Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#41

Post by philbarr »

stuaxo wrote: post #38
philbarr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not the only ones to do this. Vuforia is worse, it's free, which is tempting, but then Section 8 (i) of the license agreement[0] states: "each end user consents to the collection, storage, and use by QCE and its affiliates and service providers of Statistics from the Software and the transfer of Statistics between QCE and its affiliates and service providers (which may be in the United States or in other coun…

Hm, what are the data protection act implications of this ?

I think as long as you tell the user then you're ok. If the user wanted to find out what information the Vuforia guys have collected they would have to ask them, pay the £10 (in the UK), and then it would be up to the Vuforia people.

I use to be the "Data Protection Expert" at a firm a few years ago, but really all that happened was they sent me on a course and I read the rules. Never had to actually deal with a case.

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#42

Post by babuskov »

StavrosK wrote: post #27
babuskov wrote: post #15

"For applications on Google Play that integrate this tool, usage is tracked." Imagine if every open source library did that.

> Since this is open source, you are free to remove the version string but we would appreciate if you would leave it in. It's easy to remove, and they only track which apps use it to gauge how popular it is. Hardly evil.

I'm not implying it is evil. I just imagined what would the world look like if everyone was doing that.

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#43

Post by scrollaway »

seszett wrote: post #40
scrollaway wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time I would have really hoped for that. When Github was still new and the only, pathetic, alternatives were SF and Google Code. But back then, Google had its head stuck all the way up SVN's trunk. Now I really hope they don't acquire Github. No website I know of has improved in such a consistently good way. Pure UI improvements, awesome new features and no feeling of feature creep on the user side (I don…

> I honestly think Github is a much higher quality shop: do one thing and do it extremely well. You're saying this because you haven't heard about or used atom.io ;)

I've heard about it. I have an invite left in fact if anyone wants. As a linux user though it's useless to me currently.

But atom.io is not part of Github. Sure, it's made by them, but when I talk about Github I mean the website.

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#44

Post by j_s »

babuskov wrote: post #15

"For applications on Google Play that integrate this tool, usage is tracked." Imagine if every open source library did that.

An interesting discussion came up after the .NET Glimpse library included opt-out analytics:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/getglimpse-dev/KA95n...

A big part of the decision is opt-out vs. opt-in, and how it would even be possible to make opt-in return meaningful results in a library. Also, one of the main problems was managing the expectations of the users of the library, many of whom would only install it through a packaging system which provides little means of documenting that tracking is included and enabled by default.

Here is the initial thread sharing a user's surprise:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/getglimpse-dev/7WgpX...

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#45

Post by talmand »

aaronetz wrote: post #36

I wonder why they came up with a new library instead of contributing to box2d directly? Unless they had to break box2d's API (but off the top of my head, without looking at the code, it's hard to see why they would have to)

What's wrong with creating something new?

If someone decides to attempt something but there's already a similar project, why do so many think they should abandon their own to contribute to the other?

They can always contribute down the road.

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#46

Post by RobotCaleb »

babuskov wrote: post #42
StavrosK wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since this is open source, you are free to remove the version string but we would appreciate if you would leave it in. It's easy to remove, and they only track which apps use it to gauge how popular it is. Hardly evil.

I'm not implying it is evil. I just imagined what would the world look like if everyone was doing that.

What did you imagine?

Re: Liquidfun – 2D physics engine for games

#50

Post by milesokeefe »

scrollaway wrote: post #43
seszett wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly think Github is a much higher quality shop: do one thing and do it extremely well. You're saying this because you haven't heard about or used atom.io ;)

I've heard about it. I have an invite left in fact if anyone wants. As a linux user though it's useless to me currently. But atom.io is not part of Github. Sure, it's made by them, but when I talk about Github I mean the website.

If you still have the invite I'd love it. Email's in my profile.
Post reply on HN