webfork wrote:In the off chance that the author of PEStudio should see this forum:
Do not change your software release schedule. I've said this already in another forum but its critical we not even suggest that we're telling you how to release YOUR software, which we are getting GRATIS. That would be irrational and totally counter-productive. It is a well-worn idea in software projects to
release early and release often. This is our issue, not yours and our site admin already tackled this:
Andrew Lee wrote:It's entirely his business how he wants to run his show.
Edit: I emailed KidSafe developer who already participated in this discussion (
computerfreaker) to say essentially the same thing.
Thanks for the support, webfork.
Personally, I think the release early and release often model makes perfect sense, and I'll continue to use it for my apps. If someone says I'm releasing too often I will listen, but unless I really am releasing way too often it's not likely I'll change models.
lajjal wrote:The idea that these developers are doing this site a favor by posting their programs here is ludicrous. I don't know the hit rate here but it must be quite high. Where else can they get this kind of unfettered exposure? I know of no other site that supports a release rate like this and word has gotten around.
It's a mutually-beneficial relationship, IMHO. We provide users with portable software and Portable Freeware provides us with some exposure and, sometimes, some development help. Everyone does everyone else a favor. And yes, it really is possible for people to do each other favors without any money changing hands.
lajjal wrote:This is my take on PEStudio. The programmer writes the app and tests it a little bit then posts an update here. Now two things happen that are entirely in the developer's interest. They get a small army of beta testers and they put themselves right on top on the opening page here. The more often they release the more likely they are to be on top when someone stops by.
So why are they writing these apps? Some here would say out of the goodness of their heart, a sense of altruism. I say so they get resume fodder, bring people to their own site, and begin grooming their app for a "professional version".
You're nuts.
We write these apps for the users, not for "resume fodder" or for a "professional version". For KidSafe, now would be the ideal time to turn out a "professional version". There's been no update for several months, but users know I'm working on an entirely new version with some nice new features. If I wanted to, I could set up a new homepage and collect $5 per download. I could probably make at least a few hundred dollars this way, maybe even a thousand or two if I keep at it. Others could do exactly the same thing with their apps, but we don't and we won't. I doubt KidSafe will ever even have one measly "Donate" button, and I have yet to find such a button in most of the freeware/FOSS apps I use. Most of the apps I use, btw, are from this site.
If we're doing this to pad our pockets, where's the money? Show me the money I make. Show me the money Gunner makes. Show me the money any of us "little guys" makes.
Heck, Mozilla gets a fair amount of ad money from Google, yet nobody challenges Firefox's position as freeware or questions their update schedule. We get - and request - no money at all, yet you're going to say we're doing it "for the money"? There's something seriously messed up there.
And if we do decide to create a "professional version", what's wrong with that? If we choose to cripple the freeware versions of our apps, they will be removed from Portable Freeware, as is fair and just. If we don't cripple them, where's the damage done to you or anyone else? Nobody's forcing you to buy the paid version of a freeware app. That's a call you get to make. If you don't want to drop the cash, don't. Nobody will care.
If we choose to do this to pad our resumes, once again, where's the harm? We get resume entries, you get an app. At the end of the day, you're better off and so are we, and so are the companies that just hired us. Everybody's happy.
If we do this to get ad money, I ask you yet again, where's the damage? If you don't like ads, get an ad blocker. There are some nice free ones, you know, the ones made by devs who wanted to help out frustrated users and clean up their Internet experience and didn't even ask for money in exchange.
lajjal wrote:It is completely this site admin's right to run things that way. Let's just be realistic about the motives of the developers.
Yeah, let's
be realistic, please. And that means
no more damaging, untrue accusations. I said last time, if you want to make such accusations please take them to PM. I say this time, if you want to make such accusations do it elsewhere.
Gunner wrote:lajjal wrote:So why are they writing these apps? Some here would say out of the goodness of their heart, a sense of altruism. I say so they get resume fodder, bring people to their own site, and begin grooming their app for a "professional version".
Hmm, I don't even work in any type of computer industry... I work in construction and do all my coding AFTER work in MY spare time... And it IS out of the kindness of my heart... Not for a pro version or to pad my resume... don't think I really ever needed a resume... Most of the stuff I have I wrote for myself and decided to release it to help others out...
So, I guess even free stuff can't please you... 
QFT, especially the part I bolded.
webfork wrote:Whether you're
trolling or really do have this extremely black-and-white view of the world as only existing in dollars and cents, its not productive to the discussion.
Also QFT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to attempt to contribute something useful to the discussion at hand...
I think apps should be allowed to update as often as they please. If that's 5 times a day, so be it. If that's 5 times a month, so be it. If that's once a year, well, that works too.
Whether those updates display here on TPFC, though, should be a different matter. Some of us do release early, release often, and stay on the front page over half the time. It would probably be a good thing to let apps that are updated less frequently have their day in the sun, too.
I'll renew my support of the "one front-page update per X days, maybe an emergency update if it's really an emergency" idea I supported during our last discussion. I think an "emergency" can be defined by some very narrow guidelines:
* The app could crash or BSOD the host PC
* A vulnerability could be remotely exploited to take over the host PC
* The app could cause major data corruption or data loss on the host PC
If the app updates multiple times during those X days, at the end of the waiting period the last update would be pushed to the front page and a new waiting period would begin.
Yeah, it's a very rough idea and doubtless has some flaws I'm just too tired to see right now. So, pick away!
