[cluberti]

theruan, on 04 June 2010 - 03:13 AM, said:

I know that its not meant for commercial purposes, but if there is need of money as we all need, why the licensing isn't changed for payable in commercial and free for home users.

Because that's what the authors wanted. I think this was the biggest request other than bug fixes, and it was always shot down. Yes, it probably cost them money, but it was what the authors wanted, and that's all that mattered.

[ebernard]

fdv, on 26 May 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

...That's what this has come to.

Hi All,
FdV, you explained quite well what happens to people and their feelings if others draw to hard on their initiative and hard labor. 'Been there'..
Of course, I'm very sorry that HFslip is abandoned by the main supporters/developers.
I became a user only lately (3 months ago) and - in short time - grew very enthusiastic about HFslip and the FDVfiles.

I reckon the FDVfiles won't be updated either, if development of HFslip is stopped?

What can we do?

Anyway, thanks a lot TommyP, TomCat, FdV and the others, for sharing your ideas and products with the world.
You helped to make this world a better place.

Best regards
Eveline

[fdv]

I reckon the FDVfiles won't be updated either, if development of HFslip is stopped?

My attitude toward the fileset has always been a little different -- if you're crazy enough to use my files on a corporate install, then either you are probably your own boss, or you don't care about user complaints when something bad happens. If it's the latter, then good luck and God bless, because I can't imagine your boss putting up with you for very long when mission critical applications or IE-only websites or programs that are both like LiveMeeting don't work.

Using HFSLIP always means that there is a chance something might go wrong, like a messed up integrated IE 8 install from using a beta. Using my files means there's a pretty good chance something major definitely won't work, especially with the XP set, and I have, oh, a couple hundred private emails supporting that conclusion.

I am pretty busy these days as I am in graduate school (to explain to non-US'ers, this is the degree after four years of college) and what I would love to see is a little more self reliance from some users.

I don't say that to be a jerk, it's just that a LOT of casual users could end up debugging and fixing their own problems and then sending me the solution if they just took a few days to really analyze things -- that would be great. But it's not typical, unfortunately, and I'm usually the one who has to make fixes.

Bottom line, my fileset hasn't ended, I'm just really busy. I also have two small kids (1 yr old and 2.5 yr old) and I don't usually have the time anymore that I used to.

Important takeway point:
My fileset's actual main aim, way back when, was to teach people about Windows -- that's why the detailed process. I hope everyone uses my example, not necessarily my fileset, and makes the changes that THEY are comfortable with. The nLite forum is filled with questions from people who removed things and then get scared or wonder how things work because many just don't know what they're doing.

It's a different neighborhood here -- you're mostly all tinkerers, and to me, that sets this place apart.

[Ambassador]

I'm probably simplifying a lot of things, but it seems that TommyP isn't distributing HFSLIP mainly because the onus is on him to support it. Fair enough, but not having a "official" (and trusted) distributor could create a lot of future problems, even more so than those created by leaving the HFSLIP website online. Personal copies of HFSLIP could get corrupt overtime, and sharing these corrupted copies could result in many broken Windows installations. Furthermore, counterfeit/malicious copies of HFSLIP could replace current legitimate versions on major downloading sites and/or be introduced some other way "in the wild". With TommyP's name very much associated with HFSLIP, it is possible that all these negative consequences would take their toll and come back to haunt TommyP, hurting him more in the long run.

Now by no means am I saying the solution is that Tommy should host HFSLIP again. In addition to his personal reasons for not doing so, it is all reasonable to take into account the costs associated with hosting the HFSLIP website. However, I am suggesting that some main, at least recognizably official channel remain open. Perhaps releasing HFSLIP to the public domain is the answer. That way, there would be no "owner" of the project, while at the same time a trusted source for HFSLIP would be provided.

As I said, I am probably generalizing and assuming a lot, but I do believe my points do deserve some merit.

As an aside, I should say that I would have donated to HFSLIP, but technical reasons, not personal choice, prevented me from doing so. Maybe a rethink of how the HFSLIP project is run could have helped in the regard. Furthermore, to create demand in a product requires more than having people stumble upon it. There are reasons why there are many successful open-source Windows projects out there and why HFSLIP never reaped the benefits of multiple developers.

This post has been edited by Ambassador: 16 June 2010 - 06:04 PM

[fdv]

A lot of this might sound snarky but I don't mean it to.

not having a "official" (and trusted) distributor could create a lot of future problems

Beta J was the last version.
Its filename: hfslip-1.7.10_beta_J.cmd
Its MD5: DF89784782AA5AD6A7AA21371FD18EBF
People are free to support each other and swap ideas and new code chunks here. See also the creative commons license in the archive.

Perhaps releasing HFSLIP to the public domain is the answer. That way, there would be no "owner" of the project

Just so everyone understands what you're suggesting, this means TommyP would be giving up his Copyright on the work. Somehow I don't think he'd be okay with that. I could ask him to come and post his feelings on the matter however if really necessary.

but I do believe my points do deserve some merit.

I think he won't agree. Check the license included. The source can be legally modified.

As an aside, I should say that I would have donated to HFSLIP, but technical reasons, not personal choice, prevented me from doing so.

What were the technical reasons? Did Paypal not work? Did you e-mail Tom for his address to send a check? You should tell have told him exactly what did not work.

Maybe a rethink of how the HFSLIP project is run could have helped in the regard.

A rethink could have helped donations? What kind of rethink? You mean if Tom had sold it and required a license and proof of licensure before he provided support? He said a hundred times he didn't want to HAVE to support the project. He said he didn't like that it was like work. It was a hobby.

Furthermore, to create demand in a product requires more than having people stumble upon it.

I, Tomcat, and TommyP all spread the word on other sites. It didn't, and doesn't, matter. Ultimately, a LOT of people "just didn't get it." There are people who used it and who actually thought that it didn't slipstream. There are people who actually know about HFSLIP and prefer unattended methods (no, I know I could save myself a ton of work, I like doing things the hard way). It sounds absurd, but there you have it. People like pain. I hate to pick on others, but there's a guy here who has an extremely complex process for manual slipstreaming and he has a LOT of fans. What can we do? People like making their lives harder. It sounds sarcastic, but believe me, if you could spend any time in our shoes, you'd see it's absolutely true.

There are reasons why there are many successful open-source Windows projects out there

Well, you're free to name some suggestions that we haven't tried, I guess. Too late now, but I am curious.

and why HFSLIP never reaped the benefits of multiple developers.

And now I'm REALLY curious to hear your reasons. One of the most amazing projects of all time, a LiveCD of the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator on sourceforge, has lived and died several times for lack of developers. Each time it got resurrected, ONE guy took over. It's alive now thanks to ONE guy. Getting devs to work on something is not as easy as you seem to think. There were some contributions to the codebase but only Tomcat76 was a major developer. Heck even I did not contribute much of anything at all.

Everyone got a lot of free work and Tom felt frustrated. Now, the tables are turned. He doesn't visit this forum and he is free of the burden, and everyone else feels frustrated. But I am pretty sure that people's venting is not going to get him to return.

It would take a miracle but maybe if he got some emails asking him where to mail checks and then he actually got some checks he'd make certain re-considerations. But something makes me think that will not occur.

[Martin H]

Well, the good news is that HFSLIP is both Open-Source + written in plain cmd syntax, which makes modifications/additions much eassier to be made, and to a much larger audience, than if e.g. written in C/C++.

Now you guys just need someone who will be willing to host and support this project, and in the mean time, whenever an update fails to slipstream, then someone willing and in the know, could post the diff, for others to incorporate.

To be honest, then I have full understanding for if getting tired of a project and hence, quitting it, but my oppenion is just that if wanting/exspecting to get payd for your work, then don't release freeware, and if not wanting to answer stupid license questions, then just don't give out your mail-adress, and ignore dumbass forum-posters etc.

Btw, the thread-title is a little of IMHO, as there's nothing illegail with distributing hfslip, in contrary to bootlegs, but that's just nitpicking i know.

Just my 2 cents.

This post has been edited by Martin H: 17 June 2010 - 05:45 AM

[Ambassador]

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

Beta J was the last version.
Its filename: hfslip-1.7.10_beta_J.cmd
Its MD5: DF89784782AA5AD6A7AA21371FD18EBF

Well, that does help eleviate the situation somewhat. However, the person who finds HFSLIP on some freeware downloading site wouldn't think to look here first. Besides, the MD5SUM of the CMD file isn't as useful since HFSLIP is distributed mostly in a ZIP archive, but of course that problem could be helped (but not solved) by posting the ZIP's MD5SUM. That's not the point though.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

Just so everyone understands what you're suggesting, this means TommyP would be giving up his Copyright on the work. Somehow I don't think he'd be okay with that. I could ask him to come and post his feelings on the matter however if really necessary.

Public domain works can be released with the Creative Commons license. I've seen this before. Furthermore, why is it so important that TommyP maintain the copyright on all the older versions of HFSLIP? If TommyP is simply planning to re-release HFSLIP again one day, he could easily called it "HFSLIPX" or something and put this new under his own copyright.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

but I do believe my points do deserve some merit.

I think he won't agree. Check the license included. The source can be legally modified.

I was more emphasizing the counterfeit problems at the beginning. The "public domain" suggestion was just one brainstormed idea.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

What were the technical reasons? Did Paypal not work? Did you e-mail Tom for his address to send a check? You should tell have told him exactly what did not work.

I don't have a credit card. Because of my age (at the time) and bank account type, I could not send cheques, let alone make a PayPal account. Of course, this situation has changed of late, but at the time it was impossible. That's what I meant.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

A rethink could have helped donations? What kind of rethink? You mean if Tom had sold it and required a license and proof of licensure before he provided support? He said a hundred times he didn't want to HAVE to support the project. He said he didn't like that it was like work. It was a hobby.

I wasn't referring to the amount of donations. I was refering to the lack of developers which joined the project. Essentially, TommyP/TomCat where in a situation where they were the sole developers accepted bug reports from people, who a lot of which could not fix the code on their own. Compare this to, say, Windows Classic Shell for Windows 7, or Explorer++.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

I, Tomcat, and TommyP all spread the word on other sites. It didn't, and doesn't, matter. Ultimately, a LOT of people "just didn't get it." There are people who used it and who actually thought that it didn't slipstream. There are people who actually know about HFSLIP and prefer unattended methods (no, I know I could save myself a ton of work, I like doing things the hard way). It sounds absurd, but there you have it. People like pain. I hate to pick on others, but there's a guy here who has an extremely complex process for manual slipstreaming and he has a LOT of fans. What can we do? People like making their lives harder. It sounds sarcastic, but believe me, if you could spend any time in our shoes, you'd see it's absolutely true.

Fair enough. As I said in my original post, I was probably generalizing things. The benefit is that I get this information and better understanding of the situation.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

There are reasons why there are many successful open-source Windows projects out there

Well, you're free to name some suggestions that we haven't tried, I guess. Too late now, but I am curious.

Explorer++, LiteStep, BB4Win.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

and why HFSLIP never reaped the benefits of multiple developers.

And now I'm REALLY curious to hear your reasons. One of the most amazing projects of all time, a LiveCD of the Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator on sourceforge, has lived and died several times for lack of developers. Each time it got resurrected, ONE guy took over. It's alive now thanks to ONE guy. Getting devs to work on something is not as easy as you seem to think. There were some contributions to the codebase but only Tomcat76 was a major developer. Heck even I did not contribute much of anything at all.

I never said I knew the reasons. I was simply pointing out that there had to be reasons of why HFSLIP didn't have more people working the source code. It could have been the way the site was laid out for all I know.

fdv, on 16 June 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

Everyone got a lot of free work and Tom felt frustrated. Now, the tables are turned. He doesn't visit this forum and he is free of the burden, and everyone else feels frustrated. But I am pretty sure that people's venting is not going to get him to return.

There seems to be a contradiction at play here. You say that TommyP is frustrated for putting so much work into his project with no compensation, be it development work or donations, from his users. I can understand this. From the way you word your statement it would be ideal for HFSLIP to take charge and get involved and work on the HFSLIP source. However, an environment to encourage this behaviour, on SourceForge or wherever, hasn't been created.

Again, I have probably generalized a lot in these posts. I also hope that I haven't alienated you FDV. My intention was not to start a battle with you or TommyP, just raise some questions about the rational for TommyP's choice. In the end, it is TommyP's choice of how he wants to host (or not host) the HFSLIP project, and I respect his viewpoint and his decision.

[fdv]

Public domain works can be released with the Creative Commons license.

Then the license wouldn't even apply. Public domain works literally mean free and unrestricted use. They are copyright free. Someone attaching a license to something when it's in the public domain (they don't have the rights to it) means you can ignore the license.

Quote

Well, you're free to name some suggestions that we haven't tried, I guess. Too late now, but I am curious.

Explorer++, LiteStep, BB4Win.

I literally meant suggestions that the developers had not tried. Not projects.

Quote

However, an environment to encourage this behaviour, on SourceForge or wherever, hasn't been created.

That's what THIS forum is for. You know, Tomcat76 wasn't on the project originally. He was just some random guy who contributed massive amounts of code, then took over development.

Quote

these posts. I also hope that I haven't alienated you FDV.

Not in the least.

Quote

just raise some questions about the rational for TommyP's choice. ... and I respect his viewpoint and his decision.

As the only mod left in this subforum it leaves me explaining what the deal is. Which is hard to do because if it were me, I probably would have done things differently, but I do believe that people need some sort of answers. People keep asking and questioning and I do the best I can to explain but ultimately it's a decision resting with Tom who isn't even here now to read these scolding posts. I'm sure PMs thanking him for a heck of a ride couldn't hurt though.

[Yzöwl]

The biggest problem with the project is the fact that it is too much work to maintain in its current form. I highlighted the fact back in 2006, backed up by tommyp, that the script under Tomcat was going the wrong way, it was becoming bloated, (implementing far more than was originally intended). As a result of this, and the continual quick fixes the code has become very messy, it will be extremely difficult for anyone to just jump in and take over the development at this point in time. With the sudden disappearance of Tomcat, tommyp was left with a completely different piece of code than that which he'd been comfortable with and I'd suggest that this alone has made the maintenance of it a chore. Working on something as a chore is a far different task, tie that in with the fact that the number of users of the supported OS's is diminishing and it's a no-brainer to end development.

The only way I could see the project continuing in any useful form would be to re-write the code, stripping away some things and probably removing the ability to support anything other than Windows XP. At that point I'd not even be sure that it would count as a version of HFSlip, under the same licencing or something completely different, but one thing is for sure HFSlip as you know it would definitely have stopped development.

[Martin H]

Yzöwl, on 20 June 2010 - 05:52 AM, said:

The only way I could see the project continuing in any useful form would be to re-write the code, stripping away some things and probably removing the ability to support anything other than Windows XP. At that point I'd not even be sure that it would count as a version of HFSlip, under the same licencing or something completely different, but one thing is for sure HFSlip as you know it would definitely have stopped development.

I fully agree with that, except that I don't think a rewrite is a top-priority for the XP-core-updates slipstreaming part, as that works fine and can eassily be extended as is, to feature non-supported updates, but to strip out all non-XP and Non-core-updates out, and release as a HFSLIP fork under the same license, would defenetally be a good move IMHO.

I'm not using Windows and hence, HFSLIP myself anymore, but I used to be very interessted in this project when I did, so i'm sad to see it "blowing in the wind" like this(or whatever the right expression is )...

For the Win2k users still holding the fane high(best Windows version IMHO, especially when coupled with fdv's fileset or hfcleanup, but unfortunetly, because of missing new driver and app support, coupled with non 2+ dual-core support, makes it a non-choise for many with newer machines unfortunetly), then a seperate Win2k fork could be made there also, if the interest was available.

This post has been edited by Martin H: 23 June 2010 - 01:41 AM

[Ambassador]

Sorry I haven't responded. I meant to respond immediately, but s**t hit the fan.

fdv, on 19 June 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

Then the license wouldn't even apply. Public domain works literally mean free and unrestricted use. They are copyright free. Someone attaching a license to something when it's in the public domain (they don't have the rights to it) means you can ignore the license.

I was refering to uploading to the Internet Archive, a sort of "public domain" in itself that doesn't provide an environment to develop projects like SourceForge, but rather serve as a library for lack of a better description. It would also serve as a great place to host all that information and hints on HFSLIP that were on his site. Just to note that I am aware that releasing to the public domain essentially means "do whatever you want", akin to the WTFPL. I was vague on this point.

Quote

I literally meant suggestions that the developers had not tried. Not projects.

Though I have followed your site for quite awhile (I remember when NTTweak was on your recommended software list ), I am not familiar with the complete history of HFSLIP development. I guess the best I could offer here is a development site like SourceForge (though the dislike of this option has already been indicated). Perhaps Google Code would be more appropriate in this circumstance?

Quote

That's what THIS forum is for. You know, Tomcat76 wasn't on the project originally. He was just some random guy who contributed massive amounts of code, then took over development.

I find that forums are often hit or miss in this regard. And I still believe a development site like SourceForge is more effective.

Quote

Not in the least.

Glad to hear it.

Quote

As the only mod left in this subforum it leaves me explaining what the deal is. Which is hard to do because if it were me, I probably would have done things differently, but I do believe that people need some sort of answers. People keep asking and questioning and I do the best I can to explain but ultimately it's a decision resting with Tom who isn't even here now to read these scolding posts.

I am not trying to scold anyone here, least of all TommyP or you. Why should I scold him? Without him, HFSLIP wouldn't exist in the first place. Furthermore, he didn't go down the path of hunting down sites and users who were/are hosting HFSLIP after he took his site down. I will send him a PM though.

[Martin H]

Ambassador, on 06 July 2010 - 08:24 AM, said:

[...] Furthermore, he didn't go down the path of hunting down sites and users who were/are hosting HFSLIP after he took his site down. I will send him a PM though.

His license dosen't govern him that right...

[Ambassador]

Martin H, on 06 July 2010 - 11:31 AM, said:

Ambassador, on 06 July 2010 - 08:24 AM, said:

[...] Furthermore, he didn't go down the path of hunting down sites and users who were/are hosting HFSLIP after he took his site down. I will send him a PM though.

His license dosen't govern him that right...

Fair enough, but I think TommyP wouldn't have done that even if had the right. Although I have seen some cases with Free software projects where the author in fact tries to do what I just suggested.

[Martin H]

Really? -Then they wouldn't be understanding anything about FOSS licensing and make a complete joke out of themselves in the process!

Anyway, I would suggest that FDV made a stickied post with the link of latest hfslip and a post about seeking new maintainers/developers, or else I really don't see the point of this forum, truth be told! Ppl go here for help, instrutions and download links! Especially now when the main page is down.

TP did an amazing job and is a really nice guy, and I fully respect that he has decided to quit maintaning hfslip, but honestly, then i'm pretty disappointed about the way he left, i.e. the wording in the last hfslip-post edit, the removing of the download link for hfslip and finally for clossing the website! What is that about - trying to "punish ppl for not donating to his freeware project?"... Granted, he has every right to do so, but my point is just what kind of a message that states!

PS: Thanks for adding me to your friends list mate!

[cluberti]

It probably states that he was tired or incapable (or both) of paying for hosting a fairly heavily-visited site along with the additional costs of serving binaries, and when he stopped supporting the project he also pulled the site to save cash (remember, no one was donating, so if it was running it was coming out of his pocket). I could be wrong, but I would wager I am not.

[Martin H]

tain was hosting the site for him, and additionally I was also reffering to the removal of download links from the MSFN HFSLIP threads.

If not because of the above, then obviously I would fully understand it!

This post has been edited by Martin H: 07 July 2010 - 11:55 AM

[tain]

cluberti, on 07 July 2010 - 08:00 AM, said:

It probably states that he was tired or incapable (or both) of paying for hosting a fairly heavily-visited site along with the additional costs of serving binaries, and when he stopped supporting the project he also pulled the site to save cash (remember, no one was donating, so if it was running it was coming out of his pocket). I could be wrong, but I would wager I am not.

I'm going to bookmark that post because it is one of the extreme few in which cluberti is wrong. That guy is super-sharp and nearly always right. But not this time; gotcha now, sucka!

I hosted the site for a long time and FDV helped with hosting, too. I think we'd both still be willing to host, so that wasn't the issue. tommyp has stated his reasoning and he was being truthful.

I'm also one of those precious few that donated. I'll take this chance to remind people that it is a good idea to donate to MSFN as I've done several times. You don't want MSFN to go away like HFSLIP did, do you? I guarantee you that xper could use the help and that this isn't a profit-generating venture for him.

So, cluberti...about that wager you mentioned

[Martin H]

tain, on 10 July 2010 - 05:15 AM, said:

I'm going to bookmark that post because it is one of the extreme few in which cluberti is wrong. That guy is super-sharp and nearly always right.

LOL! Anyway, couldn't agree more!

[pcalvert]

With many open source projects, the software is free, and there is free support (within limits) on a support forum. But beyond that, one needs to pay for premium support. Just thought I'd point that out, for whatever it's worth...

Phil

[Martin H]

Just to rap up what i've previously posted about my feelings towards this, then I just noticed this older post from the HFSLIP test-releases thread, which I haden't seen before:

fdv, on 26 May 2010 - 08:28 AM, said:

Tom doesn't want it sent to Sourceforge (it has to be him, the copyright holder, to submit it anyway).

In fact, he doesn't want it distributed at all anymore. I'll make a more general announcement in a new topic.

Source: http://www.msfn.org/...post__p__925265
(I'm reffering to the last line, and not the first.)