Altering that JRE license to my own ends

General Discussions
#81

[quote]Well, personally, I don’t believe that web-start is really the way to go. When I investigated it, I was quite horrified to discover that one needs to digitally sign the jars for it to work.
[/quote]
I consider this to be a "Good Thing"™. If properly marketed it can give us some consumer confidence in the world of outlook virus distribution - where Microsoft has lost credibility - we can step in with SAFE downloadable games.

[quote]Thus we are stuck using a self-signed certificate, which I will point out leaves you with a dialog box that explicitly states:

“It is highly recommended not to install and run this code.”

Do you really want your users exposed to that?
[/quote]
Well no, of course not… but then you should only be using a self-signed certificate for testing. If you use the Thawte “web of trust” I think you can get a certificate that works though is not personalized. As others have stated - if you are realying intending to make money at this the cost of a certificate is not the show stopper. IT IS a problem for the casual hobby programmer (me) since I don’t expect to make much money on anything I do outside of my “real job”. At least I don’t want to count on making money from my hobby programming.

[quote]And while I might try also distributing a self-executable jar for the Linux/Mac users, I will certainly not be creating a web-start version.
[/quote]
Why not? You can do so for free and it provides the Linux/Mac users with a easy install/update/launch mechanism. Seems pointless to leave it out simply because it isn’t perfect.

#82

I disagree - an extra $200/year is a significant obstacle to the average indie developer. Especially when it can be avoided by simply offering a standard downloadable installer, which is more in line with what the customer base expects anyway.

Paul

#83

SWPalmer -

I think you may be confused as to exactly what Thawte’s “web of trust” is. I can tell you it’s certainly not a means of getting a valid code-signing cert. That’s available at a cost of $200/year from Thawte. Wait, you want a cert to secure your website for online purchasing? That’s a different kind of cert, also available for $200/year. Trust me, I know the field, digital certificates 'aint cheap.

And it’s not a matter of being able to swallow the cost, it’s a matter of cost/benefit analysis. There is a perfectly good way to distribute java based applications without incurring this cost. Simply make it a downloadable installer. Again, the customer base is already used to this method, and it’s free. I have yet to see any reason that webstart is a “good thing”.

Paul

#84

The patching feature is great, Paul. I like the code-signing too. But as you rightly point out, and I’ve been trying to say all along to Chris, that the developer market I am pitching at here is entirely different to the Big Studio / Corporate developer market. Java is competing with C++ hobbyists and Blitz Basic. The toolsets are considerably cheaper.

On a related note to another post - does anybody have a link to IBM’s JDK 1.4 for Windows? I want to have a look in their license and see if there’s anyone enlightened at IBM I can talk to about my ideas…

Cas :slight_smile:

#85

There is no public link to download the 1.4 for windows. You need to download Websphere MQ(which is 75MB) to get it.

Here is the link for that
http://www14.software.ibm.com/webapp/download/product.jsp?s=p&id=TDUN-49EVER&dt=TRIAL&v=5.3

You do not need to install the whole package, after unpacking it asks you if you want to install mq. Say no and then in \Source\MACVEnUs\Prereqs\JDK will be ibm-java2-sdk-140.exe

Hope this helps

nathan

#86

[quote]I disagree - an extra $200/year is a significant obstacle to the average indie developer.
[/quote]
I agree. But I’m going to aggressively push for people to use webstart anyway. It is a lot nicer way to start a java game than anything else - even an applet, which tends far too often to crash the web browser because of crappy browser JVM’s and/or integration. Both MSIE and Mozilla have caused me serious pain with this in the past.

There is also the aspect that the game is always accessible once you’ve played it - you don’t have to go hunting for the page. Playing for the second time doesn’t require download it again (not true for applets), and updates are delivered automatically and, theoretically, incrementally, saving a lot of agony for dialup surfers.

Or, to put it another way, I never trusted WS and I hated it on windows - it was cranky buggy and never worked properly. On linux, where it works all the time (albeit with some serious bugs) it’s made trying out games that people post on JGO so much easier and simpler that I’ve been converted in a very short time.

Finally, that popup is the same one I see every time I go to windows update - before I’m even allowed to see the darned list of available updates. Ditto if I try to play any Yahoo Games. etc etc etc. It’s become like banner ads - you stop noticing after a while :).

#87

[quote]I disagree - an extra $200/year is a significant obstacle to the average indie developer.
[/quote]
Do these people have any friends? Start a cooperative just for the purpose of authenticating their produce.

#88

By the way - in Java 1.5, that message is MUCH nicer. It is more like the “do you trust this company [always/yes/no]?” They got rid of the “highly recommended not” bit which is good.

Will.

#89

Ya know - that’s a great idea! Perhaps JavaGaming.org can offer a signing service to low-budget developers. Though to be safe from trojans and such I think it would only be safe if the code that was signed was provided in source form and built by those offering the service.

#90

That’s something I was going to do with Puppy Games.
(But the total lack of any publishable games from anyone yet means I’m not in a hurry to go spending hundreds of $ on a certificate…)

Cas :slight_smile:

#91

[quote]By the way - in Java 1.5, that message is MUCH nicer. It is more like the “do you trust this company [always/yes/no]?” They got rid of the “highly recommended not” bit which is good.
[/quote]
Hurrah! :smiley: