Talk:Miranda NG

i was looking at the comparison chart of the IM software and this one looks like a good one to use, because it supports more protocal other then the popular ones like AIM, and you can have plug-in without having to get the "pro" version. but 5 minutes after using it, i got confuse, i give it a 8/10

POV

Is it just me or the tone of this article a bit biased (in favor)? — flamingspinach | (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds like an advertisement. - Sikon 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so. This needs fixing. --Gwilym 08:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems perfectly fine to me. Everything stated in the first paragraph is true. Miranda isn't hard if you put a little effort into it. The history is not quite accurate though...Aaron Myles Landwehr 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to its extremely flexible nature, Miranda holds greater appeal to people who like to tweak their software, but no special skills are required in order to use it. Advanced users may wish to dig deeper into the Miranda IM database files with one of the available database plugins. Call now! Eclipsed Moon 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank god people started actually contributing instead of whining about how it sounds like an advertisement then didn't bother to change it or modify it. Aaron Myles Landwehr 09:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open source? Free software?

I dispute the edit that changed 'open source' to 'free software'. GPL *is* an OSI approved license... + for goodness' sake... this would make the fact that linux is open-source invalid too! Free software *is* open-source, though open-source *may* not be free software.

People should get their facts straight. Matt 14:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page on squirrels. Notice how it says the squirrel is a rodent, but it doesn't say that the squirrel is a living thing. This is because it is much more useful to say that the squirrel is a rodent. Additionally, saying the squirrel is a rodent implies that it is also a living thing. By saying that Miranda IM is free software, it implies that it is also open source. By replacing "open source" with "free software" there is more information presented in the same number of words. Please see this for more information on this important difference of these terms. --Mosquitopsu 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the general public (hell, most people outside of those who wrote the page you linked) looks at the term 'free software' they think 'freeware'. Meanwhile, everyone knows 'open source' means the source is open and free. Semantic debates are pointless - what we want is to be informative and not to mislead people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software: Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, is software which can be used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed without restriction.

Miranda cannot be "copied, studied, modified and redistributed without restriction". Ergo it is not "free software", even according to this definition. gssq 09:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that when many people see "free software" that they think "freeware," which is unfortunate. However, putting "open source" doesn't tell these people anything either. It doesn't describe how the user has the freedom to "copy, study, modify and redistribute without restriction." This is why "free software" is made into a link so that this information can be found. When someone who does know the correct definition of free software and prefers to only use free software is browsing Wikipedia, it is very important to know that a certain peice of software in an article is free software. Someone who is devoted to free software will turn down software that is merely open source.

Secondly, Miranda IM is free software. It is under the GNU GPL (as shown right in the Miranda IM article under "license"), a free software license. According to the GPL article: "The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is the most popular free software license." Heck, I can take Miranda IM, put it on a CD and sell it to someone for 100 bucks ... completely legally (something not always true for open source). --Mosquitopsu 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.4.x History is Incorrect

I dispute the history involving Rainwater & Egodust. I happen to know that Rainwater is still involved with the project and that Egodust did not leave for the stated reasons as I am also involved with project & I've talked with both of the said developers. Does anyone know where the history came from? Forum gossip? Internet Trickery? Aaron Myles Landwehr 09:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a rumour induced by Bongwater's absolutely *horrible* attitude when it comes to dealing with Miranda users (see the forums for regular jerkisms), and refusing to accept change within the client (a.k.a. nerd fights). The "core decisions" made in Miranda are kept **completely** out of the public's eye, for reasons completely unknown. Who decides what is never discussed or disclosed; end-users are left wondering who decided to change things for the worse... yadda yadda. -- Semi-anonymous

The next build is going to be named 0.5 - there is already a build of that version - v0.5.57 - the build before that was still 0.4.3, but now it's named 0.5 --87.248.181.67 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVS was moved to SVN, and plans implemented to create a branch structure, which was the catalyst for the 0.4.3 > 0.5.0 version change.

some cleanup and further need for revision

I updated the release history to include 0.5.x and removed the paragraph concerning rainwater leaving, as he announced the new release on the miranda website (http://www.miranda-im.org/2006/07/28/miranda-im-v05-released/).

However, I don't know what the future plans are, so I left that as is. It needs to be updated. Earthsound 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]