So basically you took the works of other people (open source) and locked it behind some generic online forum & haven't released the source code. Mods should remove this thread & give DrEmuler a warning/ban.
It seems some assumptions are being made without actually evaluating the project first.
If you had tried the application, watched the demonstration video, or read the included documentation, you would have seen that El Mago contains a significant amount of original code and functionality developed specifically for this project.
Yes, it integrates existing 3rd party tools where appropriate, and those tools are credited accordingly. Reusing reliable, well-established components is common practice in software development. Rewriting mature tools from scratch simply for the sake of doing so would provide little value to users.
The documentation, credits, and project philosophy are all publicly available. I would encourage anyone interested to review those materials and try the software before drawing conclusions about what it is or how it was built.
As far as I know, there is no rule on this site or on most others that requires every utility to be released as open source.
I completely understand if the fact that it's closed source makes some people uncomfortable or causes them to distrust it. If that's the case and they choose not to use it, that's perfectly fine. Everyone is free to make that choice; that's how the internet works.
What I don't understand is the idea that a project should be removed, or that its author should be warned or banned, simply because it is not open source.
Further down in this thread I explain in detail why El Mago is not open source and why it will never be. People are free to agree or disagree with those reasons, but the decision has been made and has been clearly stated from the beginning.
Suggesting a warning or a ban for someone who is contributing to the community seems a bit excessive, don't you think?
It might be a good idea to test it before judging it.
We're having a discussion about a piece of software that one side hasn't even used.
How can I reasonably treat those arguments as informed criticism when they're being made about something that hasn't been tested, evaluated, or even experienced firsthand?
I'm not saying anyone has to like the project, but I do think it's fair to expect that a product should be tried, or at least properly reviewed, before strong conclusions are drawn about it.
Have to register to a forum to get download link ...
Yes, its a way to protect (as much i can) the download link against crawlers, AI, and other stuff.
Site doesn't contain any ads, shotteners or other annoying/harmful stuff
Youtube punish videos that contains download/direct links regardless the content.
This website have rules about that so, its the "best" way to do this.
I released here other tools (that size less) and are direct links and are attached to the post.
this tool its about 1.6GB... so i think its an understandable POV
The true optimal cluster size is 64 KB by the way.
..It's a Windows utility, so I guess [Homebrew] tag doesn't fit here correctly, it won't run on a Switch itself like a homebrew program.
Last but not least: what's the license of it? Is it closed source?..
- As has happened with Atmosphere and many other projects hosted on GitHub, some people simply reskin or rebrand the work and take all the credit. Sometimes that’s the least of the problem; in more serious cases, they actually SELL a product that the original author released for FREE.
- Building on the previous point, many “shops” and “technicians” take ownership of the work and sell it to customers who don’t know much about the scene.
- I gave it its own design and identity, and I want it to stay that way.
- I don’t want to be forced into maintaining and monitoring a repository, especially since, being potentially considered a “gray area” project, it could be taken down faster than it took me to create it.
- I believe everyone is free to decide whether they like a project or not. What I don't think is fair is making assumptions or passing judgment on something that hasn't even been tested, or dismissing it simply because it doesn't match your preferred way of doing things. Sometimes it's perfectly fine to just ignore a project and move on if it isn't for you.
These days, very few people are willing to invest their time creating something for the community for free. Even the developers behind Atmosphere's successor, Alula, have spoken about this kind of situation: people demanding features, deadlines, and results while contributing little themselves, and criticizing work that was offered in good faith.
Constructive feedback is always welcome and valuable. That's how projects improve. But there's a difference between feedback that helps a project grow and criticism that contributes nothing except negativity.
At the very least, trying the software before judging it would be a good start.
Everyone is welcome to use it, and if they don't like it, they're just as welcome to ignore it and move on.
