Hi everyone,
kwill had this reply rejected as spam, so he PM'd it to me. I don't see anything too spammy about it, so I'm posting it as is
- agentq
----------------------------
Hi all,
Let me start with why I'm persuing this (and thereby encourage you to read this lengthy post!). I just like these ideas:
* Monkey Island and World of Warcraft getting equal treatment despite their difference in age (whether it's in a book on gaming history, a Wikipedia article or a Wakoopa software page)
* newfangled web 2.0 support for old apps (the same reason I like the idea of being able to play Prince of Persia on Vista)
* seeing ScummVM and DOSBox listed as platforms next to Windows, Apple, Web, Linux, SymbianOS, Android...
A bit more about Wakoopa: the tracker is a Win/Mac (and soon Linux) tool that monitors which desktop apps you are currently running. It reports usage times to the Wakoopa website. The data is then used to make aggregations[1], graphs and suggestions, kinda like Last.fm for software.
Reckless and others: I understand that social networky tools aren't everyone's taste. (You must use Last.fm, though, right, right!?

) Personally I can't imagine socializing on the site, I use it mainly to find new software via suggestions and comments (and have done so successfully). Eventually I hope it will track new versions too. As a LibraryThing user I also have a compulsion to catalog things, and nothing brings me greater joy than fixing an icon on a new application.
Now, in addition to all this the Wakoopa devs added the ability to track webapps as well. So instead of tracking a gazillion hours in Firefox(Chrome/Opera/Safari/IE, your religion of choice), you can track usage of Gmail, Google Search, Wikipedia, Get Satisfaction, etc.
So, I figure that if they can sniff out a webapp URL from 5 different browsers, how hard can it be to sniff out an EXE name from ScummVM and DOSBox?
The Wakoopa devs are currently beta-testing Linux and looking to support mobile platforms, and as they said in the Get Satisfaction post I linked above, ScummVM and DOSBox are just not on their priority list. That's why I came here looking for suggestions or solutions.
In reponse to my post in the sister forum for DOSBox, I learnt that DOSBox exposes the current EXE name in it's title bar, does ScummVM do anything similar?
(bobdevis, I haven't missed your suggestion, I just have my doubts that the tracker will see the difference. I will try it out though!)
fingolfin, you raise a good point about supporting one service over others. Why should you? I have several answers, which I'll append to the end of this post.[2]
Jonatan, you'll see that iusethis has entered my Wakoopa stream [3] at least for a while

, I'll try it out more after the weekend. How does it compare to Software Informer? (As soon as Wakoopa provides version updates I plan on ditching SI.)
To everyone, thanks your input and thoughts. My next step is get some technical info from the Wakoopa team on how they interrogate browsers. If it's an easy or common-enough application feature, I hope I've made a case for implementing it, even though there are those that wouldn't have a use for it.
d<3vid
[1] Hey, I wonder what we'll find in the top ten virtualization tools?
http://wakoopa.com/categories/utilities/virtualization
[2] Why I think supporting Wakoopa is worth it *and* isn't cutting anyone else off:
* I don't believe that there is anything else like them. Apps like Software Informer inspect what you have installed but nothing else (that I know of) tracks real-time use (and ratings and comments and suggestions)
* There have been hints (and nothing more than that I'll grant you) that Wakoopa will open its API and/or open source its tracker
* If we look at the example of Twitter and Identi.ca, it seems likely that if Wakoopa remained closed, an open source clone would follow; if so, having an existing hook would encourage and ease both adoption and support
* Users own their Wakoopa data -
http://wakoopa.com/about/privacy - making such a migration a viable option
[3]
http://wakoopa.com/kwill - but I am *not* looking for virtual friends
