"Open Availability" of Downloads

[The Freezer]

I think we should encapsulate the main apps list in the Hide Content code also, as there would be no good reason for non-registered humans and bots to have open sailing to those links.

Maybe. But if we were going to do that then we can easily set the permissions on the forum sections themselves instead

[bphlpt]

But if we were going to do that then we can easily set the permissions on the forum sections themselves instead

Trouba, I don't have a problem either way since as a registered user I see no inconvenience using the "Hide". But I also agree with Freezer that if we're going to require users to be registered to see, much less download the apps, then it would be just as easy, and protected for the apps, to just change the permissions for the app threads. The SetupS and ssWPI threads could remain available without registration, since they're open source after all, but the apps, since you are providing them strictly for our members, could require registration and login. If you and Freezer agree, then I'll change the permissions accordingly - I need the practice anyway. Once changed, then you can leave your apps encapsulated or not, it shouldn't make any visible or accessibility or protection difference AFAIK.

Cheers and Regards

[The Freezer]

Okay, so I've pondered this proposal of closing off this app-repository to registered users-only... and for now, I'm leaning towards keeping it open. At least until something happens that forces us to close it off for reasons I failed to consider.

These apps are already available for free in one capacity or another (either gratis or libre) and we are only providing an alternative distribution channel for them. Take for example such sites as PortableApps.com or LiberKey who each already have and rely on their own unique deployment strategies of many of the same apps available here anyway, so I doubt we are treading new waters here.

There's a disturbing trend lately of Big Business (Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.) and everybody setting up their own so-called "App-stores" and offering what amounts to free software for profit -- i.e., charging for the download of what are already free apps. I wish to avoid the appearance that we have some sort of app-store where only an elite club is allowed to download and we certainly are not going to charge for those downloads either. I don't think anybody here would want that.

[hr]Regarding concerns of spamming and hacking... We did recently implemented pretty tight spam counter-measures here -- just see the bottom of every page for how we did. So we are not as much concerned about 'em here. Note, I am not talking about the forum being hacked per se so much as being invaded by the newest generations of increasingly smarter spam-bots; but these new counter-measures should also help greatly with any defacement attempts as well.

Also, inspection of the links would reveal that LastOS.org would be the likely target/victim of such malicious intent anyway -- which as it turns out is its own worse enemy as I recently have uncovered evidence that LastOS (on at least two occasions) was never "hacked" from any outside source but rather from someone within at the top levels.

Several of us had already drawn up various contingency plans in case LastOS really went belly up permanently and irreversibly. Even now nobody really expects LastOS to last even past tomorrow much less for the rest of the year. So we'll see. If it doesn't -- we'll move on.

[The Freezer]

I accept that. And what you say is very reasonable and makes perfect sense to me... if we were offering warez. But we're not. All these apps you and I have put up (yours being the majority) they all have other perfectly legit means of being obtained. My examples were of some places that offer those apps but not from the developers' original download source point. See what I'm getting at? In fact, the whole point of providing a tool like ssEditor was so that anyone could take those same apps from their various download sources and do for themselves what we had already done for them only customize and tweak them with perhaps better granularity than what we did (if we even did that particular app at all).

So yeah, you're right, I probably am far too charitable in providing direct download links. But really what is the harm? I guess I just don't see it. And I've been in this business long enough to have seen (or at least heard about) it all. Here I thought I was the one paranoid about Big Business, government and law enforcement, even with end users in general. But to have something like what we're offering here IS (to me at least) a veritable wet-dream for someone in IT. And the best part is there's nothing criminal about it.

And here's another area or philosophy which we probably won't see eye-to-eye. I believe our focus -- our service, if you will -- should not be providing apps to our users but to improve upon the technology that facilitates the use of those apps.

You are right that there are plenty of greedy people out there who will take and take and take and never give anything back in return. We are offering plenty for free as it is and already I see those that expect us to provide these apps for them and in a timely fashion. After that it's only a matter of time before you start hearing complaints that you're late on a release or that's not what they wanted. The expectation will then become to get commercial-quality support, service, or releases at no charge and you'll be hounded or harassed about it if you can't come through.

Perhaps we should write an open-source manifesto? That sounds like a good idea to me.

[Trouba]

And here's another area or philosophy which we probably won't see eye-to-eye. I believe our focus -- our service, if you will -- should not be providing apps to our users but to improve upon the technology that facilitates the use of those apps.

In fact I agree with you completely on this. This is what I also told BP, and that is that there are enough app templates out there now in one form or another that if people are interested enough to make apps, it should be quite easy for them to do so.

Which leads me to the next bit then, that it would actually be a good thing to get away from making the apps (or at least posting them) for me, and perhaps that is just a normal side effect of the recent changes in the first place. Apps, of course, were a legit way to show people examples of what the tech could do, in the same way that Glenn tried to do with his Last OS releases, with the important distinction that those were NOT legit So a consideration would be how to generate interest without people having access to many examples of what the tech can do for them, which may therefore be a bit more challenging. But at least for now the ftp is still alive and it may be for quite a while.

The whole hidden link idea is really not that foreign or incomprehensible, many, many legit places to the same thing (MSDN does it), you can only access the links or pics people post when you're logged in. But perhaps you're right in that little harm would normally come from sharing links like that. It was just my personal preference (and not without all merit) of not having the links completely open to whole wide world. But like I said, it's your forum, and sooner or later you're going to have to streamline and consolidate things and make thing accessible and easy to use, so the hidden link situation would have been a temporary one at best.