Re: FW: [Bug-gnubg] Tutorial: a short history

[Holger]

At 21:26 06.07.2003 -0300, Albert Silver wrote:
> The nature of a number of the comments leads me to believe it is worth
> explaining a bit on the history of the tutorial. This isn't the first
> version, it is the third.

> install IBM's OS/2 Warp in order to use it. Another program that was
> mentioned in the newsgroups was GNU Backgammon, but it wasn't clearly
> respected, mostly because it was unknown to most. I tried to find out
> where to download it and found myself at the official page in the
> www.gnu.org site. This was the site referred to by any major site with
> BG links. Here came the first problem. It was amazing, but I couldn't
> even find a clear place to download the program. How was I going to use
> it if it was hidden?

Yes, there should be a link to Øystein's site on 
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnubg/. On the new home there is one, though.

> the File menu, etc. I searched more but that was it. This was quite a
> deterrant, and I was also put off by the transparent pieces that gave it
> an ungainly appearance.

I also rather dislike the default appearance. What about a poll for 
changing the default (or leaving the old one)? Maybe something with 
yellow-green to match the logo?

> GNUBG. He was enthusiastic about the idea and told me to go ahead. Thus
> in the October issue of Gammonline came out the 16-page (according to
> Word) article "All About GNU". The introduction and the content are my
> explanations AND my perspective.
>
> The introduction explains how I came to be using it, and not why the
> founding author created it.

OK, I understand your reasoning. The problem, imho, is that it became 
rather official or seems to be, and it's nowhere mentioned that it isn't.

> No, GNU Chess sucks. If you want good chess freeware, go to

Aha, I'm just being cautious since people tend to generalise things and 
likely mix everything up that has GNU in its name.

> > > though you should be warned that this is not where you will want to get
> > > the program. To get the fully functional version you want to go to the
> > > site of one of the authors:
> > >
> > > You not only get the software at the official sites, you get much
> more - the source.
>
> Remember the purpose of the document: It's about how to use GNU
> Backgammon for Windows.

But this purpose is stated nowhere. You just presuppose that everyone 
reading your tutorial is using Windows. You do have a point, however, since 
the majority will likely be using Windows.

> If there are other clear ways to download and
> install GNUBG for other OSs I'd be glad to include them of course.

For every Unix-like OS it's as simple as getting the source and typing 
"./configure; make; make install". For Windows it's unfortunately more 
difficult to obtain the prerequisites. But even for Windows the same is 
valid: the source IS the programme.

> > A "warning" and "fully functional version" seem to overdo
> > it.
>
> Not really. I was worried when I read the warning and so were some
> others I showed the site to.

Maybe it's the wording that I'm not too enthusiastic about.

> > > This is no typical Windows crippleware. If I'm not badly mistaken gnubg
> > > started on Unix/Linux and the MS platform was only later supported.
>
> I have no doubt, but am not sure what the point is.

The difference is the philosophy. (And I was trying to hint for the origin 
of gnubg.)
Usually software for Windows ought to sell. And to give incentives for 
purchasing there are limited test versions called shareware or demo or 
whatever, with which more often than not one can't use everything or only 
for a limited time.
Open source software however doesn't need to sell. The main aim is to write 
good programmes and to overcome the restrictions I mentioned in my other post:

> > The idea behind open source isn't however that it's free, as in a free 
> > meal. That's one of the reasons why the term changed from "Free software" 
> > to "Open source". Much more important is the lack of dependence on the 
> > software manufacturer for license restrictions, maintenance, and feature 
> > improvements and more.

> Finally, yes, I can certainly change GNU to GnuBG for purposes of
> inclusion, that is hardly an issue.

Please, do so.

At last I'd like to get once more to the introduction of your tutorial. In 
order to have a starting point I'll take the freedom of quoting myself again:

> > At the start you stress the price aspect quite a bit. The idea behind 
> > open source isn't however that it's free, as in a free meal. That's one 
> > of the reasons why the term changed from "Free software" to "Open 
> > source". Much more important is the lack of dependence on the software 
> > manufacturer for license restrictions, maintenance, and feature 
> > improvements and more.
> > So mentioning that gnubg doesn't come with a price tag is probably still 
> > worthwhile, but not primarily and maybe not right at the beginning.

It might be that it's again only the wording, especially the sentence 
"That's where GNU comes in." after you were talking about the price. So 
here you link "GNU" with being there for those who don't want to pay for a 
software. Maybe this is not intended, but someone who doesn't know much 
about computers, let alone anything about open source will, imho, 
understands it this way. As I tried to explain already this is not the 
point with open source.

Regards,

        Holger