Why isnt Talisman2 in wincustomize's Library?

Yes!! I am the first to answer this one!!

Who is number one! Who is number 1!

Oh I forgot to answer your question. Talisman is a product made by another company. Since Stardock owns this site and Talisman is in direct compition with DesktopX they will must likely not put a catogory here for it. Plus they have to pay for bandwidth usage; why pay for bandwidth for someone elses competing product?

So no Talisman

It's not just that. It's the way the company treats those who do support it:

Look closely at their "theme" page:

http://www.lighttek.com/themes2/

It deep links to the various sites. Sometimes directly to the file. It's one thing to not host your own theme files, it's quite another to have a "theme library" that basically steals bandwidth from other sites.

Imagine what would happen if instead of WinCustomize hosting all the skins and themes and such that we just linked to the actual .ZIP file on say deviantART or DeskMod or SkinBase? The user wouldn't even know they were using those other sites. Those other sites gain not benefit from hosting those files.

Anyone that's been around here a long while knows I'm a bit...cranky when it comes to bandwidth usage, particularly unappreciated bandwidth usage so you can imagine the problem I have with Lighttek's "library". That said, their program is excellent. Though I wouldn't say it competes against DesktopX as much as it competes against Litestep (which we do host).

Frogboy never reads Bakerstreet´s replies after he posts these accusations.

actually Lighttek has a deal with deviantART and they do not steal their bandwidth.

What about the other sites that they deep link to? ArtUpRoar? Skinz? DeskMod? Customize.org? I find it exceedingly unlikely that they would all give permission to link directly to a ZIP file.

BTW, be wary of the terms you use. The word "Accusation" has an implied meaning. My statement that they deep link is not an accusation. That is a fact.

The only issue that can be disputed is whether they are "stealing" bandwidth. While they may have a "deal" with deviantART, as I said, I can't imagine Mian & Toasty, we were losing money with Skinz.org due to lack of impressions and bandwidth costs agreeing to allow a for profit entity deep link to their files.

Let's turn it around - If Stardock started deep linking to skins and themes on other sites there'd be a riot.

off topic, but still on bandwidth. isn´t WinStyles concept exactly about stealing bandwith. at least i can be easily abused (with no bad intention). have a look at this file at dA for example: http://files.deviantart.com/skin/winstyles/CopperDeckII.suite

That could be stealing bandwidth if they don't have permission. I'll bet there is a lot of that going on around the sites.

i´m pretty sure this specific file is not an issue as Treetog is an admin here, so he just has give permission to himself

just wanted to point out that WinStyles makes stealing bandwidth easy.

just has to give

moShi: Well, WinStyles is designed to make it easy for a .SUITE file to obtain the pieces of a theme from anywhere.

The WinStyle's concept is about making themes. To use an analogy, what you are saying is akin to saying that the "concept" of linking at all is about stealing.

.SUITEs have the potential for abuse. But to discourage that, WinStyles has made it easy for theme authors to obtain the pieces it needs for Stardock stuff from Stardock (such as the example you gave).

BTW, I've emailed Jark myself on this issue. As I said previously, I can't imagine ANY webmaster giving permission to some for profit entity to use their resources without any sort of credit. I.e. there isn't even a "Thanks deviantART" (or any other site) in the LightTek library that I could see.

hmmm.... I can't imagine DeviantArt allowing bandwidth usage either for a for profit site without some kind of pay or reconition for the bandwidth.

WinStyles as far as I see has not yet been able to connect to files anywhere other than wincusto and if it were to go anywhere else it would have to be programmed to do so (hard coded into the program to allow people to go to say Deviant Art url)


Oh and I see the comparison to LiteStep and Talisman is closer because they both replace the shell while Desktop X doesn't. They just look similar but that is about it. I personally think DesktopX is way more flexable (I am using VB scripts right now as a way to access my website database from the desktop)

I don't know much about doing a WS suite, but I don't think it's impossible to link to a wall at DA or anyother site. It's done all the time in the windowblinds section. Might be wrong.

1) Lighttek tells skinners to email them a screenshot and links to the themes *if* they want them shown on the Lighttek site. To my knowledge no themes are displayed, nor links posted, that weren't submitted to Lighttek by email directly from the skinner themselve.

2) I would assume if someone *didn't* want anything deep-linked they would inform the user therein not to go around doing so, at least in upload agreements. If people are heinously emailing Lighttek irresponsible links, then perhaps the skinners themselves should be told not to.

3) Any half-assed site administrator can DENY requests for files that come from scripts outside their own site. I would assume that those who didn't want files deep linked, AND were too lazy to warn people not to, would simply block the requests.

In my experience Lighttek has been accessable, polite, and eager to please. If you can tell me that Arkadiy has been notified and has refused to stop linking, I'll gladly apologize for my optimism.

If you *can't*, then perhaps those that are unfairly maligning Lighttek should cease doing so.

I feel quite certain that most skin sites would agressively stop Stardock from deep-linking if the situation were reversed. If they aren't stopping Lighttek, they must not want to. If the double-standard seems unfair, the blame for it does not rest with Lighttek.

I don't think most sites are aware of the deep linking.

I also don't think that LightTek is doing anything they feel is wrong or immoral. I am giving my opinion that it is not right to deep link like that.

Your analogy strikes me as someone saying "If people didn't want people to break into their houses they'd put bars on their windows." None of the skin sites prevent people from deep linking to them (including this one). I think most are okay with a certain level of "Fair use" (i.e. a skin author letting people know about his skin to his friends). But what LightTek does is on a massive scale and without even acknowledging.

Consider this: LightTek doesn't even have an official link to Skinz.org, Customize.org, or ArtUproar but in all 3 cases they deep link to files on those sites. Using their bandwidth without sending those sites any visitors. You find this to be okay? I am..disturbed that we're even having this debate.

Let's remember the context of this discussion: Someone asked why THIS site doesn't have LightTek themes (while we do have Litestep themes). One reason is their practice of deep linking to the content of other sites without acknowledgement.

I'm not going to pursue the matter because it's not any sites I have any official involvement with that are affected by that. But it's one reason why we don't have a section.

Talisman sucks. >

#11 by Developer joetheblow - 12/8/2002 9:49:53 PM

WinStyles as far as I see has not yet been able to connect to files anywhere other than wincusto and if it were to go anywhere else it would have to be programmed to do so (hard coded into the program to allow people to go to say Deviant Art url)

When creating a WinStyle Suite, provided you have the correct information and download link, Winstyles can download it from just about any Skin site, if not all.

Frogboy: That would be a correct analogy only if breaking into houses was LEGAL.

This is something that Google Image Search is doing every second of every day. Many major sites allow direct access to files on their servers.

The precedent for direct downloading is clearly that it is legal. In those cases that it is not wanted, it is openly discouraged or prevented. Has either occurred here?

This is something that Lighttek has been doing for at least three years, with no negative response, and with no physical opposition. What reason would they have to believe that admins have suddenly changed their minds?

If it is a problem, skinners should be dissuaded from submitting links directly to skins. If it keeps happening, then Lighttek should be asked to stop accepting those links. Until those steps are taken, I think it is *irresponsible* to say that they are doing anything underhanded.

jarget: that's an infantile, useless statement, no different that those who have recently been saying the same about various Stardock apps. I really thought more of ya than that...

I am not suggesting it is illega. I am saying that *I* do not think what they're doing is cool. You're more than entitled to disagree with my opinion but that does not make my opinion wrong.

I doubt that most admins are aware of what they are doing. And since *I* am aware of it, it's a reason why I wouldn't allow a section for that app on this site. And that was what the original question was.

Sorry. I must've misinterpreted the line "If people didn't want people to break into their houses they'd put bars on their windows." If I put words in your mouth I apologize.

No, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong; and I'm not really saying I would do what Lighttek is doing. On the other hand if I had been told it was okay in the past, and no one had bothered to tell be different since, I probably wouldn't feel the same.

I don't think we differ on our view of the act itself, only on the motive behind it. I would, though, urge you to leave making the harsh characterizations to those who are being abused, if anyone actually is. Leeches are about the lowest of the low, and hanging that kind of title on someone who may well be 'in the right' could be needlessly damaging to their reputation in the community.

It's your site to do what you want with, and I respect whatever decision you make.

In terms of the analogy, what I mean is that just because someone hasn't taken active steps to prevent something doesn't signify that they want someone to do that something.

The only area I think we are contesting is that I can't imagine Skinz.org, Customize.org, ArtUpRoar, Deskmod, etc. to all give permission to deep link to their sites without even having a home page link anywhere on LightTek's site.

If LightTek's site ISN'T leeching the bandwidth of other sites, what term would you choose to describe it as?

I think any reasonable person reading this thread can go to:
http://www.lighttek.com/themes2/

And click on one of the theme download links and judge whether that site is leeching the bandwidth off of other sites.

I don't see this as much different than ripping. IF LightTek got permission from all these sites to deep link, then I totally agree with you. I emailed Jark since I know him the best. I do know most of the admins pretty well and I can't imagine them agreeing to deep linking without at least a website button or something somewhere on the page.

Just so we're clear: IF they have permission to deep link then I'm totally okay with it.

The key question here is whether they have permission.

I tried just to see if I could put any link in the area of where the file is and I couldn't do it. That was Winstyle 1.3

Maybe something changed... I am not talking about going into the code and physically changing it from there somehow but from the actual WinStlye Interface.

Like jarget said: Talisman sucks.

Like jarget said: Talisman sucks.

sorry about that..