could prove profitable for him in future ventures. We don't know, but from being a long standing member here, I don't believe Ryan makes decisions without weighing the pros and cons carefully.

Well.. that is a good guess at a reason to not release the source. However, it is far too easy to box up code that you don't want seen as a module. AND, from the sounds of it, they have no plans to start up this project again (for fear of further attacks), so I would not think that they are hoping to make money from aim+ in the future. However, I certainly could be wrong.

So what it comes down to is this: I just want a straight-forward honest answer as to why the creators of this program would rather see the project die than release the program under GPL and throw it up on sourceforge (or let someone else throw it up on sourceforge). This may be too much to ask, but hopefully it isn't.

[harra]

The reason is because it has potential for being a profitable venture for him. There could be some facet of how AIM+ is constructed that Ryan (and Ryan is the developer, Mark is the Forum Administrator) doesn't want "out in the open" because it could prove profitable for him in future ventures. We don't know, but from being a long standing member here, I don't believe Ryan makes decisions without weighing the pros and cons carefully.

Well.. that is a good guess at a reason to not release the source. However, it is far too easy to box up code that you don't want seen as a module. AND, from the sounds of it, they have no plans to start up this project again (for fear of further attacks), so I would not think that they are hoping to make money from aim+ in the future. However, I certainly could be wrong.

So what it comes down to is this: I just want a straight-forward honest answer as to why the creators of this program would rather see the project die than release the program under GPL and throw it up on sourceforge (or let someone else throw it up on sourceforge). This may be too much to ask, but hopefully it isn't.

I never said that Ryan sees his code as being profitable as an AIM+ product. We don't know how AIM+ works and he could've come up with some ingenious new way to tackle a problem and doesn't want to let that "cat out of the bag". Yes, you can compile or "box up" a module you don't want seen, but there are still highly intelligent individuals out there who love to take things apart and see what makes them tick. Someone will figure out how to open that package and find out what's inside.

We can only speculate why Ryan lacks the desire to provide his source to the Open-Source Community. That is his right and he doesn't owe us any explanation. Just like any other software developer has the right to divulge or withhold information about their decisions. I am just as curious as the next guy because I feel I could learn alot by looking at anothers work, but I have learned to be satisfied with the explanation of "It's none of your business" for why the source hasn't been opened up.

[dat]

NOTE: REASON = REASON FOR NOT GPL'ING THE SOFTWARE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

I never said that Ryan sees his code as being profitable as an AIM+ product.

You're right. In my quoting frenzy, I quoted you out of context. I'm sorry.

Yes, you can compile or "box up" a module you don't want seen, but there are still highly intelligent individuals out there who love to take things apart and see what makes them tick. Someone will figure out how to open that package and find out what's inside.

This is no different from the program as a whole. You can still reverse engineer it.

We can only speculate why Ryan lacks the desire to provide his source to the Open-Source Community.

I guess this is my problem. Perhaps I'm just being selfish, but I have a problem with the lack of a reason. I guess I would just like to hear: "Hey, here is our reason" or "Hey, we don't want to give you a reason". Obviously I would be happier with the first as opposed to the latter, but either I could deal with. Its the lack of either stance that bothers me.

I have learned to be satisfied with the explanation of "It's none of your business" for why the source hasn't been opened up.

I don't think we've gotten that as a firm stance from the programmers. I haven't read anywhere that they said "No, we are not going to give you a reason". If you have, then let me know, because this entire post becomes pointless.

I think that a lot of people are being overly sensitive here (no offense to anyone) as to "The programmers owe us nothing." This is true to a certain extent. If they want to end a project, its their right. However, if I had a project that hundreds of thousands of users used, and many of which were loyal to the project, I just don't think I could live with myself if I all of the sudden said "Nope, no more. Sorry". I would definitely feel a sense of loyalty back to the many users that stood by and backed my project. Wouldn't you? Just imagine if aol stopped releasing aim(aim is free you know). Do you think they would just end it without reasons to user's questions? No, their users would never allow that, and they would never consider it.

Now, I'm not saying that they HAVE to GPL their software. They definitely don't. Its their right not to. However, they've already given us reasons why they were stopping the project: They were being 'attacked'. They even went into detail to say that it had included DOS attacks. So I guess I am just curious as to why we have received no reason or no stance on not giving a reason on the open-source question.

So I guess this is a friendly request to the programmers:
Can we get a reason as to why you would rather let the program/project die than GPL it?

If they say "No, we can't give you reasons to this question", then I'll live with it. But I'd rather be answered by them as opposed to everyone speculating that they can't give out the answer to begin with. Again, I'm just probably being too selfish (though as both a paid and unpaid programmer, i don't feel like i am), but I'd like to hear it one way or another.[/quote]

[Timelessblur]

There code be vailid reason for not wanting to go open sorce. One is Ryan just does not want to because he worried of some taking the code doing minor work on to make it capible with the latest verson of AIM then taking full creite for the work. I would be pissed if that happen to me. Or it could be profiblily in the future like harra stated because he could be using simmerlt technicks in other program venchirst that he does. I remeber when I program in pascal in school a while ago I noticed that I would do a lot of the simmiler stuff in my diffenter programs even iff the goals of the programs where radicly diffents. Some of the stuff you program is pretty univial used in others. (Like the lost of hte basic stuff in each program) He may want to keep that stuff privit since he it can work in lots of other programs

[dat]

There code be vailid reason for not wanting to go open sorce.

I'm sure there is. I'd just like to hear it, that's all.

One is Ryan just does not want to because he worried of some taking the code doing minor work on to make it capible with the latest verson of AIM then taking full creite for the work.

That's why you GPL it. It'd then be illegal to do so.

I really don't want to debate this much more. I'd just like to hear an answer to my question that I wrote in my last post. I'd rather hear why from them, as opposed to everyone speculating at the reasons.