Is It Possible Not To Be Involved With Workspaces?
-
Simple question. If I do not need or want Workspaces, how do I opt out of it? Please advise...
-
Simple question. If I do not need or want Workspaces, how do I opt out of it? Please advise...
What do you mean? You do not need to use the ::Workspaces features, if you do not want. Internally, ::Workspaces power a number of CodeProject mechanisms (like issue tracking, code repository hosting), and as such is used for all CodeProject users. Is there anything that you wish ::Workspaces would do better? If there is something which annoys you, there is chance that we simply fix it ;)
-
What do you mean? You do not need to use the ::Workspaces features, if you do not want. Internally, ::Workspaces power a number of CodeProject mechanisms (like issue tracking, code repository hosting), and as such is used for all CodeProject users. Is there anything that you wish ::Workspaces would do better? If there is something which annoys you, there is chance that we simply fix it ;)
I thought that I asked a simple question. Is it possible not to be involved with Workspaces, can we opt out of using it? Please advise...
-
I thought that I asked a simple question. Is it possible not to be involved with Workspaces, can we opt out of using it? Please advise...
Well, ::Workspaces is integral part of CodeProject com, e.g. there is only one user account for both systems. There is no easy way to opt out of ::Workspaces, maybe just do not visit workspaces.codeproject.com. Since user account is the same as for codeproject.com account, you would need to delete that, if you want to be fully opted out. We are constantly trying to improve our services and offer developers means to do their work better. Some users might see the changes we do being actually directed in the other way. We would be really sorry if you would see our changes as a bad thing. If that is the case, we would really appreciate if you could share some feedback what we should do better.
-
Well, ::Workspaces is integral part of CodeProject com, e.g. there is only one user account for both systems. There is no easy way to opt out of ::Workspaces, maybe just do not visit workspaces.codeproject.com. Since user account is the same as for codeproject.com account, you would need to delete that, if you want to be fully opted out. We are constantly trying to improve our services and offer developers means to do their work better. Some users might see the changes we do being actually directed in the other way. We would be really sorry if you would see our changes as a bad thing. If that is the case, we would really appreciate if you could share some feedback what we should do better.
So that was a no, you cannot opt out of Workspaces, unless it is annoying. OK, a couple more questions for you then. I apologize if these questions have been addressed else where, but I believe that they are important and should be answered as many times as they are asked. You see, Workspaces could be considered as an infringement to the concept of free source code for all, please note that is an emphasis on could. The feature is being sold as a product and appears to be positioning itself as a fee based service and as a tracking mechanism, using code which is contributed for free. If the CodeProject wishes to employ a fee based service, then they should be able to move forward unabated. However, the CodeProject should employ a mechanism to allow authors to determine when and how their code can be distributed. I'm talking about the distribution apparatus along with it's tracking connotations and cost. In other words, can authors choose NOT to make their code available to Workspaces and simply allow only for the agreed upon manual download interface supplied by a web browser? It would tend to ensure that people would not have to pay for a piece of source code or be tracked through relationships which earn money for an organization based on someone else's hard work. (lattitude here but how much) This could be an interesting point as the CodeProject has strived to allow the employment of almost every license agreement available. Is the CP going to continue with that practice with Workspaces distributions? Also, and I think this is important to answer, but does Workspaces intend on using a pipelined distribution apparatus for it's membership? That would include, web services, source code managers in development IDEs, and third party distributions. It is relevent, that is, the distribution aparatus and licensing scheme. Remember, and at the end of the day I would like to see the code project be a success. However, please keep in mind that what I liked about the CodeProject is it's intention of a free code base for all. Has that policy changed? Please advise and thanks for your patience!
-
So that was a no, you cannot opt out of Workspaces, unless it is annoying. OK, a couple more questions for you then. I apologize if these questions have been addressed else where, but I believe that they are important and should be answered as many times as they are asked. You see, Workspaces could be considered as an infringement to the concept of free source code for all, please note that is an emphasis on could. The feature is being sold as a product and appears to be positioning itself as a fee based service and as a tracking mechanism, using code which is contributed for free. If the CodeProject wishes to employ a fee based service, then they should be able to move forward unabated. However, the CodeProject should employ a mechanism to allow authors to determine when and how their code can be distributed. I'm talking about the distribution apparatus along with it's tracking connotations and cost. In other words, can authors choose NOT to make their code available to Workspaces and simply allow only for the agreed upon manual download interface supplied by a web browser? It would tend to ensure that people would not have to pay for a piece of source code or be tracked through relationships which earn money for an organization based on someone else's hard work. (lattitude here but how much) This could be an interesting point as the CodeProject has strived to allow the employment of almost every license agreement available. Is the CP going to continue with that practice with Workspaces distributions? Also, and I think this is important to answer, but does Workspaces intend on using a pipelined distribution apparatus for it's membership? That would include, web services, source code managers in development IDEs, and third party distributions. It is relevent, that is, the distribution aparatus and licensing scheme. Remember, and at the end of the day I would like to see the code project be a success. However, please keep in mind that what I liked about the CodeProject is it's intention of a free code base for all. Has that policy changed? Please advise and thanks for your patience!
I jump into that conversation, being an author on here I got some relevant stuff on your points.
Mark Regal wrote:
You see, Workspaces could be considered as an infringement to the concept of free source code for all, please note that is an emphasis on could. The feature is being sold as a product and appears to be positioning itself as a fee based service and as a tracking mechanism, using code which is contributed for free.
That is not true - You pay for Workspaces if you do not want anyone else to see your code - e.g. stuff you want to host on a cheap repo but shall not be available to the public. If you made your code available to the public ( and you can do that even with a free [in the sense of "No money was paid"] account ) everyone who has an account on CodeProject can download the source. From this POV, CodeProject is even giving you a (small) financial gain if you make your code publicly available.
Mark Regal wrote:
You see, Workspaces could be considered as an infringement to the concept of free source code for all, please note that is an emphasis on could. The feature is being sold as a product and appears to be positioning itself as a fee based service and as a tracking mechanism, using code which is contributed for free.
No, since you don't need to pay to be able to download other's source code (nor need you to upload your own code, except you want to keep it private).
Mark Regal wrote:
However, please keep in mind that what I liked about the CodeProject is it's intention of a free code base for all. Has that policy changed?
Not as far as I can see - I use Workspaces for one of my side projects, the source is fully visible to the public and neither I nor anyone who wants to download it is charged money. However, *if* I wanted to have this code on Workspaces and not visible to anyone, *then* I'd need to pay. I left some of your points out since I can't answer them, I'm not a CP Staff member but only an Author who wanted to throw his 5 cents in. cheers, Marco
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
-
So that was a no, you cannot opt out of Workspaces, unless it is annoying. OK, a couple more questions for you then. I apologize if these questions have been addressed else where, but I believe that they are important and should be answered as many times as they are asked. You see, Workspaces could be considered as an infringement to the concept of free source code for all, please note that is an emphasis on could. The feature is being sold as a product and appears to be positioning itself as a fee based service and as a tracking mechanism, using code which is contributed for free. If the CodeProject wishes to employ a fee based service, then they should be able to move forward unabated. However, the CodeProject should employ a mechanism to allow authors to determine when and how their code can be distributed. I'm talking about the distribution apparatus along with it's tracking connotations and cost. In other words, can authors choose NOT to make their code available to Workspaces and simply allow only for the agreed upon manual download interface supplied by a web browser? It would tend to ensure that people would not have to pay for a piece of source code or be tracked through relationships which earn money for an organization based on someone else's hard work. (lattitude here but how much) This could be an interesting point as the CodeProject has strived to allow the employment of almost every license agreement available. Is the CP going to continue with that practice with Workspaces distributions? Also, and I think this is important to answer, but does Workspaces intend on using a pipelined distribution apparatus for it's membership? That would include, web services, source code managers in development IDEs, and third party distributions. It is relevent, that is, the distribution aparatus and licensing scheme. Remember, and at the end of the day I would like to see the code project be a success. However, please keep in mind that what I liked about the CodeProject is it's intention of a free code base for all. Has that policy changed? Please advise and thanks for your patience!
Thanks for detailed response. If I understand correctly, you assume that we will charge for access to public content. Let me clarify: ::Workspaces is and always will be free for public content. Only if you want to have private content, not visible to anyone else, you need to have premium account. For example, if you are developing open source library and you want to put them on ::Workspaces, you can do that for free, and users will be able to access it and collaborate with you for free. There is no plans, and I don't believe they will ever appear, to take public content (e.g. from codeproject.com) and hide it behind paywall. We are simply not going to cross that border. It is possible that we will add paid applications in future, some of which might be paid even for public content. For example, you can host open source library project on ::Workspaces for free, and collaborate on it for free. But, if we will add some static code analysis application, maybe we will need to charge for it - whether or not you use the app only to analyse public code. This is, however, completely different scenario, and I believe you were not referring to it. Does the above fully answer you questions?
-
Thanks for detailed response. If I understand correctly, you assume that we will charge for access to public content. Let me clarify: ::Workspaces is and always will be free for public content. Only if you want to have private content, not visible to anyone else, you need to have premium account. For example, if you are developing open source library and you want to put them on ::Workspaces, you can do that for free, and users will be able to access it and collaborate with you for free. There is no plans, and I don't believe they will ever appear, to take public content (e.g. from codeproject.com) and hide it behind paywall. We are simply not going to cross that border. It is possible that we will add paid applications in future, some of which might be paid even for public content. For example, you can host open source library project on ::Workspaces for free, and collaborate on it for free. But, if we will add some static code analysis application, maybe we will need to charge for it - whether or not you use the app only to analyse public code. This is, however, completely different scenario, and I believe you were not referring to it. Does the above fully answer you questions?
Interesting and thank you for the response. From what both you and Marco are saying, it seems as it could prove useful for many developers. I also have noted that CodeProject's policy with regards to a free code base will remain as it always has. Thanks for that guys as I think it is an important response for the development community. But I'd still like to digress to my original question, as many people will both use the service and equally not need the service, would it be possible to opt out of it completely? It begs to ask the question, why are we being provided a login to a tertiary service which some could potentially never need or use. Also, will the CodeProject be elaborating on any new licenses for Workspaces? Elaborating the intentions of pipe-line distributions and tracking of those distributions using Workspaces? Does the CodeProject feel it necessary to protect an author's rights any more than it is already doing? Please advise...
-
Interesting and thank you for the response. From what both you and Marco are saying, it seems as it could prove useful for many developers. I also have noted that CodeProject's policy with regards to a free code base will remain as it always has. Thanks for that guys as I think it is an important response for the development community. But I'd still like to digress to my original question, as many people will both use the service and equally not need the service, would it be possible to opt out of it completely? It begs to ask the question, why are we being provided a login to a tertiary service which some could potentially never need or use. Also, will the CodeProject be elaborating on any new licenses for Workspaces? Elaborating the intentions of pipe-line distributions and tracking of those distributions using Workspaces? Does the CodeProject feel it necessary to protect an author's rights any more than it is already doing? Please advise...
Thanks for understanding. Now, for your question: the fact is that ::Workspaces is not a third party service. The fact that we're using 2 different domains now is.. implementation detail ;) ::Workspaces is considered as a next generation of CodeProject infrastructure. It will eventually merge and replace existing CP application. CodeProject was always meant to be about projects. We have settled with articles for a while (ok, it was over a decade..), but eventually we'll extend to projects. ::Workspaces as you see them today is just first step toward that goal, there will be many other steps. As I said above, the fact that currently you see 2 different engines running is only because we have limited resources. And in addition to writing the new engine from scratch it will take significantly more time to refactor/rewrite all existing features (like, forums). We could wait for extra year(s) working behind the scenes and then unveil the grand product, but we decided that it is a lesser evil to go with 2 separate engines for the time being, getting user feedback along the way, eventually migrating everything just to have one better codeproject.com. The current approach also gives us some flexibility. E.g. we may end up dropping the ::Workspaces brand and having only something like 'CodeProject, now with workspaces', or keeping the ::Workspaces separate for a longer while, if that will prove to be useful. Anyway, that is why you cannot opt-out from ::Workspaces, still being opt-in to CP, they are meant to be one. Internally they share lots of modules, and over time they will share more.
-
Thanks for understanding. Now, for your question: the fact is that ::Workspaces is not a third party service. The fact that we're using 2 different domains now is.. implementation detail ;) ::Workspaces is considered as a next generation of CodeProject infrastructure. It will eventually merge and replace existing CP application. CodeProject was always meant to be about projects. We have settled with articles for a while (ok, it was over a decade..), but eventually we'll extend to projects. ::Workspaces as you see them today is just first step toward that goal, there will be many other steps. As I said above, the fact that currently you see 2 different engines running is only because we have limited resources. And in addition to writing the new engine from scratch it will take significantly more time to refactor/rewrite all existing features (like, forums). We could wait for extra year(s) working behind the scenes and then unveil the grand product, but we decided that it is a lesser evil to go with 2 separate engines for the time being, getting user feedback along the way, eventually migrating everything just to have one better codeproject.com. The current approach also gives us some flexibility. E.g. we may end up dropping the ::Workspaces brand and having only something like 'CodeProject, now with workspaces', or keeping the ::Workspaces separate for a longer while, if that will prove to be useful. Anyway, that is why you cannot opt-out from ::Workspaces, still being opt-in to CP, they are meant to be one. Internally they share lots of modules, and over time they will share more.
Ah, clarity and the blind can see. OK, so this is the new format going forward, entry into the collabrative cloud. You're doing a side by side and will be working on it for awhile. The CodeProject does some impeccable work and has been both noticed and appreciated over the years, at least by me. I suppose then you've already worked out what authors are going to need in the way of license agreements but I'll simply leave that with you for the time being. CP has always been a trusted source so, I suppose, you'll watch out for both our tails. Thank you for the enlightenment and I look forward to the cloud :)
-
Ah, clarity and the blind can see. OK, so this is the new format going forward, entry into the collabrative cloud. You're doing a side by side and will be working on it for awhile. The CodeProject does some impeccable work and has been both noticed and appreciated over the years, at least by me. I suppose then you've already worked out what authors are going to need in the way of license agreements but I'll simply leave that with you for the time being. CP has always been a trusted source so, I suppose, you'll watch out for both our tails. Thank you for the enlightenment and I look forward to the cloud :)
Thanks! :)