4 ms·

the author deliberately omitted copy protection, went to great effort to make the software extensible by the user, and hopes to make a little money from nearly

the author deliberately omitted copy protection, went to great effort to make the software extensible by the user, and hopes to make a little money from nearly a decade of work -- for me, there's a good enough balance of software freedoms. it's okay if that's not free enough to meet your standards. it's worth considering that the commodore scene is tiny, and that Greg's site has long been a key resource in the community. his buyer's guide and programming tutorials are widely cited -- these are resources he contributes freely. Greg's influence has helped increase the size of our community by lowering the barrier for entry. i do hope that one day he begins open-sourcing (at least) the core applications. but i don't object to his release model. edit: removed 1 clause. 'vitriolic' wasn't fair, i apologize.

snvzz 4y ago
>for me, there's a good enough balance of software freedoms. For me, it clearly is not. It being an OS, there's an implicit expectation that third parties will write software for it, and it just doesn't sit well with me. >it's worth considering that the commodore scene is tiny, and that Greg's site has long been a key resource in the community. his buyer's guide and programming tutorials are widely cited -- these are resources he contributes freely. I used them before, love them, even have a local backup in case they go away. But as for C64 OS, only disappointment. I had some expectations, which were just betrayed. >Greg's influence has helped increase the size of our community by lowering the barrier for entry. And yet, a new proprietary OS raises the barrier of entry. It creates yet another silo. To access it, having a C64 is not enough, you'll also have to buy C64 OS. >but your comment is unnecessarily vitriolic. Is that because it disagrees with your views, while politely describing my actual feelings on the matter? I do not appreciate being told that my feelings are not valid. It really makes me sick, and I am less willing to participate in the C64 community now, as my energy will be drained every time I reference his excellent documentation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

snvzz 4y ago

>for me, there's a good enough balance of software freedoms. For me, it clearly is not. It being an OS, there's an implicit expectation that third parties will write software for it, and it just doesn't sit well with me. >it's worth considering that the commodore scene is tiny, and that Greg's site has long been a key resource in the community. his buyer's guide and programming tutorials are widely cited -- these are resources he contributes freely. I used them before, love them, even have a local backup in case they go away. But as for C64 OS, only disappointment. I had some expectations, which were just betrayed. >Greg's influence has helped increase the size of our community by lowering the barrier for entry. And yet, a new proprietary OS raises the barrier of entry. It creates yet another silo. To access it, having a C64 is not enough, you'll also have to buy C64 OS. >but your comment is unnecessarily vitriolic. Is that because it disagrees with your views, while politely describing my actual feelings on the matter? I do not appreciate being told that my feelings are not valid. It really makes me sick, and I am less willing to participate in the C64 community now, as my energy will be drained every time I reference his excellent documentation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]