2x client
https://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/2x_client_portable
is there any precedent for the '2x client' on portableapps.com wrt the fact that it is not free (as in freedom) software?
does the '2x client' contain any significant features that are not available in another software package? it kind of appears to be a hook to get you to buy software.
thanks,
david
--
P.S.
thank you John for creating portableapps.com
edit: changed the Subject: to better indicate nature of the thread
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
We're listing and packaging freeware now in addition to open source software. I'm going to post a bunch of apps and then post the announcement (since it would be odd to do an announcement with none posted).
The 2X Client has fine features without buying anything. It can do RDP (there is no Windows open source software to do this at the moment) to your home PC. And it can work with the 2X ApplicationServer, which has a no-cost, non-trialware 3-connection license.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
thanks for the quick reply John.
can you explain the decision to list freeware? and hopefully we are talking about freeware a la nonags.com.
-- david
We want one, open source, open development platform and format to be universal for all applications whether they are open source, freeware or commercial. The platform (menu, backup utility, upcoming updater), installer, format, and universal launcher (coming soon) will all be open source and open (typically GPL) and we'll let other folks be able to use it. That way, we can ensure that it stays an open standard and we don't get locked into a platform that's restricted to a single hardware provider or vendor.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
ok, that makes sense.
keeping the freeware/commercial listings separate from the open source software would be in integrity with the perceived intent behind portableapps.com, imho.
if you don't want separate lists, another way to be in integrity would be to specify the license in parentheses rather than "freeware" or "commercial". the basic tags being (gpl), (bsd), (proprietary), etc.
so the top of the current Utilities list would go from:
# 2X Client Portable (Freeware) - remote server and RDP access client
# 7-Zip Portable - File archiver and compressor
# ClamWin Portable - Antivirus on the go
to
# 2X Client Portable (proprietary) - remote server and RDP access client
# 7-Zip Portable (LGPL) - File archiver and compressor
# ClamWin Portable (GPL) - Antivirus on the go
what do you think about this idea?
-- david
IMHO Most users are not lawyers and don't understand or care what GPL and LGPL and etc. mean. All they are interested in, besides an app's function, is whether it's free or not. Thus the tags ($$) and (free) are all that's needed, and maybe not even the (free) one.
Ed
for folks not caring, whatever the tag says will be irrelevant.
for folks caring (all of the folks that made the "PortableApps.com Wins Big in the 2009 SourceForge Community Choice Awards" headline on this site possible), the license tag will allow them to quickly use portableapps.com just the way they've always used it.
for folks who are curious, the license tag will give them a relevant jumping off point into understanding what is arguably one of the most crucial differences between all of the apps on this site.
tagging apps as (free) or ($$) is problematic long-term because it is often the case that (free) as in beer one day become ($$). license changes happen much less frequently.
assuming that people are only interested an app's function is a BIG assumption. and limiting information based on this assumption (by only providing a description of an app's functionality) creates a self-fulfilling dynamic.
it makes waaay more sense to present important information in a non-intrusive manner and let folks self-regulate with regard to how much understanding they wish to acquire.
highlighting the apps that are open source is more exciting to me than assuming that people who don't know the difference do not care. on the contrary, all of the hundreds of people to which i've explained the difference between open source and proprietary software *have cared*.
portableapps.com has been a big win for open source software by helping people easily experience an alternative to the crapware that they encounter on a regular basis. while the open development platform explanation by John makes some sense to me, i also recognize the possibility of portableapps.com becoming an advertising platform for ($$) software--something i'd hate to see happen.
here is one of the long-standing statements that was on the portableapps.com homepage:
"PortableApps.com provides a truly open platform . . . It's *open source* built around an open format that any hardware vendor or software developer can use."
yes, that statement was referring to the "platform", and at the same time it hinted at the portableapps.com courting (so to speak) of open source developers. folks that helped to make the portableapps.com site the success that it is today.
not to diminish John's efforts in any way, in a sense it could be argued that portableapps.com success is the result of the cooperation of many open source developers and users. and not acknowledging this is at the very least disrespectful.
maybe i'm the only one who cares about this?
-- david
P.S.
whew, sorry for all the gum flapping, but this stuff is important to me.
here's another one for explicitly telling what software is FOSS and which isn't.
My reasons for trying to avoid non-FOSS go beyond ideological reasons: I've often been let down by closed source companies, and in many different ways.
This either just doesn't happen with FOSS (since it just keeps working and floating about on the net etc.), or you don't get disappointed since you knew the rules - no right to expect something for nothing.
So please, please make the distinction clearly visible, so the choice is made easier for us in the know, and so that those not yet in the know may learn the difference.
Gudmund
It's clearly indicated in the app directory by "(Freeware)" right after the app title. Also, the frontpage announcement mention at the end of the first paragraph whether they are open source or freeware releases and are tagged as such (Freeware Release, Open Source Release or Site News). The app pages themselves always list the exact licensing terms in the Download Details section which you can scroll to or click the link below the Download button.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I see. I thought as well. Actually,it feels weird having non-OSS listed before having an announcment (at least for me). Or they could go together.
Eitherway, this fantastic news. The software library should be enhanced greatly with much more options!
We don't need a reason to help people ~ Zidane
Nice to see some closed-source developers to put some of their free applications PAF-compliant
Man, I leave for a month and look what I have to come back to. I was wondering when this was going to happen
I'm definitely going to give this one a look. Does this mean PAP2.0 might be moving forward soon? (I seem to remember that one of the things that kept holding it back was all of the negotiations over freeware/commercial apps and the vendor discussions...).
Way to go team!
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.