Full Bleed wrote:taustinoc wrote:The one criticism I'd offer on MT is that it does require some technical knowledge, both in network setup and understanding how to not step on any of Java's landmines. But the forums here are the most helpful (and patient) support community I've ever seen on an open source project.
No argument there. MT can present some challenges to new users out of the gate.
Unless, like me, you do that sort of thing for a living.
Full Bleed wrote:But, fortunately, there is quite a bit of familiarity with the most common issues and regulars can usually help get new users up and running pretty quickly.
And y'all have the patience of saints. I couldn't do it.
Full Bleed wrote:
If MT was more aggressive about looking at system data and setting better defaults they could remove the vast majority of client-side issues. Though, server-side would still require a little legwork with incompatible UPnP systems.*
I suspect that the more aggressively it looks at system data, the less cross-compatible it would be, on a practical level. I seem to recall there's very little Mac expertise in the development team, and Linux can be . . . complicated. Apparently, as it is now, though, things run pretty much the same on any OS that's supported, which is a very big plus.
Full Bleed wrote:
* Though, in all honesty, while it's more challenging to setup, I prefer MT's Client-Server model over cloud server options.
There is no possible cloud server model that isn't eventually going to require the end users pay for the service. That's not a bad thing, or a good thing, it's simply inherent to the beast. Roll20 is an excellent product for what it does, and their cloud server setup is one of the reasons why. Mote is trying to take the best aspects of that and blend them in with the best of MT, but in the end, it can't be fully functional for free. For some, that's perfectly OK, but that's not a universal solution.