Open source?

[MartinGeisler]

I've just started looking at EE, and I quickly got version 1.22 up and running. But it lacked several features which version 1.5 should bring me (EXIF data reading and automatic resizing), so I'm now trying to get that version up and running.

So I looked at the page for the beta version and was baffled to see that I had to download a (subset) of no more than 6 ZIP files! Looking around on the forum I found a couple of extra files that I could download and then manually overwrite files from the ZIP files.

My question is this: why not just ZIP (or GZIP BZIP2) the whole EE source directory every night (or every three hours perhaps) and then upload that? It would be so much more friendly to us beta testers.

An even better solution would be to move to a version control system: Concurrent Versions System (CVS) (http://www.cvshome.org/). That would make it trivial for anybody to follow the development closely. It's the tool that almost every Open Source projects use to keep track of the source.

I realize that version 1.5 is almost done, so now is not a good time to reorganize the source like that, but please consider using CVS in the future. One can get CVS service together with a lot of other services for free at SourceForge.net (http://sf.net/), which is a repository for Open Source projects.

[Pekka]

I've just started looking at EE, and I quickly got version 1.22 up and running. But it lacked several features which version 1.5 should bring me (EXIF data reading and automatic resizing), so I'm now trying to get that version up and running.

So I looked at the page for the beta version and was baffled to see that I had to download a (subset) of no more than 6 ZIP files! Looking around on the forum I found a couple of extra files that I could download and then manually overwrite files from the ZIP files.

My question is this: why not just ZIP (or GZIP BZIP2) the whole EE source directory every night (or every three hours perhaps) and then upload that? It would be so much more friendly to us beta testers.

An even better solution would be to move to a version control system: Concurrent Versions System (CVS) (http://www.cvshome.org/). That would make it trivial for anybody to follow the development closely. It's the tool that almost every Open Source projects use to keep track of the source.

I realize that version 1.5 is almost done, so now is not a good time to reorganize the source like that, but please consider using CVS in the future. One can get CVS service together with a lot of other services for free at SourceForge.net (http://sf.net/), which is a repository for Open Source projects.

There is only one install file needed, see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28549 , the beta page is not up to date in this respect.

EE is not open source project. The way I develop is not very suitable for CVS. I agree that I need totally new and clear EE website for info.

[MartinGeisler]

There is only one install file needed, see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28549 , the beta page is not up to date in this respect.

Ahh yes, I also found that thread, but I still think I overwrote a couple of files with new files from various zip files... or perhaps that was when I found one of the other FULL files? I don't remember any more --- I just know that it was a puzzle to try and figure out which files I really needed.

EE is not open source project.

That's really a big shame! I was referred to EE by an article in the big Danish computer magasize Alt om Data (Everything about Data), and they praised EE as the biggest and best photo-album engine.

"Great" I thought, and I went to get version 1.22, and the license said that it was freeware --- good enough. GPL software would be nicer, but freeware is good enough, for as long as you're actively maintaining this, then I can just send patches back to you.

So I'm sorry to see that you've changed the license into a shareware license with version 1.5 (by the way: 'license' is spelled as 'licence' with two c's in several places) --- a project like yours with a good community around it and which uses so many Open Source projects ought to be Open Source.

[tommykjensen]

EE is not open source project.

That's really a big shame!

Why?

Can't shareware and even comercial software be great? Can't a shareware programmer or comercial company provide excellent support for their products?

Why wouldn't You pay a few dollars to Pekka for the great work he has done? I may be wrong but I assume since You don't like the fact that EE is shareware You don't wat to pay for it and why is that?

[Pekka]

There is only one install file needed, see http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28549 , the beta page is not up to date in this respect.

Ahh yes, I also found that thread, but I still think I overwrote a couple of files with new files from various zip files... or perhaps that was when I found one of the other FULL files? I don't remember any more --- I just know that it was a puzzle to try and figure out which files I really needed.


I'll try to be more clear on what the latest files are - I'll post an updated RC 3 zip which has all the recent fixes applied. You can use that as file reference.

EE is not open source project.

That's really a big shame! I was referred to EE by an article in the big Danish computer magasize Alt om Data (Everything about Data), and they praised EE as the biggest and best photo-album engine.

"Great" I thought, and I went to get version 1.22, and the license said that it was freeware --- good enough. GPL software would be nicer, but freeware is good enough, for as long as you're actively maintaining this, then I can just send patches back to you.

So I'm sorry to see that you've changed the license into a shareware license with version 1.5 (by the way: 'license' is spelled as 'licence' with two c's in several places) --- a project like yours with a good community around it and which uses so many Open Source projects ought to be Open Source.

Thanks for the licence spell hint - I'm a Finn after all :)

Why EE is not an open source project? Important question. I'll try to clarify my view on that.

I have now spent three years developing EE. First it was a personal gallery which was released in Freeware because that was what I built for me and shared it. Later it developed to more mature system with extensive editors (I could have personally run it with phpMyAdmin) and lots features that were wished for by users. This is why I changed it to shareware in 1.3, it was no longer only my own wishes that govern the feature list. Having it is shareware also gives me a mental push to be more serious with the project, more feel of responsibility and continuity. Version 1.5 is result of that change - I think it is a good base code system. $35 is not too much to ask for an application like this is it really? Even with occasional spelling errors. And you can install and test it before paying. Almost 100% of user wishes will be there sooner or later (if they are needed and logical they wil be coded) and it all will sit nicely in the whole concept of EE.

And I'm not convinced about open source. I don't have to write mails to ask if I can change some fundamental things in code. I just do it. I can test things knowing that the underlying version is not rewritten elsewhere. I can code in my own (simple) way and as it is my code I can fix and improve it in very short notice.

I have yet to see a product developed in open source which has solid integrity in design, UI, functions, intent and future plans. They are mostly projects from programmers to programmers (not end users) and suffer from extremely messy design goals, their user interfaces and design are most often second quality to beautiful but hard-to-change coding below because no one really cares and no one is personally responsible of the whole. This forum software is good example (the editor side is a mess, and code is exteremely stiff which is why they needed now to rewrite the whole thing) - you can follow progress of many other projects and see how lost they are in their "programmer-oriented approach".

To explain the whole EE system, database structure and design goals, what affects what, what you can do with what and why, being a project leader ... no thanks. Time is too short. I have manual to write and bugs to fix.

Let me quote latest number of Finnish Computer magazine "Mikrobitti" about GNU/Linux summit 2004. Richard Stallman listed reasons why people write open source software (translated by me):

1. Want to fight for freedom
2. Coding is fun.
3. Need to be famous (idol).
4. Gathering of professional competence.
5. Need to give back something to other developers.
6. Hate for Microsoft.
7. Need to learn.
8. Money.

I can not identify myself with most of those statements. I do not hate Microsoft. I have no need to be famous - if that happens then be it but I'm not seeking it by programming. Give back to developers? I have already given back about equal amount of coding tips I have got so why should I give all my work? I'd rather help users and not developers. 'Gathering professional competence' and 'need to learn' - well what I've seen public code fits usually one place and quality is very varied, most stuff I used from some PHP sites liek php.net in the beginning I have replaced with my own code which is more suitable to the project and more flexible. Earning money, yes that would be nice but I am realistic in this matter and hope that EE gets me as much that I can cover server expenses and cover some support time - not more. And fighting for freedom by giving away your code - does this mean to say commercial programs are against freedom? Freedom is about choice - trying to push me to open source takes away my freedom to be individual and creative as much it gives your freedom to use results of my creativity. Be keeping this shareware I can give you permission to use the code and keep me being creative and make it even better.

Only thing I agree fully with is that coding is fun. For me starting to herd a group of programmers who I actually know nothing about and how actually don't know how I think, and keeping code snapshots and coder support forums or mailing lists sounds like killing that fun and moving from straightforward work to having symposiums and debates of how things should be done.

[iceman]

Pekka,

I have been using EE now for more than a year, and by following along with the upgrades, you have created a masterful program from a photographers point of view. While I'm not a programmer, you have helped myself and others through many dumb errors and have even created code just for my special request. I have yet to see a customized gallery script that I consider as stylish and prefessional as EE. Yes, it takes a bit more work than an "out of the box" solution but that's also what sets it apart from others.

I'm glad to pay the $35 bucks and will donate again as upgrades come along. Try asking Adobe for a custom request. Although I struggle a bit with the upgrades, I consider it worth the effort. I plan on using EE for many years to come, and with more than a thousand images now filed, I depend on EE for most my business.

Keep up the fine work Pekka,

Dennis (i.e. Iceman)
http://northernimages.com/webgallery

Don't feel bad, I can't spell either :D

[MartinGeisler]

EE is not open source project.

That's really a big shame!

Why?

Because I believe the project as a whole would benefit from being an Open Source project.

I'm using Open Source programs all day long (Linux etc) and I also look at the code once in a while, and then you quickly come to appreciate the structure of most such programs: there's an README file that tells you what this is about, an INSTALL file with installation instructions, a COPYING or LICENSE file with the license etc. Those things might look like small details, but when they're there, then it makes the source looks much more mature.

Being several developers on a projects also makes it much more apparent that some system should be used to keep track of the source (like CVS). That system should track changes and the developers should attach small comments on each change --- an automated Changelog is then generated as part of the source. It's also much more easy for an outsider like me to change my local copy and then make a patch for an insider like Pekka to apply --- without requiring him to go find the old lines of code and manually replace them, an error prone process.

Can't shareware and even comercial software be great? Can't a shareware programmer or comercial company provide excellent support for their products?

Maybe, but it's normally not something that I want to rely on. It's always so strange for me to look at sites with shareware for Windows --- everybody seems to want $30 for something which they've clearly made during an afternoon, something which nobody would ever dream of charging money for if it was made for Linux. It's really a matter of difference in culture I guess...

Why wouldn't You pay a few dollars to Pekka for the great work he has done? I may be wrong but I assume since You don't like the fact that EE is shareware You don't wat to pay for it and why is that?

I would just have preferred if it was an Open Source project. I might still go buy EE if I cannot find anything else that works for me, and if I don't want to write it myself --- I don't have a problem with paying Pekka for his work, he's clearly committed to make EE the best photo album engine available, and he listens to his users which is a really nice thing.

[MartinGeisler]

I'll try to be more clear on what the latest files are - I'll post an updated RC 3 zip which has all the recent fixes applied. You can use that as file reference.

Thanks a lot!

And I'm not convinced about open source. I don't have to write mails to ask if I can change some fundamental things in code. I just do it. I can test things knowing that the underlying version is not rewritten elsewhere. I can code in my own (simple) way and as it is my code I can fix and improve it in very short notice.

Oh, but the same can be done in Open Source projects --- especially when you're the leader and main coder on the project. I run two such projects, and even though I'm not the only developer on the project, then I'm still the guy making almost all the code --- the others are free to make code too and complain if they don't like my style, but in practice they don't. So even though my project is Open Source, I still have (most of) the freedom you're talking about to change the code as I see fit.

I have yet to see a product developed in open source which has solid integrity in design, UI, functions, intent and future plans. [...] you can follow progress of many other projects and see how lost they are in their "programmer-oriented approach".

That's all too true, I'm afraid. But it really depends on the programmers --- you clearly have the end users needs on your mind, and I don't see why you couldn't keep it like that if you were to make EE an Open Source project.

To explain the whole EE system, database structure and design goals, what affects what, what you can do with what and why, being a project leader ... no thanks. Time is too short. I have manual to write and bugs to fix.

You're right, it's not all that fun to explain all those things --- but if you do, then you have a better chance that someone else will come along and help you with the code.

Freedom is about choice - trying to push me to open source takes away my freedom to be individual and creative as much it gives your freedom to use results of my creativity. Be keeping this shareware I can give you permission to use the code and keep me being creative and make it even better.

Yes, but at the same time you might turn yourself into a bottle-neck, when all the changes have to go through you.

And you're right: Freedom is about choice, and you choose to take away the possibility for me to change your program as I see fit, you take away my knowledge that even if you decide one day that you're fed up with EE, then I can continue to use the code and develop on it. I know that you don't plan on abandoning EE, and the little economic incentive might be enough to keep you going --- I hope it is.

I'll look forward to the 1.5 release and see if it's something I want to use. Good luck on fixing those bugs and writing the manual.

[tommykjensen]

I'm using Open Source programs all day long (Linux etc) and I also look at the code once in a while, and then you quickly come to appreciate the structure of most such programs: there's an README file that tells you what this is about, an INSTALL file with installation instructions, a COPYING or LICENSE file with the license etc. Those things might look like small details, but when they're there, then it makes the source looks much more mature.


You got to be kidding! I have seen so many so called open source projects that have been abendoned even though it was a good project. Being open source is no guarantee for quality or continuity.



And you're right: Freedom is about choice, and you choose to take away the possibility for me to change your program as I see fit, you take away my knowledge that even if you decide one day that you're fed up with EE, then I can continue to use the code and develop on it.


You got that completely wrong. Pekka has not taken away Your freedom to change whatever You like


You may modify the SOFTWARE to your own purposes, but all copyright information must be visible and also you must have a visible written note that the SOFTWARE is modified. You may not distribute modified versions of SOFTWARE.


I would just have preferred if it was an Open Source project. I might still go buy EE if I cannot find anything else that works for me, and if I don't want to write it myself --- I don't have a problem with paying Pekka for his work, he's clearly committed to make EE the best photo album engine available, and he listens to his users which is a really nice thing.

But You would still prefer it to be open source so You would not be obligated to pay for it.

Sorry but I really do not see any reason at all to change it to open source.

[MartinGeisler]

You got to be kidding! I have seen so many so called open source projects that have been abendoned even though it was a good project. Being open source is no guarantee for quality or continuity.

Sure, open source projects are abandoned all the time. But it's easier to step in and improve the source with an open source project, because that's the norm in those projects: you step forward with ideas, and you're often welcomed, and soon after you can start contributing to CVS.


You may modify the SOFTWARE to your own purposes, but all copyright information must be visible and also you must have a visible written note that the SOFTWARE is modified. You may not distribute modified versions of SOFTWARE.

So if I don't like the idea of the FTP-loopback-thing (which has both good and bad sides IMHO), then I can change it --- good. But I cannot redistribute my new version as I see fit.

But You would still prefer it to be open source so You would not be obligated to pay for it.

Yes, wouldn't you prefer to have it for free too? If you insist, then you could still donate money to Pekka for his work --- lots of open source project try to get funding this way. I don't know if it works, but with a project like this with such a loyal user base I think it would work. (And to be realistic: if people don't want to pay for EE, then I'm sure they wont pay anyway, so in reality it would be the same people who donate money as the ones that pay for the license.)

[Pekka]

So if I don't like the idea of the FTP-loopback-thing (which has both good and bad sides IMHO), then I can change it --- good. But I cannot redistribute my new version as I see fit.

No, but you can always wish for changes and let me do them for you and this way the changes will benefit all. Or you can donate the code to EE community and support that code. Or I can hire your services to do coding, right?

But You would still prefer it to be open source so You would not be obligated to pay for it.

Yes, wouldn't you prefer to have it for free too? If you insist, then you could still donate money to Pekka for his work --- lots of open source project try to get funding this way. I don't know if it works, but with a project like this with such a loyal user base I think it would work. (And to be realistic: if people don't want to pay for EE, then I'm sure they wont pay anyway, so in reality it would be the same people who donate money as the ones that pay for the license.)

People do not donate much. Especially europeans. But they will pay for shareware little easier and some nominal fee will make the software more interesting to professional people and I've noticed a strange thing about world we live on - free sounds suspicious to many, especially when it is good and free. When you _need_ to pay for it and price/quality ratio is excellent people will pay for it. $35 dollars equals 6 beers in Manhattan.

Based on http://www.gimpster.com/wiki/MartinGeisler you are seeking professional career on programming, aren't you? So you must be aware that your time is eventually worth more than just "fame". Especially after you buy a house and have a family to support.

I know Open Source is now hip and in and cool. I'm not against that. But EE is not open source.

[MartinGeisler]

Or I can hire your services to do coding, right?

Yeah I guess so... but that never crossed my mind.

(And to be realistic: if people don't want to pay for EE, then I'm sure they wont pay anyway, so in reality it would be the same people who donate money as the ones that pay for the license.)

People do not donate much. Especially europeans. But they will pay for shareware little easier and some nominal fee will make the software more interesting to professional people and I've noticed a strange thing about world we live on - free sounds suspicious to many, especially when it is good and free.[/quote]

That's a really weird thing, but you're not the first one I've heard that from...

Based on http://www.gimpster.com/wiki/MartinGeisler you are seeking professional career on programming, aren't you? So you must be aware that your time is eventually worth more than just "fame". Especially after you buy a house and have a family to support.

Sort of, I'm hoping to make a career in the academic world, but you're right: if I get a job where I program for a living, then of course it can't be open source, at least not all of it.

I guess I just mistook EE for a small hobby project of yours, and so didn't expect you to try and make money on it. But you're of course entirely in your good right to try and do that.

[tommykjensen]

Sort of, I'm hoping to make a career in the academic world, but you're right: if I get a job where I program for a living, then of course it can't be open source, at least not all of it.


Tsk tsk talk about double standards!

Unless You get a job in a company that supports open source fully You can expect that all rights of anything You code will belong to the company that hired You and if You are not carefull it will even apply to any coding You do in Your free time.