One can expect GOG to work on improving the service by providing some kind of updater client in the future, in order to compete with other digital distributors like Steam. While I'm sure if GOG would do such a thing, they'll preserve the DRM free nature of the service, by providing standalone downloads for packages and patches in addition to the convenience of the updater service. Being DRM free helps to build trust between the users and the distributor.

However there is another issue involved when it comes to trust. One of the major problems with other services - their clients are closed source. And they mess on your computer installing and updating stuff, while essentially being black boxes. This isn't how things are supposed to be done in order to build trust. A preferable approach is to make the client fully open source, in order to enable the community to review it, and to be sure it's to be trusted. GOG has nothing to lose from opening the client, only gain.

Of course if GOG would decide not to open it, then community would have to come up with open source alternative, if of course GOG would publish the proper protocol for their service. But it would be much better instead of reinventing the wheel to collaborate with GOG and the community by making the official client open to begin with.

Why I'm raising this issue now, is in order to give GOG some food for thought, since they might as well already be busy working on such service and client. And even if not, they for sure can consider such thing in a near future.

What do you think?

___________________________________________
* See also the corresponding wishlist entry.
* New wishlist entry.

I agree - a github account would allow people to fork and improve it with things and then GOG can as they see fit pull these enhancements back in. It would also help having more sets of eyes on the integrity of the program - I know that in the past I've had issues with it's stability/responsiveness.

Desura did it with the Desurium client and it works well, the client quickly improved.

There aren't any downsides at all really.

But if GOG released the source code, the enemy might find out the secret .

What kind of secret? That's exactly the point above. If there will be "secrets" there, then users should be concerned. A trusted client should not have any surprises.

Also note, we aren't talking about the current GOG downloader. There are open source alternatives already. We are talking about potential future client for a way more complex service with incremental updates and etc.

Well if I knew that, it wouldn't be much of a secret, would it ?

Licurg: I'm asking what kind of secret (i.e. category) do you expect to be there that it has to be hidden? Users should not expect any such secrets, that was my point, so it's reasonable to ask for an open source client.

I think Licurg was joking, shmerl. "The enemy?"

Think ole Licurg just might be good naturedly yankin' your chain bro, heh heh


edit: and looks like I mighta been Ninja'd

+1 :D
--
I wouldn't mind an open source client. It would certainly give more man hours for free to GOG however it's their software and they should do whatever they feel comfortable with.

See the replies above =))

I guess that could mean that competing services could learn some GOG's internal secrets :) But I don't think GOG will expose any such secrets with the updater client, so this shouldn't be an issue.

AHA ! Another filthy Reptilian shill trying to discredit the truth ! KILL IT WITH FIRE !

This has several benefits. More trust between GOG and the users, which is even further differentiation with competitors in user friendliness. Potential collaboration with the community (bug reporting, contributions and etc.). I see GOG only gaining, and losing nothing by doing this.

Open source client by GOG is implied as well as it's going to be optional in my opinion (hopeful).

I'm no expert on open source updater clients, so please bear with my limited knowledge...however, if GOG were to implement such a service and device, would making it open source also make it/GOG/users more vulnerable to evil forces that may be able to exploit it for nefarious resaons? Just curious, as I said, I do not pretend to be an expert, and while I can surely see benefits of open source, and the ability for the many users and mermbers who know their shit, to help make it run better, faster, ect., is there also a possible downside for exploitation?