SPC7110 Test Build

[Neo Kaiser]

My only real problem with closed-source is that you then have to choose to trust that the developer doesn't put in any malicious features. If the developer releases the code, you can at least feel safe because you know that if s/he puts malicious features in there, someone else can take them out (but then, s/he'd know that since someone will take it out, s/he won't bother putting it in in the first place). But without the code, you simply don't know. I understand that this won't be as prevailent (if at all) in emulators, but it's possible. Just look at the emulator called "MagicEngine". They not only keep the source closed, but you have to have a special key to make full use of the software.

Bottom line: Developers have the say in how they use thier software. So, there's no excuse to get all shitty if it is closed source. Just accept it or move on, OR code your own open source version.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head. If I saw a peice of software I really liked but it was closed source, (if I wanted to and was able to) I would code my own open source version (or if there was another version written by someone else and their version was open source, I would use their version and maybe contribute code aswell).

All I'm saying is that I don't like the idea of closed source software. It's like driving a car with an invisible engine; you have no control if something goes wrong.

He just want a uncontaminated code. That's all! to have a quality control just like scientists do.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Well, you've hit the nail on the head. If I saw a peice of software I really liked but it was closed source, (if I wanted to and was able to) I would code my own open source version (or if there was another version written by someone else and their version was open source, I would use their version and maybe contribute code aswell).

All I'm saying is that I don't like the idea of closed source software. It's like driving a car with an invisible engine; you have no control if something goes wrong.

Invisible engine? If you know how to make a material with an index of refraction of 1, I suggest you patent it NOW. ESPECIALLY if it's durable enough to serve as an engine block.

It's more like a car with a sealed engine compartment.
Except that cars require regular maintainence that computer applications don't need, so the analogy is flawed from the start.

But to run with it...
Most end-users take their cars to the shop even for trivial stuff like changing air filters, so the sealed engine compartment doesn't mean much to them.
Hence why car manufacturers can get away with nasty engine compartment layouts that almost require you to pull the engine just to change the damned drive belt. But that's another thread.

So really, it's a lot like software. Most users will never touch the code, even if they're open-source zealots.


The "open-source above all else" mentality is dumb.
To continue the stereotypical guy stuff...
It's like using a crescent wrench for EVERYTHING.
Sure a regular wrench might work better for some stuff, a ratchet for some stuff, and pliers for some stuff.
But the crescent wrench is modifiable by the end-user, and therefore it is inherently superior, even when it's not the best tool for the job! And if you need a screwdriver... well, anything you can't do with a crescent wrench isn't really something you need to be using a tool for anyways!

Yeah, the dumb is on the other foot now.

[Deathlike2]

Enough of this his off-topic tangent. (Gee, it's not hard who started this stupid argument).

Whether or not the software is open source, testing has to be done, regardless of how simple or complex the software is.

I'm sure everyone wants to be able to supply a fix, which is great, but on the other hand, that doesn't mean these fixes are the answer to the problem. In fact, if one looks to any thread with supplied patches (other than one posted by the ZDevs), are usually doing stuff that should not be done. See thread for the example: http://board.zsnes.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11513

There is no foolproof solution, but when software is getting the proper attention to an issue (assuming enough relevent information is provided), then it ultimately does not matter whether or not the software is open source or not. It is as simple as that.

[byuu]

(Gee, it's not hard who started this stupid argument).

Sorry, I should've kept the matter private in the first place. No need to post that here. Nach wasn't responding at the moment (eg he wasn't available), and I was being impatient. E-mail / PM would have sufficed.

[Deathlike2]

(Gee, it's not hard who started this stupid argument).

Sorry, I should've kept the matter private in the first place. No need to post that here. Nach wasn't responding at the moment (eg he wasn't available), and I was being impatient. E-mail / PM would have sufficed.

Well, I wasn't thrilled at your comment, but that's not what I was referring to.

Hint: It's about the open/closed source argument.

It's not your fault.. it has degenerated into a Franky vs the world argument IMO.

[adventure_of_link]

Enough of this his off-topic tangent. (Gee, it's not hard who started this stupid argument).

Oooh, gee lemme guess: was it Franky?

[I.S.T.]

I don't care to invent new theoretical attachments and co-processors for everything under the sun. But if someone wants to allow a game to use two co-processors or expand an existing set of decompression routines to use another which we're bundling with ZSNES anyway, I don't mind doing the few modifications needed to support that.

Well, I just said it reminded me of byuu's idea, not that it was identical.