On Nov 7, 12:57 pm, Arran Cudbard-Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 7, 12:33 pm, Christian Franz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Al, > > > two points and a challenge: > > > 1. You do not need Growl 1.3 to use Growl because the Growl 1.3 app is only > > the UI to the new Growl backend. That backend is still free and comes with > > Growl-using apps. > > > 2. Who do you think you are that you have the nerve to complain that > > something that *obviously* has value for you isn't free any more? For what > > it's worth (note that I am NOT part of the dev team, just another > > independent dev who integrates Growl into my own apps), I applaud the fact > > that Growl *finally* charges for their hard work (not enough IMHO, but > > that's another story). Giving out freebies produces this terrible mindset > > of 'entitlement' that you exhibit: 'I am entitled to get everything free, > > and everyone ELSE should provide it to me'. YOU should be ashamed of > > yourself. Nobody sucked you in. You got something of value for free, and > > after using it (and deriving it's benefit) you complain that a new service > > (the Growl 1.3 App) isn't free? > > I think what the OP was complaining about was the fact that many > developers external to the Growl project added support because it > represented an easy, free, and standardised way to distribute alerts > to their programs users.
And it still is, since the frontend is included in the application/ client framework, the Growl application itself is only the fine control of notifications display. > Growl would not have the popularity it enjoys > today without the time and hard work of developers outside of the > Growl project, but those developers will not benefit from the app > store revenue. I don't see how that's a problem. Growl provided a nice service, people used it. How does that preclude growl developers from trying to get some revenue for their work? > If the source code for the 1.3 GUI as well as backend was made > available as an xcode project, which users/developers could compile > themselves, then I think a lot of the negative feelings about charging > for 1.3 would dissipate. The vast majority of users would still > download the app store version, but at least there'd still be the > *option* to get the software for free. http://code.google.com/p/growl/source/browse/ Knock yourself out? 1.3.1 is not there yet (should go up this week), but 1.3 is. It's been pretty much ever since Growl was released. > It'd also make the GUI available for developers to test... because to > be honest, adding notification support into your application then > finding that you have to buy software to test is properly, is a bit of > a kick in the teeth. It's only £1.79, but that's 8 packets of ramen to > a hungry developer, and it's more of the principle anyway. 1. I'm pretty sure this is not the right place for *this* kind of feedback 2. I don't really see why you'd need the full application for testing, since you don't need to display notifications and with 1.3.1 (at least) you don't need it to disable notifications either. > Open source software is usually a collaborative enterprise, more of a > socialist system than a capitalist one, and as a contributor to > multiple open source projects, the switch kind of grates. I don't really agree. Most open-source projects have a single leader, sometimes a group thereof for big enough projects, but I've yet to see *a single project* work as a "socialist system". Anybody can (try to) contribute to an OSS project, but no tentative contribution is ever guaranteed to be looked at, let alone merged. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
