Recent Posts

326

Developer's Corner / Re: SEO fun: Does the multi-domain tactic work?

« Last post by db90h on October 13, 2011, 06:46 AM »

...

-db90h (October 12, 2011, 07:23 PM)

Any chance you could elaborate on that a bit?

-Stoic Joker (October 13, 2011, 06:33 AM)

I deleted my opinion because I believe SEO, as you plan to do it, is 'cheating'. I believe you should not try such tactics. If you want your site to be found, then build a site that attracts people. Search engine manipulation is a big problem for everyone.

327

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 13, 2011, 04:40 AM »

post-edit note, added why it seems obvious to me that all bundling is evil, unless the checkbox is OFF by default .. but even then, I'm going to say it is only borderline. That is MY PERSONAL OPINION, to which I hope I am entitled.

328

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 13, 2011, 04:38 AM »

TOPIC OF BUNDLES

It's not something i have any interest in using, but i don't see it as inherently evil.

-mouser (October 13, 2011, 04:36 AM)

If it is NOT inherently deceitful, then why is that checkbox to install the bundled software not UNCHECKED by default? By not unchecking it by default, the intent is to 'get' those users who 'miss' it during their rapid click through the install dialogs.

Further, you don't see it as inherently evil for the reasons described here: https://plus.google....57/posts/D2ma1kV4D6L  ??????

Let me post so ppl don't have to jump:

1. Inherently deceitful. They rely on hoping the user doesn't notice and untick the bundled option during the install process. If they really wanted to be honest about it, they would make it unchecked by default.. simple as that.
2. Unwanted. If a user ever wanted the bundled software, they'd go get it.
3. Violate user intent. If a user goes to download program X, they intended to get program X, not program X and Y.
4. Can cause system troubles. With so many bundles of different types, even if every one was bug free, the combination of them may have catastrophic or problematic effects.
5. Give rise to the 'fake' download site plague. These sites do nothing but wrap legit software downloads in with their own bundles, then pump out ads.

329

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 13, 2011, 04:24 AM »

@db90h - Umm...I'm still not 100% sure what it is you're saying since I've reread the entire thread and I don't see any indication of the philosophical disconnect or abandonment of ideals (i.e.

-40hz (October 13, 2011, 03:56 AM)

Perhaps part was taken from other discussions... it is just the general feel that, "things aren't working, we must make more money".. when, in MY opinion, given the tools created, you have profited from them more so than anyone could have hoped (in all cases). Yes, I realize now the debate has changed to "we want things to work better".. come on, we were talking about increasing revenue..

All this is way OT from the OP. Best wishes to DC, as always.

As for the bundling - mouser expressed his neutrality at Open Candy (or whatever) - the mouser I used to know wouldn't have done that. Just keeping the peace I guess he was. I know some of the authors here use bundles (maybe at their own sites), but did not mean to claim he does. So, there are no bundles on this site, anywhere? On any of the micro-sites?

330

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 13, 2011, 01:44 AM »

. Lastly, I am saddened to see that the concept behind this site, which both WORKED, and has GENERATED GREAT REVENUE, is now being relegated to the 'gray areas' as boundaries are pushed back and ethical tolerances lowered.

-db90h (October 12, 2011, 07:29 PM)

?????
I'm afraid you've lost me there. Could you maybe elaborate a bit more on that point? Because I'm confused about exactly what's being said.  

-40hz (October 12, 2011, 10:22 PM)

Reference previous discussions in this thread, where mouser speaks of shades of gray, and his perception that there is some sort of failure here (despite how much income it is generating). It is a natural tendency to lose one's ideological beliefs, see the world in shades of gray. Here is what *I* see, and I know I'll be crucified for saying this:

• DonationCoder itself brings in *decent* revenue, at least from what I've seen in its Annual Fundraising Drives (or whatever). This site pulls in more revenue than MORE THAN 95% of shareware authors I guarantee you.. Yes, that's a wild guess, but only rarely do Shareware authors make much money.
• The DonationCoder authors bring in *decent* revenue with respect to the time they put into their software. If they are unhappy with the rewards here, then they can always sell it elsewhere. However, I can imagine no scenario where authors here make MORE money elsewhere than they do here for the tools they write.
• The allowance of bundling into this site is what I most object to for reasons listed here: https://plus.google....57/posts/D2ma1kV4D6L . Yes, yes, they pay the bills so ppl can make freeware.. but so would drug trafficking. If you want to make more money from your software, you should straight up charge for it. I consider bundling an inherently deceitful abomination. If it is NOT, then untick that bundle install checkbox by default. Do that and you have no problem with me. It should have NO place anywhere on this site, in my opinion.
  
• Years ago mouser would never see these shades of gray, or be hinting and fundamental shifts in everything, at a time when revenue is good enough to say the concept *does* work.. it just needs to *expand*.

It is very hard to profit from most software as a lone developer. Some do, some don't. Those that profit at all should consider themselves lucky.

This concept, DonationWare, works. Don't mess with it.

Fairware -- Noble intent, BUT -- Look, I AM a F/OSS author myself, but if I want to sell something, I'm not making it F/OSS, it would just get stolen and someone else would be selling a fork of my own project (licensed to do so or not).

Do you see what I'm trying to say? DonationCoder *IS* all working, yet all I hear is concession, defeat, and: "We want more money, we gotta change it all up" ... Yea, I know, not to "get rich". Yes, we all have bills, I understand. If you want more money then you may have to get a job, that's just life. Maybe author MORE tools here... maybe code MORE... maybe advertise HERE (better than bundling if you ask me, if done nicely).

I am baffled that advertising is disallowed here, but bundling is allowed. Totally baffled by that. The community's size and site traffic are a huge benefit, and EACH author could advertise on their own micro sites.

Everyone always wants more money ... that is just the way our world works. But you can only squeeze a lemon so much before there is no more juice. Quit squeezing and get back to work coding snacks and such. NO NEW 'METHOD' IS GOING TO WORK MUCH BETTER THAN ANY PREVIOUS 'METHOD'. People who will for software will (via donations or purchases), and people who won't, won't.

My two cents, which normally people don't like to hear because it has too much truth. You can not tell me with the amount of money pulled into this site that it is somehow 'failing'. If you are ENVIOUS of traditional businesses, then that is another issue.. but I would NOT be. You have a GREAT concept at DC, and I do not want to see it decay.

----

UNRELATED CAUTION ON PAYING YOUR TAXES ON TIME: Since I've been (poorly) self-employed for a decade, most of it doing contract work, I know that it is *easy* to get behind on your taxes. You don't want to be there. I've always reported my income honestly, even when I couldn't pay the bill. That's why you must pay quarterly estimated taxes, unless you have really good discipline. Now, if the IRS were to catch you with unreported income from a few years ago.. do you know how high the bill (or jail sentence) would be? My God... Just a warning, some I've talked to haven't reported their 'hobby' income at all. Trust me, the IRS does not care where the income came from (speaking here in the USA). The fact that taxes are DUE on your DonationCoder earnings should be stated somewhere here.. just to remind people, before they go spend it all, and/or forget to report it to start with (thinking of it as some sort of untaxed hobby).

331

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 12, 2011, 07:29 PM »

.. del my post because it was mostly pointless .. but remember, at what point is 'sustaining the project' just 'needing more money' for personal bills... If you are already making more than a person working 40 hours a week a minimum wage, well then... Lastly, I am saddened to see that the concept behind this site, which both WORKED, and has GENERATED GREAT REVENUE, is now being relegated to the 'gray areas' as boundaries are pushed back and ethical tolerances lowered.

Lastly, don't forget to pay your taxes people . You take in money, you better be paying taxes. You'll find out that here in the USA us self-employed are taxed at a very high rate.

332

Developer's Corner / Re: SEO fun: Does the multi-domain tactic work?

« Last post by db90h on October 12, 2011, 07:23 PM »

...

333

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 12, 2011, 02:36 AM »

Yes, no offense intended, it was just coming from one who remembers an earlier time.

And I would say your ORIGINAL concept DID AND DOES WORK. It paid for itself many times over. It may not have made as much money as hoped, but it made money. That is a successful business. Your annual fund raising drives eclipse what I'm likely to make in a year, so that's not doing bad.. if you ask me. Be careful not to fall into the trap of capitalism, always wanting more..

One thing is clear: The days of Donationware, Fairware, or even Freeware snubbing its nose at 'Shareware' is OVER. I would take CLEAN Shareware with LIBERAL licensing over a lot of the freeware I see these days, and willingly pay for it. In this perverse way, the rise of 'freecrap' has increased the value of shareware, lol.

334

General Software Discussion / Re: Fairware: an interesting experiment in getting paid for Open Source

« Last post by db90h on October 12, 2011, 01:31 AM »

This is the most lengthy discussion I've seen in a while. Granted, I did not read most of it, hence anything I say will likely be ignorant. However, let me remind everyone, that no matter what you call it, this is a business, not any form of charity (fact, as classified by the IRS). Traditional businesses give away freebies all the time, for instance. As you struggle to, ironically, increase revenue generation, I wonder if aren't compromising the very philosophy by which the site was built.

Perhaps you should not try so hard to increase revenue generation. The site itself has its costs covered it seems. As for the authors, well how much do you expect to make? Hint: Don't expect much. It is competitive out there.

If you want to sell your software, just call it Shareware. One of my pieces of software *never* expires has almost every function fully functional indefinitely. However, since it isn't 100% freeware, I must label is Shareware - else be crucified. Can I now call it 'Fairware?' (with a few tweaks?). I guess I could.. does that get me 'extra credit' or any extra purchasers? I doubt it.

Just remember this: Everyone needs to quit pretending that trying to increase revenue generation is anything BUT business as usual. If revenue becomes your primary motivator, as it often does in this world, you might as well go ahead and embrace bundles.. Oh, wait, some have already (nothing against ya, just making my point). A few years ago I would have never thought I'd see the day... but, times change.

This is MY opinion.. to which I hope I'm entitled and not burned at the stake for. Either be different, or be the same.. The choice is always yours.

335

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations For PHP 5.3 Shared Web Host Please?

« Last post by db90h on October 09, 2011, 02:38 PM »

..delme..

336

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations For PHP 5.3 Shared Web Host Please?

« Last post by db90h on October 09, 2011, 02:36 PM »

I was about to post much earlier in this thread but thought it is only shared you are after. VPS offerings will all "allow" 5.3, if they are real (root access, etc.) VPS offerings. Places with good support (knownhost.com for example) will even help if anything is not available out of the box, most likely that include Postgres too

-rgdot (October 09, 2011, 09:02 AM)

Just BE CAREFUL. Some VPS or even cloud systems that give you full control of your own rooted server are overloaded and/or constrictive restrictive of resource rules. I had a horrible experience on a VPS on time. The first big traffic spike brought it to its knees.

337

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations For PHP 5.3 Shared Web Host Please?

« Last post by db90h on October 09, 2011, 06:15 AM »

Yes, the PHP TZ has always been recommended to declare (instead of imply via the server TZ), but unless I'm mistaken it was not until v5.3 that they started throwing warnings if it wasn't explicitly declared.

I *agree* with you, I'm all into v5.3. Since you do *need* v5.3, I have nothing else to say. It also nice to see places that make sure they stay up to date. Of course, some places may do so, but not update their web pages and marketing right away.

I also agree it is a shame server admins don't want to deal with 'upgrade issues', and the resultant effect is old software. I keep the latest stuff on my server, and upgrade whatever I need to, or deal with any issues that pop up. Of course, I care about my server - and am not just using it to host 100 companies I don't care about ... point being, it is easier to want to ignore any non-essential changes when the server isn't your own. And, yea, sure they could install them side by side, let user accounts pick which to use.. but

And IPv6.. I hear ya. I could go on, and on...

338

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations For PHP 5.3 Shared Web Host Please?

« Last post by db90h on October 09, 2011, 05:33 AM »

Why do you care about PHP 5.3? It is an incremental update, at best. Nothing important. Any important security fixes have been backported... In fact, many admins don't like v5.3 because it is a bit more strict in some areas (mostly in the time zone no longer being inferred from the server's tz setting by default). Some scripts that haven't been updated will throw lots of warnings or malfunction, though that isn't the norm by any means.

Myself? I *do* use PHP v5.3, found out the hard way I had to specify the TZ setting in php.ini (or at runtime). Unless you have really unusual scripts that depends on some really new stuff in PHP v5.3, I'm sure v5.2 will be more than fine.

339

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations For PHP 5.3 Shared Web Host Please?

« Last post by db90h on October 07, 2011, 06:31 AM »

I've been through plenty of shared hosts..

Look, here is the trend: Some new shared host opens up. They offer great prices, unlimited everything. They over-commit and exceed their capacity. Services cut back, prices go up, support goes down.

Don't pick any price that sound too good to be true and perhaps you can avoid those that over-load their servers. Of course, even without over-loading, shared servers are subject to more DDoS attacks and such since multiple hosts are on one box.

340

General Software Discussion / Re: The False Positive and Improperly Rated Site Epidemic

« Last post by db90h on October 05, 2011, 07:05 AM »

Congrats to all those who helped in any way. It was not just me, it was also April and Stephen who dedicated their time to this project too. Stephen got us a nice looking web site going fast, hosted it even. April is doing everything that needs doing, including the logo at the top. Certain security vendors helped by encouraging early support, etc... Lastly, those who simply spread the word are doing as important a job as any.

341

General Software Discussion / Re: The False Positive and Improperly Rated Site Epidemic

« Last post by db90h on October 05, 2011, 06:28 AM »

The False Positive Report
First week results = 2 of 3 reported FPs fixed on, and at, our forum

In our first week of operation (actually merely days), we had 3 real-time false-positive reports. *2 OF THOSE 3 WERE FIXED _AT_ OUT FORUMS* (one by Trend Micro, the other by Symantec).

We are very proud of the security companies who have stepped up to the plate to mitigate collateral damage wherever they can.

Many or most major security companies are monitoring the forum. The concept is working. All we need now are for more people to report any unresolved false positives or site mis-ratings. Consider our site a safety net in this way, though its uses are far beyond that.

Ever wondered which security product has the lowest false positive rate? Not just in a lab, in the real world? Especially with so many heuristic and behavioral based detections, what is the true FP rate? What about site mis-ratings? How do they figure in?

Answer all this and more by participating ... or spreading the word, so people know 'where to go'

This is a non-profit, all volunteer organization that accepts no monetary donations.

http://falsepositivereport.com

342

General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam

« Last post by db90h on October 01, 2011, 10:50 PM »

The smarter would be to do as others are, capitalize on being one of the few remaining download sites who has not sold out. Users appreciate that -- especially in a download site you are 'trusting' to get your software, and perhaps take recommendations from.

343

General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam

« Last post by db90h on October 01, 2011, 08:06 PM »

Not really surprised.. as I said, CNET set the standard. They had a moral obligation as the largest download site.

344

General Software Discussion / Re: Pricing Software - Some Considerations and Techniques

« Last post by db90h on October 01, 2011, 02:17 AM »

I will research and study your methods, if this is true it is a paradigm shift for shareware authors still selling their software.

345

General Software Discussion / Re: Pricing Software - Some Considerations and Techniques

« Last post by db90h on October 01, 2011, 12:31 AM »

You can do all the studies in the world and you'll eventually arrive at the conclusion that consumers willing to pay for a good or service will pay what they consider a reasonable price, while those who will not pay, will not pay any price, no matter how low. I've never increased volume by lowering my prices either. I wish I could say I did ;o. Then we could really lower the cost of software.

346

General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam

« Last post by db90h on September 27, 2011, 02:18 PM »

Me neither, I don't think they intended to reply to us though ;p

347

General Software Discussion / Re: The False Positive and Improperly Rated Site Epidemic

« Last post by db90h on September 27, 2011, 09:08 AM »

my login doesnt work for this site (just reporting, not bitching!)

-tomos (September 27, 2011, 09:00 AM)

If you can elaborate, perhaps it might be helpful too... . Sorry again.

EDIT: We did NOT migrate accounts, as I thought we would. The reason being is that the new site is using SMF 1.1.15, while I use SMF 2.0.1 .. so it would have been a harder issue.

348

General Software Discussion / Re: The False Positive and Improperly Rated Site Epidemic

« Last post by db90h on September 27, 2011, 09:03 AM »

my login doesnt work for this site (just reporting, not bitching!)

-tomos (September 27, 2011, 09:00 AM)

Stephen from DC here admins and hosts the site... but I will check into it and see if I see the issue. Sorry for this. It is new, so there are kinks

349

General Software Discussion / Re: Cnet's Download.com and the installer scam

« Last post by db90h on September 27, 2011, 09:01 AM »

They also recently sent out a survey to all vendors, asking their opinions on this toolbar bundle. The one thing that was clear was that they have no plans to remove it completely.

-db90h (September 27, 2011, 12:16 AM)

I received this email survey and sent back a rather scathing reply.

-skwire (September 27, 2011, 08:58 AM)

Me too. Did you notice how they clearly had no intent of removing the bundle, but instead were trying to find out ways to keep it?

350

General Software Discussion / Re: The False Positive and Improperly Rated Site Epidemic

« Last post by db90h on September 27, 2011, 07:37 AM »

What I mean to say is --- please, everyone, help spread the word . I would also like to reiterate that no profit, or even exposure is being generated for me. I am not even using my company or real name, nor linking to my site, nor anything - as I do not want there to be any doubt this is for the good of ALL OF US. In fact, I am trying to get out of the site, leaving it to volunteers, though ...