?

Log in

No account? Create an account
BlogJet - new Windows client - LiveJournal Client Discussions [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

BlogJet - new Windows client [May. 28th, 2004|01:41 pm]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

lj_clients

[blogjet]

BlogJet is a new Windows client for LiveJournal with WYSIWYG editor. It definitely should be added to Windows Clients list.


[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<span [...] bold;>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<p><a href="http://www.blogjet.com/">BlogJet</a> is a new Windows client for <font color="#004080"><font color="#0080c0">Live</font>Journal</font> with WYSIWYG editor. It definitely should be added to Windows Clients list.</p>
<p><span bold; font-style: italic;?><strong><font color="#ff7f00">Benefits</font></strong></span><lj-raw></p>
<ul>
<li>BlogJet is the only application from <em>Windows Clients</em> list that has&nbsp;a WYSIWYG editor.</li>
<li>It has LJ-CUT tag implemented in interesting and usable way.</li>
<li>It has multiple accounts support.</li>
<li>It can automatically upload images / other file to FTP server.</li>
<li>You can record voice and post it along with your journal entry.</li></ul>
<p>See <a href="http://www.blogjet.com/screenshots/">screenshots here</a>.</p>
<p><strong><font color="#008080">Disadvantages</font></strong></p></lj-raw><lj-raw>
<ul>
<li>BlogJet is not free - $19.95 for a copy.</li>
<li>Currently, it doesn't support extended <font color="#0080c0">Live</font><font color="#004080">Journal</font> tags (mood, now-playing, etc.)</li></ul>
<p>Can it be added to <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/download/?platform=Windows">http://www.livejournal.com/download/?platform=Windows</a>&nbsp;?</p></lj-raw><lj-raw>
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: otheronetruegod
2004-05-28 03:48 am (UTC)
1) LJ.NET (listed on the Windows Clients page) is also WYSIWYG.

2) Chronicle (http://www.uil.net/ljclient) and BlogWizard (http://www.lionheart.com/bw) are both other Windows-based LJ-compatible clients, though they're not listed on the Windows client page because it's not been updated in awhile.

3) Interesting way of managing LJ-cuts! Is it possible to change the text of the cut?

4) I got an AV when I added a couple of cuts, went to the "code" view, then back to the wysiwyg view.

Looks good!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: int
2004-05-28 04:26 am (UTC)
Deepest Sender is also WYSIWYG and will run on any platform that Mozilla/Firefox runs on.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: blogjet
2004-05-28 04:47 am (UTC)
> 3) Interesting way of managing LJ-cuts! Is it possible to change the text of the cut?

Currently, no.

Thanks for comments!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: khalidz0r
2004-05-28 04:47 am (UTC)
Looks nice. Would've been worth a try had it been free.

I don't think it's a good idea to have a client that costs $20 in the client list, especially when there are free clients. As far as I know, LiveJournal supports Open Source development.

Long live open source!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hythloday
2004-05-28 04:55 am (UTC)
Would you think it was a good idea to include if the client was $20 but was open source?

Personally, I think if this is in some way better than every other client, it should be included.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: khalidz0r
2004-05-28 05:00 am (UTC)
Well, open source software is usually free, at least for personal use. Thus, if the client was open source it wouldn't have costed $20.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hythloday
2004-05-28 05:31 am (UTC)
So, I repeat my question: do you think it would be a good idea to include if the client was $20 but was open source?

(Several licences permit the author of the work to do this.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: khalidz0r
2004-05-28 05:40 am (UTC)
Well, the essence of my response is that the answer to this question is besides the point. Let me put it that way:

If I can use it legally for an indefinite time without having to pay $20, then it is worth putting there. If I do have to pay to use it then no. Regardless of it being open or closed source.

Being open source, other than showing us that the program really does what it claims to do, simply means it is more likely to be distributed freely, again, at least for personal usage (Which is all what I care about when we talk about a blogging clinet).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shmivejournal
2004-05-28 05:29 am (UTC)
Yes, but the difference being that by listing it, it's sort of a mini-commercial for a product whose monetary cost LiveJournal will never see a part of.

LiveJournal code is free and so is the usage of their API, why would they promote something that takes the freeness and throws it out the window?


(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hythloday
2004-05-28 05:42 am (UTC)
Sure, but listing the other ones is a advertisement for them, and livejournal will never see a penny of their cost, either, because they're free. Or are you saying that it's moral to stop someone making money on something that there's a free alternative to, even if the alternative isn't as good in some ways?

I'm not sure how using a proprietary client affect's LJ's freeness in the slightest - once the post is made, it's irrelevant what client you used, and I doubt the author of the product is in any way interested in stopping the user make posts to their journal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shmivejournal
2004-05-28 05:54 am (UTC)
What I'm saying is, LiveJournal works hard to maintain a code base API's so that people can develop applications that interoperate with everything. They give all this away for free.

To then go and build something that costs money on top of that is against the spirit of the freeness, because you're taking all that work, adding something to it, and then not giving away what you did with it, you're charging money. This is completely allowed, however, I don't think that LiveJournal has any responsibility to go and promote that product in any way, which is what placing it on the page of livejournal clients would do.

However, this whole conversation is pointless, because in this case I don't believe my opinion matters.


(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: blogjet
2004-05-28 06:14 am (UTC)
Okay. Then what for is this list? Is it for users? Is it to help them find the client that best suits their needs, or just for holy wars free vs. paid? I do not mind if BlogJet won't be included - users will find it somewhere else, not in this list.
But why? Why LJ was created if everyone can make his own website? To simplify this process, to HELP users, help them communicate with each other. So why not help users finding the appropriate client? Why they don't know about BlogWizard, and what else you've enlisted here?
This is my point. Why not create the good up-to-date list of clients to help people? With w.Bloggar, BlogWizard, BlogJet, whatever? I could help with compiling this list.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shmivejournal
2004-05-28 06:18 am (UTC)
I'm just a random guy, I have no pull with Livejournal. I said what I wanted to say, I'm done.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: quirrc
2004-05-28 05:28 am (UTC)
If I get it right, the download page lists only LJ clients, not blogger. For ex., w.bloggar isn't there too though it can work with LJ.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: blogjet
2004-05-28 06:15 am (UTC)
If it CAN work with LJ, why not add it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_wantedma
2004-05-28 01:21 pm (UTC)
The last thing lj needs, is a massive, hard to use client list.

If we look hard enough, I bet we can come up with hundreds of different lj clients. Part of lj's business aspects is to keep lusers happy. Lusers really don't like making choices.

Given the choice between vi, EMACS, pico, jed, etc., most lusers become confused and simply pick the first, one. It's too much work to research the choices. Expecially since they all do pretty much the same thing.

Clients all pretty much do the same thing as well. Giving the users hundreds of uncatagoried choices will just confuse them. Catagorizing them will be slightly difficult, since someone will have to be incharge of making sure the catagories are correct and fair. And pruning abandoned projects.

It's much better for the lj team to select the 10 ~ 20 best and display them, even if the 'best' are more or less arbitrarily picked.

On a side note, $19.95 is WAY too much. $20 for WYSIWYG and lj-cut? :/ If you really want to sell it, I suggest going for either begware, where you ask for donations or else $4.99 ~ $9.95.

Either that, or have a free verson and a value added verson.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: blogjet
2004-05-28 10:33 pm (UTC)
> On a side note, $19.95 is WAY too much. $20 for WYSIWYG and
> lj-cut? :/ If you really want to sell it, I suggest going for
> either begware, where you ask for donations or else $4.99 ~
> $9.95.

Don't you suggest asking donations in exchange for carrot in grocery? Please try and let me know the results.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_wantedma
2004-05-29 03:50 am (UTC)
Don't you suggest asking donations in exchange for carrot in grocery? Please try and let me know the results.

Selling Carrots != Selling Software!

There's a difference! It's painfully obvous!

Any farther discussion between the logistics of selling software and selling carrots will just make me feel moronic, so I'll stop now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: marksmith
2004-05-28 09:19 am (UTC)
Discussed this with Brad and Jesse, and the concensus is that we will not list clients that are not free to use. The source doesn't have to be available, but it should be available for people to use for free.

You're welcome to create and maintain a client that isn't free/open, we just don't want to provide free advertising for such a client. LiveJournal is open and free, and we like to encourage other projects to be that way as well.

And just as a note from a fellow client developer, you'll probably want to start supporting extended LiveJournal tags. Most people are very used to those, and general users would probably not use a client that didn't support them.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: blogjet
2004-05-28 09:46 am (UTC)
Thanks for reply.
Of course, we will support extended tags.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kevin
2004-06-04 10:22 pm (UTC)

>The source doesn't have to be available, but it should be available for people to use for free.

LJ green-sleeved thumb of approval to this decision.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)