Facebook-Page

[Linxx]

If you know who made it?!

no clue...

[webdesigner97]

If you know who made it?!

no clue...

:D I already asked celeron55 wheter we are allowed to cal the page "official". Then people would know which one is the real one ;)

[BrandonReese]

If you know who made it?!

My guess is whoever made the Facebook page Nisi linked to is the same person who made www.minetest.com. There is a Like box on Minetest.com linked to the Facebook Page. I don't remember who made Minetest.com or if they are still active in the community or not. There also seems to be a twitter account @minetest_c55

[Topywo]

There seem to be/have been at least 3 or more minetest facebooks (including 1 french). (search, facebook, see oldest posts).

[webdesigner97]

I asked celeron55 wheter we could call it official, and he said I should ask on IRC...

[webdesigner97]

Let's do it like this, cause I don't want to go to IRC now:

How agrees in calling a new facebook page for minetest "official"? Who doesn't agree? I think that if we call it official, everybody would know that THIS page is the real one :)

[Nisi]

Let's do it like this, cause I don't want to go to IRC now:

How agrees in calling a new facebook page for minetest "official"? Who doesn't agree? I think that if we call it official, everybody would know that THIS page is the real one :)

I think there are enough Mintest pages. I'd just like the current official one being revived.

[webdesigner97]

Let's do it like this, cause I don't want to go to IRC now:

How agrees in calling a new facebook page for minetest "official"? Who doesn't agree? I think that if we call it official, everybody would know that THIS page is the real one :)

I think there are enough Mintest pages. I'd just like the current official one being revived.

Sure, but we'll need to contact the owner... I'll try to do this...

[webdesigner97]

Let's do it like this, cause I don't want to go to IRC now:

How agrees in calling a new facebook page for minetest "official"? Who doesn't agree? I think that if we call it official, everybody would know that THIS page is the real one :)

I think there are enough Mintest pages. I'd just like the current official one being revived.

Sure, but we'll need to contact the owner... I'll try to do this...

Ok, I contacted the owner of minetest.com :)

[PilzAdam]

How agrees in calling a new facebook page for minetest "official"? Who doesn't agree? I think that if we call it official, everybody would know that THIS page is the real one :)

I am against it, I dont like facebook and wont support it in any form.

[webdesigner97]

How agrees in calling a new facebook page for minetest "official"? Who doesn't agree? I think that if we call it official, everybody would know that THIS page is the real one :)

I am against it, I dont like facebook and wont support it in any form.

You don't need to like it ;)

[addi]

I am against it, I dont like facebook and wont support it in any form.

me²

[Zeg9]

I am against it, I dont like facebook and wont support it in any form.

me²

Same here.

[webdesigner97]

But you shouldn't forget that Facebook can be a good platform to make ads for minetest. Imagine someone would like a post on the minetest page, then all of his friends may see this and visit the facebook page (and maybe the minetest homepage) too.

[onpon4]

But you shouldn't forget that Facebook can be a good platform to make ads for minetest. Imagine someone would like a post on the minetest page, then all of his friends may see this and visit the facebook page (and maybe the minetest homepage) too.

I don't really agree that that's the case. The only real promotional advantage of social networking sites is word of mouth from friends, and I don't think that's made any better by a page for the topic existing on the social networking site. Whether a page exists or not, people on Facebook who like Minetest will have no trouble telling their friends about it.

[Darkbee]

I don't really agree that that's the case. The only real promotional advantage of social networking sites is word of mouth from friends, and I don't think that's made any better by a page for the topic existing on the social networking site. Whether a page exists or not, people on Facebook who like Minetest will have no trouble telling their friends about it.

Unless I know for sure that a friend would like something, I usually don't bother to tell them about it. I also don't know everything that my friends like, or might like.

I get that some people don't like Facebook, I'm not a particular huge fan myself, but it's here and it's used... a lot. Couldn't we make similar arguments for not making Windows and Mac OS builds of Minetest, since those operating systems are owned by giant, evil corporations who steal away our freedoms and our soul with every cha-ching of their cash register?

[onpon4]

Couldn't we make similar arguments for not making Windows and Mac OS builds of Minetest, since those operating systems are owned by giant, evil corporations who steal away our freedoms and our soul with every cha-ching of their cash register?

No, not at all. No Minetest builds for these systems means people using those systems won't be able to play without compiling themselves or installing a new OS, and so most of them would probably just give up. Not having a Facebook page just means that they need to go to minetest.net to get information about it.

The thing is, I don't think people tend to stumble on things they haven't heard of on Facebook or other social networking sites unless a contact mentioned them, and some sort of official Facebook page just isn't necessary for friends to mention Minetest.

[webdesigner97]

Couldn't we make similar arguments for not making Windows and Mac OS builds of Minetest, since those operating systems are owned by giant, evil corporations who steal away our freedoms and our soul with every cha-ching of their cash register?

No, not at all. No Minetest builds for these systems means people using those systems won't be able to play without compiling themselves or installing a new OS, and so most of them would probably just give up. Not having a Facebook page just means that they need to go to minetest.net to get information about it.

The thing is, I don't think people tend to stumble on things they haven't heard of on Facebook or other social networking sites unless a contact mentioned them, and some sort of official Facebook page just isn't necessary for friends to mention Minetest.

But you shouldn't forget that most people have more facebook friends than real friends. So let's make an example:
1. You tell 20 friends/neighbors whatever about minetest. Maybe 1/4 of them wants more information. And 1/8 starts playing minetest.
2. I share a post of the official minetest page and my 1/2 of my 170 facebook friends will see that I shared this post. 1/4 of them wants more information and 1/8 starts playing minetest.

=>
You brought 2.5 people to minetest
I brought 10.625 people to minetest

(the values I used are just random)

So: With facebook we can reach a much bigger field of people!

[onpon4]

Um...

1 completely ignores how social networking works. The proper example is "you post something about Minetest on your Facebook wall, some of your friends see that post and find more information on minetest.net".

2 is just another variation of what 1 would properly be. No difference.

The numbers you give are mere speculation, so they're not worth talking about.

[Darkbee]

No, not at all. No Minetest builds for these systems means people using those systems won't be able to play without compiling themselves or installing a new OS, and so most of them would probably just give up. Not having a Facebook page just means that they need to go to minetest.net to get information about it.

The thing is, I don't think people tend to stumble on things they haven't heard of on Facebook or other social networking sites unless a contact mentioned them, and some sort of official Facebook page just isn't necessary for friends to mention Minetest.

So your argument for not doing it is that it won't add anything to the Minetest community? So you concede that it won't hurt the Minetest community? Ergo, if someone is willing to devote time to maintaining the page nothing has been lost by anybody except the time of the person or persons maintaining the page (which I'm assuming won't be you so you've lost absolutely nothing). I'd say that's a win for the most part (there's not much anyone can do about "lost" time and I'm assuming that the person or persons doing the maintaining won't view it as lost time any more than the developers of Minetest view developing the game as lost time).

I think your real argument boils down to you don't want to use Facebook because you don't like it, and if you had your way nobody would use it. And that's okay. If I had my way, nobody would use Apple products but it is what it is. I'm happy to agree to disagree at this point.

[mauvebic]

I think your real argument boils down to you don't want to use Facebook because you don't like it, and if you had your way nobody would use it. And that's okay. If I had my way, nobody would use Apple products but it is what it is. I'm happy to agree to disagree at this point.

One of the fallacious aspects of FLOSS where advocates claim to support choices and freedom, but only so long as they agree with your choices :p It's quite Orwellian.

[onpon4]

So your argument for not doing it is that it won't add anything to the Minetest community? So you concede that it won't hurt the Minetest community?

Yeah, exactly, except it's not a concession. I'm arguing about whether it's actually needed; I think it isn't. I couldn't care less if you make a Facebook page, I just don't think it will do anything particularly useful.

One of the fallacious aspects of FLOSS where advocates claim to support choices and freedom, but only so long as they agree with your choices :p It's quite Orwellian.

Supposing I really was actively against a Facebook page (as I said above, I'm not; I just think it won't do anything useful), how would that be "Orwellian"? Oceania in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a totalitarian regime which burns books, rewrites history, and spies on civilians. I fail to see how merely being against something can be compared to that.

"Orwellian" would be if, say, on your own computer, you were forced to run only software approved by the computer's manufacturer, as is the case with the iThings. Or, on the level of a state, if you were forbidden to run software which shows you a movie on a DVD without restricting you, e.g. the DMCA. Or if a book store can retroactively un-sell books you have bought, as is the case with the Amazon Kindle.

Of course, all of these real-world examples are just partial and in reality nowhere near as bad as Oceania; the full example would be if you were only allowed to use government-approved programs which all have built-in spyware on government-approved computers which all have built-in cameras and microphones. No matter what the approved software is, this would be entirely contrary to free software philosophy, though I guess some "open source" supporters might be unopposed to it (since "open source" philosophy makes a point of detaching itself from the issue of freedom, supporters of it don't necessarily value freedom).

[mauvebic]

If purists had their way they'd eliminate every non-FLOSS option out there. Calling that freedom is a classic example of doublespeak.

[onpon4]

If purists had their way they'd eliminate every non-FLOSS option out there. Calling that freedom is a classic example of doublespeak.

That's called a strawman.

[mauvebic]

That's called a strawman.

And that's a non sequitur.

I'm far from the only one who thinks zealots are complete hypocrites. Google it if you don't believe me.

[onpon4]

"That's a strawman" is far too simple of a statement to be a non sequitur... you do know what a non sequitur is, right?

I'm far from the only one who thinks zealots are complete hypocrites. Google it if you don't believe me.

That's an argumentum ad populum.

[mauvebic]

No, i'm obviously pulling words out of my ass. </sarcasm>

Please, explain the strawman, because I see the same reasoning from many zealots. Creating "freedom" by limiting choices, leaving only those they happen to agree with.

FLOSS Zealots

I’ll try not to get in to a discussion about the merits of Open Source versus proprietary software, but I have to say the FLOSS (or FOSS) zealots do get me going! These are the issues I have with them:

Their arguments are generally negative. They’re all about criticism (MS, or Mono or whoever).
Their arguments are hypocritical. “I want everything Free and Open” as long as it’s done the way I want, and you don’t use any software I don’t like.
They complain about companies spreading FUD, and then spout more crap and FUD than anyone else.
They apply double standards. Anything from someone they don’t like has to be meet their standards to a much greater degree than someone they do like.
They’re basically Fan Boys (or their opposite).

[onpon4]

Please, explain the strawman, because I see the same reasoning from many zealots. Creating "freedom" by limiting choices, leaving only those they happen to agree with.

I shouldn't have to explain it; a strawman is simply when you argue with a position that isn't the other person's position. You repeated the exact same strawman here.

I and other free software advocates don't want to "[create] 'freedom' by limiting choices", so what you say here and what you said before is a strawman. The free software movement has always done the exact opposite: create freedom by adding choices. Develop free software, in particular.

[mauvebic]

I shouldn't have to explain it; a strawman is simply when you argue with a position that isn't the other person's position. You repeated the exact same strawman here.

I and other free software advocates don't want to "[create] 'freedom' by limiting choices", so what you say here and what you said before is a strawman. The free software movement has always done the exact opposite: create freedom by adding choices. Develop free software, in particular.

If that's all you did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So fine, write your free software, if it's any good people will use it, there's no need to push it on everyone at every turn. It's only you "advocates" that care how "libre" some piece of software is, everyone else just wants to get on with their work/gaming.

Out of curiosity, are you active on any projects? (code, not marketing)

[onpon4]

If that's all you did we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So fine, write your free software, if it's any good people will use it, there's no need to push it on everyone at every turn. It's only you "advocates" that care how "libre" some piece of software is, everyone else just wants to get on with their work/gaming.

Complaining about proprietary software or speaking out against it doesn't limit anyone's choices.

Out of curiosity, are you active on any projects? (code, not marketing)

I'm involved in a project to replace Game Maker called Stellar. There's a complete working 2-D game engine called SGE (used as a library) which I developed almost on my own, and now I'm working on the "room editor" (for building levels and such).