[Cadaver]

I've been playing with Konfabulator the last couple days, and I've found a couple handy widgets...

Mini Weather - like the included weather widget but smaller.
WhatsGoingOn - a small window which displays some handy 'top' info.
iChat Bezel - when a buddy logs in/out or changes status, it brings up a translucent notification window. Fades in and out. Nice effect, unobtrusive and handy (don't need my buddy list on-screen all the time).
Mini calendar - does what it sounds like.

What do you guys who use Konfabulator like?

[ambush]

please post screenshots too.

[Mastrap]

Downloaded it.
Played with it.
Looked at processor and memory usage.



Dumped it double quick.

[superfula]

Originally posted by ambush:
please post screenshots too.

http://www.widgetgallery.com/

[Moonray]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Downloaded it.
Played with it.
Looked at processor and memory usage.



Dumped it double quick.

Heh

I thought that application was declared dead somewhere around end of summer 2003.

-

[mishap]

Originally posted by Moonray:
Heh

I thought that application was declared dead somewhere around end of summer 2003.

-

I thought it was when it was released.

[Cadaver]

Guess with a dual 2.0GHz G5 and 1.5GB of RAM, a little CPU and memory usage doesn't bother me.
What good is CPU power if it isn't being used. No sense in letting it sit idle...

[KP*]

On my dual-monitor PowerMac MDD:
Weather (with 5-day forecast displayed)
Calendar
Digital Clock (altered to teal background)
PowerMate Mail Plus
Network Info

On my 15" Albook:
Digitial Clock (altered to white background)
Network Info
Battery (or CompactCharge when I want something smaller)

I don't mind the processor usage, and if I need all the power I can get, I just close Konfabulator.

[kman42]

Konfabulator seems to be a love/hate thing. It makes pretty widgets, but they are processor-hungry.

OT--Why is Safari so slow to type in text fields all the sudden?

kman

[nobitacu]

I use it 24/7 on my desktop, I really like this app. I don't mind the extra cpu, memory it uses on my 17" Powerbook for the jobs it does for me.

Ming

[angelmb]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
iChat Bezel - when a buddy logs in/out or changes status, it brings up a translucent notification window. Fades in and out. Nice effect, unobtrusive and handy (don't need my buddy list on-screen all the time).

Please, where can I download the iChat Bezel widget?

EDIT: it comes with the app.

[brutal]

It´s a pretty cool app, but I can´t seem to find anything usefull to do with it..

[Mike S.]

It's also an expensive app considering you can get the same functionality and more on Windows for free.

I hate it when that happens but sadly it happens a lot.

[Moonray]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
It's also an expensive app considering you can get the same functionality and more on Windows for free.

I hate it when that happens but sadly it happens a lot.

You can get all these thingies on OS X free as well. People buy it because of the eye candy effect... and you know ... they are young and they have the money.

-

[Russian Mac fan]

Itunes bar for Konfabulator. CPU usage - 1.5-2%

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by Moonray:
You can get all these thingies on OS X free as well.

Where do I get this functionality for free? Don't mention warez.

I'm looking for a legit, free runtime environment that can run widgets.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Where do I get this functionality for free? Don't mention warez.

Why not? Arlo wouldn't get compensated for his hard work either way.

[WJMoore]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Where do I get this functionality for free? Don't mention warez.

I'm looking for a legit, free runtime environment that can run widgets.

Yeah that's the thing there is no free alternative that does the same thing. There are free apps that do similar things to some of the widgets, most of these look terrible and clog up your menu bar in the process though. I stopped using K for about 8 months but I've recently started using it again and I was happy to see that the CPU and memory usage has certainly decreased from the original versions.

My fav widget is the stock standard weather widget, although I might migrate the the mini weather widget.



BTW: I'm currently in shock because of that screen capture. I did Cmd-Shift-4 then pressed space and clicked on the widget. When I open the resulting PDF in PS Elements all the graphics still had their transparency and none of the background had been captured. Awesome! When did Apple include this because it certainly didn't do it in 10.2.

[WJMoore]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Why not? Arlo wouldn't get compensated for his hard work either way.

Yes but using a truly free alternative is legal, pirating an commercial alternative is not.

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Why not? Arlo wouldn't get compensated for his hard work either way.

There's a big difference.

If I'm warezing then I'm taking advantage of Arlo's work without compensating him. If I'm using a freeware alternative then I'm using a product who's author donated his talents to the Mac OS X community.

The widgets themselves are mostly made by end users and shared freely so there's no theft going on there.

[Moonray]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Where do I get this functionality for free? Don't mention warez.

I'm looking for a legit, free runtime environment that can run widgets.

Well, I did not mean there is such a free runtime environment, but there are enough free applications that do what K's widgets do, sorry for the confusion.

-

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
There's a big difference.

If I'm warezing then I'm taking advantage of Arlo's work without compensating him. If I'm using a freeware alternative then I'm using a product who's author donated his talents to the Mac OS X community.

I think you've missed my point — it's kind of unreasonable to expect everything to be free. Yes, it's nice when things are, but to complain because people aren't giving you their software for free? Somehow that just doesn't seem right to me.

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
I think you've missed my point — it's kind of unreasonable to expect everything to be free. Yes, it's nice when things are, but to complain because people aren't giving you their software for free? Somehow that just doesn't seem right to me.

I don't expect everything to be free, if I did then I'd just pirate it all and never buy anything.

It just miffs me that Mac users are forced to buy what Windows developers give away. Ultimately, I easily live without "widgets" but if they were free then I'd probably give them a try.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
I don't expect everything to be free, if I did then I'd just pirate it all and never buy anything.

It just miffs me that Mac users are forced to buy what Windows developers give away. Ultimately, I easily live without "widgets" but if they were free then I'd probably give them a try.

You neglect to mention that the free version of DesktopX is a limited functionality version. For the complete or developer versions you are expected to pay $$.

There is a big problem with this whole "Cute thing on your desktop" subject, and that is that most of the widgets, whether on a Mac or a PC, are just toys. There is practically no one who uses these things professionally as they end up, for the most part, just cluttering the desktop and getting in your way. A couple of years ago I tried ObjectDesktop, the PC application for skinning your desktop and running widgets and tired of it pretty quickly.

If one needs a gadget for some purpose, such as doing some text manipulation or getting stuff off the net etc, there's tcl/tk, Perl, Python or Applescript, all of which are free on the system and all of which have hooks into both Aqua and C/ObjC with which you can can build something useful. For example I used the free Javascript extension from http://www.latenightsw.com/freeware/...OSA/index.html once to make a little appplication that would automatically make and format form letters and promt me through the process once. You can do the same thing on Windows basically with the WSH and VBS or JS.

As for there being more software available for Windows than for Macintosh, both freeware and commercial, well, that is obvious. There's a hell of a lot more windows users and developers out there than there are for the Mac. I won't make judgement about the quality of the majority of Windows freeware though. I've done my time trying out the rubbish that is available for download at download.com and my experience is that stuff that is truly free on Windows, as opposed to trialware or lite versions, is usually so bad that it's not worth using.

If you really are upset about this though, I must wonder why you bother to use a Mac, if it doesn't satisfy you.

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by theolein:
You neglect to mention that the free version of DesktopX is a limited functionality version. For the complete or developer versions you are expected to pay $$.

Limited in what way? It expires? If it'll run "widgets" or "objects" for an indefinite period of time for nothing then it's essentially a free Konfabulator for Windows.

There is a big problem with this whole "Cute thing on your desktop" subject, and that is that most of the widgets, whether on a Mac or a PC, are just toys. There is practically no one who uses these things professionally as they end up, for the most part, just cluttering the desktop and getting in your way. A couple of years ago I tried ObjectDesktop, the PC application for skinning your desktop and running widgets and tired of it pretty quickly.

This is one thing I have against a lot of "fun things" that have prices attached. I'm sure they're worth something to some people, that's a personal thing, but to me having price tags attached to things of dubious value is bad for the platform.

If all platforms had to pay for such things equally then I wouldn't be saying anything but it's been my experience that little "toys" like that have price tags on the Mac and are given away elsewhere. It's not hindering my user experience but I feel it makes the platform look bad as a whole.

If one needs a gadget for some purpose, such as doing some text manipulation or getting stuff off the net etc, there's tcl/tk, Perl, Python or Applescript, all of which are free on the system and all of which have hooks into both Aqua and C/ObjC with which you can can build something useful.

True, I've got several handy Applescript apps. Some were free other not. Their main drawback is performance, they're quite slow but then I've never tried a widget before.

As for there being more software available for Windows than for Macintosh, both freeware and commercial, well, that is obvious. There's a hell of a lot more windows users and developers out there than there are for the Mac.

I wish there were some way to determine the ratio of free vs not free software between the two platforms to see if it's a "cultural" difference or just a perception based on size. For instance, there are probably far less Linux developers than Windows developers but virtually everything for Linux is free because that's the culture.

My line of thinking is that the Mac culture involves making as much money as possible just because devs think they can take advantage of the smaller user base. Look at things like retail video cards, the hardware itself is virtually identical but a Mac video card carries a price premium while being based on a lesser spec design.

If you really are upset about this though, I must wonder why you bother to use a Mac, if it doesn't satisfy you.

I use a Mac because of all the platforms I've tried I like the Mac the best. This doesn't mean I can't have issues with Apple, the development community or an other aspect. Nothing is perfect but then nothing will ever change without topical debate and ultimately action. Sadly, action isn't something I can provide but I can spark debate.

In the end, Mac OS X has made things better than they were in the classic OS era. There is more quality freeware thanks to the influx from the *nix community. I appreciate this but there's always room for improvement.

[Chuckit]

Limited in what way? It expires? If it'll run "widgets" or "objects" for an indefinite period of time for nothing then it's essentially a free Konfabulator for Windows.

Erm...okay, so if I create a beer-free program that allows you to run modules that I call "widgets" or "objects," will you be happy? No matter how crippled and horrible it is, just as long as it runs indefinitely?

Originally posted by Mike S.:
This is one thing I have against a lot of "fun things" that have prices attached. I'm sure they're worth something to some people, that's a personal thing, but to me having price tags attached to things of dubious value is bad for the platform.

I don't really see how it's any worse for the platform than having things of dubious value in the first place.
Plus, you do have to keep in mind that while Konfabulator is pretty much worthless, that doesn't mean it hasn't required a significant investment from its developers. If writing a widget engine and API were a one-day job, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But by your logic, Diablo should have been free.

If all platforms had to pay for such things equally then I wouldn't be saying anything but it's been my experience that little "toys" like that have price tags on the Mac and are given away elsewhere. It's not hindering my user experience but I feel it makes the platform look bad as a whole.

Personally, I see no point in these goofy OS penis contests. You're not expressing doubts about whether you can do what you want on the Mac -- you're complaining because the Mac version costs a couple of dollars more.
Konfabulator is a on the expensive end, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint (and it's still less than the cost of a pizza dinner). You seem to think that third-party developers' job is to make the platform look better and make Apple more money rather than make ends meet themselves.

My line of thinking is that the Mac culture involves making as much money as possible just because devs think they can take advantage of the smaller user base.

I think you're wrong. Most of the big names in Mac shareware are very generous in their pricing -- OmniGroup, Stone Design (which offers free upgrades for life), Ambrosia (which sells Snapz Pro for way less than it could).

In the end, yes, I like and appreciate good freeware. But this mindset that software should be free seems quite frankly unhealthy. It's bad for the platform (because it discourages developers from making software for it) and bad for you because it sounds like you feel that the community owes you freeware when I doubt the community is aware of this debt.

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Erm...okay, so if I create a beer-free program that allows you to run modules that I call "widgets" or "objects," will you be happy? No matter how crippled and horrible it is, just as long as it runs indefinitely?

Are you saying that Desktop X in it's free form is inferior to Konfabulator?

I just wanted to know what aspects about the free DX are limited. It attempts to do more than Konfab but are the parts that do what Konfab do crippled and horrible or on par?

The quality of said products have nothing to do with my original point.

don't really see how it's any worse for the platform than having things of dubious value in the first place.

Tell that to all the people who love computers games and use that as a reason not to buy a Mac.

Less games (object of dubious value) and they cost more (by the time the Mac game comes out the price of the Windows version has fallen considerably)

That's a whole other argument so let's not go there.

Plus, you do have to keep in mind that while Konfabulator is pretty much worthless, that doesn't mean it hasn't required a significant investment from its developers. If writing a widget engine and API were a one-day job, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But by your logic, Diablo should have been free.

I'm not saying Arlo should give it away, he's free to do whatever he likes and I respect his right to do so.

I'm simply curious as to why so many things you get elsewhere for free are not also free on the Mac. That's it.

It's not a complaint, it's a curiosity as well as an opinion that such things make the Mac platform look bad just as the games issue does.

None of it effects my personal decision to use a Mac but it doesn't mean other's don't see the above as deciding factors.

Personally, I see no point in these goofy OS penis contests. You're not expressing doubts about whether you can do what you want on the Mac -- you're complaining because the Mac version costs a couple of dollars more.

You've grossly misinterpreted my intent. Maybe I just explained it poorly.

I'm not complaining about the price, I don't use the products on either the Mac or Windows.

Why does one have a price tag and the other doesn't? It's not an isolated incident.

Do Windows developers have an easier time developing? Do they have additional revenues? Do they just like their platform more? Do they just think that they can't sell it?

The answer is obvious in Linux land, the user base probably just won't pay. Is there a similar difference between Mac and Windows users?

How you interpret such questions as a "penis contest" I don't know.

Konfabulator is a on the expensive end, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint (and it's still less than the cost of a pizza dinner). You seem to think that third-party developers' job is to make the platform look better and make Apple more money rather than make ends meet themselves.

Their only job is what they do to make a living.

What drives one software developer, making essentially the same product, to give it away and the other to sell it? Why do all those people contributing to open source projects do what they do without asking for money? There's an entire platform built around it.

Do you disagree that if platform A has a greater selection of free software then it's going to be more appealing to people than platform B where similar things have price tags attached?

My stance has nothing to do with any notions of what I think developers should or shouldn't do. It's simply a point of view.

Simple apps of little value having price tags that don't have price tags elsewhere makes the Mac platform look bad.

You'd think that with all the notorious Mac zeal and "platform love/loyalty" there would be a greater level of free, communal benefit kind of thinking and less attempts at profit.

This obviously doesn't apply to corporate entities or businesses who's singular goal is profit.

I think you're wrong. Most of the big names in Mac shareware are very generous in their pricing -- OmniGroup, Stone Design (which offers free upgrades for life), Ambrosia (which sells Snapz Pro for way less than it could).

I think the guys making really useful software price things wonderfully. I'm writing this from a licensed copy of OmniWeb because it's a great browser that I enjoy using more than the free alternatives.

I have no qualms with the useful, productivity kinds of apps. There's lots of it available for good prices but sometimes people need a break or something fun and it seems fun costs more on a Mac where as productivity may very well cost less.

An odd bit of roll reversal considering the Mac's share of businesses vs. consumers. Then again, maybe that explains it. Supply and Demand.

More consumers == greater opportunity to profit on silliness.

Less businesses == must be more competitive to profit on productivity.

I'm sure it's not that simple and there are holes in that line of thinking.

In the end, yes, I like and appreciate good freeware. But this mindset that software should be free seems quite frankly unhealthy. It's bad for the platform (because it discourages developers from making software for it) and bad for you because it sounds like you feel that the community owes you freeware when I doubt the community is aware of this debt.

I don't think anybody owes me anything. I can't be more clear than that.

On software being free, let's not forget it was all free until computers became a commodity. Have you seen the famous letter by a young Bill Gates chastising the Unix community for being a bunch of freeloaders? Yet, that community spirit still lives on with Linux and it has served them well. Good on them, if they ever get the usability up to par I'll look into it as it's more my speed philosophically.

I don't think it's unhealthy, I personally think that the line of thinking that says everything has a price is what's unhealthy but that's just the way the world is.

I do my part to help others without expecting compensation but I don't expect the rest of the world to follow. It would be nice though.

[Basilisk]

Limited in what way? It expires? If it'll run "widgets" or "objects" for an indefinite period of time for nothing then it's essentially a free Konfabulator for Windows.

Well for starters it can't run "Premium" widgets, which include such earth-shaking tools as a Google search. I'm sure someone has implemented that in a non-premium widget as well (how could they not) but the point is that its not unlimited and the paid version is not targetted just at widget developers.

And, of course, this whole line of argument glosses over the fact that the overwhelming majority of the GUI tweaks from StarDock are in fact paid apps. You've found one example, drawn quite a big conclusion.

I wish there were some way to determine the ratio of free vs not free software between the two platforms to see if it's a "cultural" difference or just a perception based on size. For instance, there are probably far less Linux developers than Windows developers but virtually everything for Linux is free because that's the culture.

Such a ratio comparison would be largely meaningless. It assumes that all freeware is interchangable cross application-niche. It doesn't matter whether a platform has more freeware total, it only matters if a platform has more freeware to do what you want to accomplish.

The ratio of freeware Notepad.exe replacements to commercial Win32 text editors is quite high (probably hundreds if not thousands to one). A quick poke around VersionTracker shows a much lower ratio of straight-up TextEdit.app replacements. Does that mean that Win32 programmers are more generous or that TextEdit sucks less than NotePad and hence there are fewer replacements?

Once you get into serious (programmer, etc.) editors, the ratio narrows quickly on both sides of the fence.

Trying to evaluate the "culture" of a platform by ratio of freeware/payware is like buying a car using the price per cubic inch of interior space. You can get some numbers that look like maybe they might be meaningful (if you squint real hard), but boy are you ignoring a whole lot of things to get there.

My line of thinking is that the Mac culture involves making as much money as possible just because devs think they can take advantage of the smaller user base.

Wow! That's an ugly generalization.

Consider other possibilities...

- Perhaps Mac users are more willing to pay for quality software, thus there's less incentive to just throw things out "because no one would buy this" and instead spend the time to polish it into something that migh garner some paying users.

- Perhaps the abundance of high-quality low-cost (low-cost is very important) shareware (Unsanity, Omni, Panic, Ambrosia, etc.) gives freeware developers less incentive to compete. Freeware is usually written to address a personal need of the developer. If a shareware replacement already exists and is reasonably priced then there's a great reason not to spend the time building it yourself.

Freeware is free for you, its not free for the developer in time or money (buying icons, ADC membership, etc.). If its a choice between $15 or hundreds of hours of my time then I'll often choose to buy what I need.

The same argument applies even to more expensive apps. Many developers could write a text editor, but if they like BBEdit why would they choose to invest thousands of hours writing a replacement for it? Especially since its already such a success, and they probably already like it?

This doesn't mean I can't have issues with Apple, the development community or an other aspect. Nothing is perfect but then nothing will ever change without topical debate and ultimately action. Sadly, action isn't something I can provide but I can spark debate.

And here lies the great problem with this argument, one that comes up all too often on MacNN... You want others to do something for free for you because you're not capable of developing the software yourself.

I don't have a problem with that, there's a lot of things I can't do myself that I want/need others to do for me. And if they are willing to do it for free, so much the better and I thank them kindly for it.

The problem I have is the handwaving that accompanies it:

I feel it makes the platform look bad as a whole.

And thus starts another round of "debate".

The problem is that the argument is a somewhat transparent attempt to play on the consciences of Mac developers who love the platform. Even when not explicitly stated as you did, its an omnipresent theme because its the Mac-community rant trump card: "Unless X happens people won't switch, the platform will die." Its the Mac version of Godwin's Law.

Its simply not constructive.

Here's my suggestion, rather than disclaim your ability to perform "action" try doing something other than repeating this same tired debate. You may not be a developer, but I'm willing to bet you get paid to do something during work hours. Is that something you can give to a freeware developer? Are you an accountant? Pick your favorite freeware author and offer to do his taxes. Are you an artist? Offer artwork and icons. Are you a lawyer? Offer to review their license agreement (a lot are really bad).

If you can't figure out how to do one of those then at least send the developer an email thanking them. And if they ask for donations consider sending them the $5 you can afford instead of the $20 it might cost as shareware.

Speaking as a freeware author let me assure you these actions mean a lot more than another forum thread. If you want to change the social economics of Mac software, you don't need to be a developer. You need to make sure that freeware remains fun and rewarding in ways other than registration fees.

In conclusion, I should probably say I'm not really trying to pick on Mike S. personally. He seems like a reasonable guy from what threads I've seen him in. I've just had a rash of these in forums (here and elsewhere) and finally chose to say something.

Alex

[Mike S.]

Thanks for your post Basilisk, you made several good points that I have not considered and as such you've me a better understanding of the topic.

And, of course, this whole line of argument glosses over the fact that the overwhelming majority of the GUI tweaks from StarDock are in fact paid apps. You've found one example, drawn quite a big conclusion.

I'm familiar with StarDock's other products, in fact before ShapeShifter was announced I bounced a few Emails back and fourth trying to get Windowblinds ported. They weren't interested for various reasons.

The ratio of freeware Notepad.exe replacements to commercial Win32 text editors is quite high (probably hundreds if not thousands to one). A quick poke around VersionTracker shows a much lower ratio of straight-up TextEdit.app replacements. Does that mean that Win32 programmers are more generous or that TextEdit sucks less than NotePad and hence there are fewer replacements?

Once you get into serious (programmer, etc.) editors, the ratio narrows quickly on both sides of the fence.

That's an excellent point but my issue is not about productivity apps having prices attached so much as simple little things. GUI front ends to underlying features, an app that graphically displays system information, an Applescript etc..

These seem like pretty simple pieces of code (not that I could write any of them) relative to a full blown program where features have to be implemented from scratch.

Perhaps Mac users are more willing to pay for quality software, thus there's less incentive to just throw things out "because no one would buy this" and instead spend the time to polish it into something that migh garner some paying users.

If this were the case then I would think you'd see more commercial Mac software and shareware authors would be making much more money.

The dev house that ported Halo said there were more pirated Mac versions in use than paid for versions. This doesn't sound like a community more willing to pay. All people would rather get for free than spend their money whether they'll admit it or not.

It doesn't mean they won't spend on what they perceive as having value but IP is a tough thing to quantify. That's a whole other ball of wax though.

Perhaps the abundance of high-quality low-cost (low-cost is very important) shareware (Unsanity, Omni, Panic, Ambrosia, etc.) gives freeware developers less incentive to compete. Freeware is usually written to address a personal need of the developer. If a shareware replacement already exists and is reasonably priced then there's a great reason not to spend the time building it yourself.

That makes a lot of sense.

Freeware is free for you, its not free for the developer in time or money (buying icons, ADC membership, etc.). If its a choice between $15 or hundreds of hours of my time then I'll often choose to buy what I need.

I'm aware of this. I respect and appreciate quality software developers and think they deserve compensation for their work when they've put a lot of effort into it.

I've seem some commercial software that have sizable price tags but are complete garbage. I have more disdain for them then simple apps with price tags.

You want others to do something for free for you because you're not capable of developing the software yourself.

I don't have a problem with that, there's a lot of things I can't do myself that I want/need others to do for me. And if they are willing to do it for free, so much the better and I thank them kindly for it.

Perhaps the case for some but in my case I'd only like to see an app for free because A) It's functionality can be had for free everywhere else or B) it seems like something so simple that charging for it seems like "bad karma" B doesn't come up often but there are times...

The problem is that the argument is a somewhat transparent attempt to play on the consciences of Mac developers who love the platform. Even when not explicitly stated as you did, its an omnipresent theme because its the Mac-community rant trump card: "Unless X happens people won't switch, the platform will die." Its the Mac version of Godwin's Law.

Its simply not constructive.

In appreciation of your contributions to Mac freeware and for sharing your insights as a developer I shall not use that line again.

Here's my suggestion, rather than disclaim your ability to perform "action" try doing something other than repeating this same tired debate. You may not be a developer, but I'm willing to bet you get paid to do something during work hours.

I haven't had any work hours for quite a while but by training I can fix someone's computer, give tech support or perform various handy tasks and I do this for those I know or am aquatinted with without asking for compensation. I do "practice what I preach" in general so I don't think I'm being hypocritical.

If you can't figure out how to do one of those then at least send the developer an email thanking them. And if they ask for donations consider sending them the $5 you can afford instead of the $20 it might cost as shareware.

Speaking as a freeware author let me assure you these actions mean a lot more than another forum thread. If you want to change the social economics of Mac software, you don't need to be a developer. You need to make sure that freeware remains fun and rewarding in ways other than registration fees.

I'll see what I can do to be more considerate towards freeware developers. I do praise and recommend their work where appropriate but never actually sent them a message. I guess I just felt that telling them how much I like their product would result in a reply asking for money.

Understandable but I just don't have it to give and then I'd be on a guilt trip that I don't need.

I'm sorry if that line about "making the platform look bad" results in similar feelings in developers. Many don't seem to communicate much beyond announcements and replies to users. I really appreciate the way the OmniGroup posts here or developer web logs (Pinkerton or Hyatt are two I follow) where they discuss both the software and their thoughts on various things. It's a human element, it makes me feel like I some how know the people who are making the software I'm using.

In conclusion, I should probably say I'm not really trying to pick on Mike S. personally. He seems like a reasonable guy from what threads I've seen him in. I've just had a rash of these in forums (here and elsewhere) and finally chose to say something.

Thanks and I wouldn't have taken any of it personally. I brought up a touchy subject and such things often generate emotionally charged responses.

Good insights, thank you for sharing. I don't know how much more there is to say on the subject but I'll keep watching.

[godzookie2k]

Calendar
iTunesBar
CPU portal
timezonabulator