Board index FlightGear Development

The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

FlightGear is opensource, so you can be the developer. In the need for help on anything? We are here to help you.
Forum rules
Core development is discussed on the official FlightGear-Devel development mailing list.

Bugs can be reported in the bug tracker.

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby IAHM-COL » Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:56 pm

bugman wrote in Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:44 pm:This brings the external FGMEMBERS project into direct competition with one of the core parts of FG listed in the roadmap aims of the soon to be published official FlightGear policy and roadmap document. Specifically the FG inbuilt package management distribution mechanism.


Interesting read bugman. But this point quoted above, really not quite.

The FG inbuilt package was agreed to be decentralized, by the core developers (you can find the important posts in the past of the mailing list). Meaning, with an xml catalog, users can get aircrafts distributed elsewhere into the FG package management system.

As dust settles --and it becomes obvious how this is actually done--, we will create our own XML catalog for FGMEMBERS to be plugged into that same inbuilt package management system.
Thus, not such competition. Just a matter of options.

Best,
IH-COL

PS: In the Cathedral and Bazaar reference we discussed before: FGADDon is the iconic Cathedral, while FGMEMBERS some sort of a Bazaar. Not something has not been done bfore.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Thorsten » Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:49 am

Explaining how and why FGMEMBERS is not a fork (of flightgear) had been done "ad nauseaum" before. Read back to instruct yourself.


That is what you wish to be true, but the truth is that it is a third party repository neither endorsed nor supported by the Flightgear project. FGMEMBERS doesn't accept decisions made by the FG devel team, aircraft on FGMEMBERS won't automatically be updated to match core changes, what you do on it is essentially your own thing - and yet you copy lots of the official material - to sometimes modify it, sometimes not.

I guess this fits the definition of a fork rather well.

P.S.: Even with an inbuilt package manager, there will be 'official' and 'third party' aircraft - the first list comprising those with FG-side managed version control, the second list the others.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby bugman » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:50 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:56 pm:
bugman wrote in Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:44 pm:This brings the external FGMEMBERS project into direct competition with one of the core parts of FG listed in the roadmap aims of the soon to be published official FlightGear policy and roadmap document. Specifically the FG inbuilt package management distribution mechanism.


Interesting read bugman. But this point quoted above, really not quite.


Note: I am not attacking FGMEMBERS here, rather I am simply addressing clearly incorrect information.

FGMEMBERS may be able to morph and fit into and take over this key FG infrastructure. But that doesn't mean that the git-based aircraft distribution methodology that FGMEMBERS uses, that allows people to have a collection of all aircraft at their fingertips, does not complete with the future planned FG aircraft distribution method. These are two conflicting distribution methods. These two issues should not be mixed here in the forum, for they will clearly not be mixed as FG is developed.

Everyone is well aware that the stated aim of FGMEMBERS is to eliminate and replace the official FGAddon aircraft repository ("IAHMCOL cries loud, request a reversal of decision, suggest a few alternatives"). But because all the private hangar aircraft have also been absorbed into FGMEMBERS, the elimination of FGAddon will naturally also mean the demise of the venerable private hangars. This will add to the distribution method competition.

IAHM-COL wrote in Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:56 pm:PS: In the Cathedral and Bazaar reference we discussed before: FGADDon is the iconic Cathedral, while FGMEMBERS some sort of a Bazaar. Not something has not been done bfore.


Here you have clearly misunderstood the book The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Or you are deliberately misrepresenting it to push a political agenda? Anyway, I'll assume the first. Let me quote from Eric S. Raymond's book The Cathedral and the Bazaar:

Abstract

I anatomize a successful open-source project, fetchmail, that was run as a deliberate test of the surprising theories about software engineering suggested by the history of Linux. I discuss these theories in terms of two fundamentally different development styles, the ``cathedral'' model of most of the commercial world versus the ``bazaar'' model of the Linux world. I show that these models derive from opposing assumptions about the nature of the software-debugging task. I then make a sustained argument from the Linux experience for the proposition that ``Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow'', suggest productive analogies with other self-correcting systems of selfish agents, and conclude with some exploration of the implications of this insight for the future of software.


FlightGear and all its parts - including FGData/FGAddon - is the stereotypical definition of the bazaar. FGData/FGAddon is just one stall in this bazaar. All FG repositories are open for the public to see. Just as in the Linux project, where Linus is the benevolent dictator for life, the FlightGear project also has a hierarchy and authority. If someone chooses not to accept the hierarchy and higher authority then the natural human response is the converse - that person who does not accept will not be accepted in return. This is all part of the chaos of the bazaar model.

Labelling the anarchistic model and deliberate design that FGMEMBERS follows as the bazaar model is a misnomer. The bazaar model absolutely requires hierarchy and authority. It requires rules and higher oversight to function. The core FGMEMBERS philosophy is to eliminate all hierarchy and authority. There are no open source projects in existence, that I am aware of, which follow the anarchistic philosophy of FGMEMBERS. There is always gatekeepers who review all contributions and ensure a certain quality is met. Therefore there are three levels here:

    Cathedral model - closed system used by proprietary software.
    Bazaar model - open system used in open source.
    Anarchy model - FGMEMBERS.

Bazaars are chaotic, but chaos is definitely not anarchism. This concept penned by Eric S. Raymond cannot be rewritten as you have above as:

    Cathedral model - closed system used by proprietary software + FGAddon.
    Bazaar model - open system used in open source + FGMEMBERS.

Though maybe I missed the point, and that labelling FGAddon as the cathedral model is a new way to eliminate it?

Regards,

Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Hooray » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:33 am

actually, the point of having an integrated package manager system is to allow people to install/update aircraft from arbitrary sources, so it willl kinda facilitate a more decentralized approach towards aircraft development/deployment.
For details, I suggest to check out the corresponding wiki article, and refer to devel list quotes linked to there
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby bugman » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:44 am

Hooray wrote in Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:33 am:actually, the point of having an integrated package manager system is to allow people to install/update aircraft from arbitrary sources, so it willl kinda facilitate a more decentralized approach towards aircraft development/deployment.


FGMEMBERS already allows this, by being a derivative collection of almost all FG aircraft in existence. The integrated package manager is therefore redundant, as you can obtain all aircraft using git and the simple instructions on the wiki.

Regards,

Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Hooray » Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:12 pm

I don't think the two of us need to have this discussion, because neither of us is going to significantly benefit from the addition of a GUI-based package manager - but most end-users will certainly disagree with git/CLI-environments and wiki articles being as intuitive as an integrated GUI front-end for downloading/installing and updating aircraft in a seamless way, that may not even involve terminating FlightGear.
The package manager has been under development for a number of reasons and for quite a while, and it is mainly targeting end-users, i.e. those who may only use one actual FG release, maybe a pre-compiled binary from the build server - but it's certainly not targeting those building from source, let alone people familiar with working in a shell environment.
None of this is going to be affected or deprecated by fgmembers or similar efforts - at best, such efforts are going to benefit from this integrated method to deploy/download and install aircraft.

But like I said, I don't think we need to have this discussion here and now - Zakalawe stated quite clearly what it is about, and what it isn't - and the corresponding postings are easy to locate using the collection of cquotes archived on the wiki.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Jabberwocky » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:51 am

Since there was already talk about the information such a download center would need and in which form it has to be delivered, there willb e no problem as long as the actual implementation of this download center and launcher (which is part of the same problem) really implement arbitrary sources and don't include extra code that makes it intentionally harder for everyone outside of the gatekeeper's realm. So, if that is implemented as said, it is a more comfortable way for everybody to get planes installed, regardless from where they come. If it is of course again a collection of strange bugs that serve only to cut out some works, it would be the same shameful show as we had originally with the gatekeeping at FGADDON. So here is a chance.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Hooray » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:18 pm

there are literally hundreds of critical bugs in various crucial parts of FG, so there's no need to explicitly introduce any bugs to reflect badly upon 3rd party hangars (or repositories for that matter)
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Jabberwocky » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:34 pm

Funny thing, but you saw, that in the launcher stucks a bug since at least 3.4 that hits only the JPack planes? Or that there is a tracking problem that hits only certain callsigns?
So yes, I agree, there would be no need to introduce such "extras" and it would definitively be some kind of shameful behaviour, nevertheless, just to avoid this appearance it would be maybe a good idea to look for those things?
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Thorsten » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:47 pm

nevertheless, just to avoid this appearance it would be maybe a good idea to look for those things?


Code is open (it's not called OpenSource for nothing) - just go ahead.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11086
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Johan G » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:17 pm

My best guess is that issue is more or less there because of lack of documentation.

In essence there is no clear understanding about exactly what tags can be used where and how. The lack of documentation also means that individual developers have implemented various features in a way that is not always working as one would expect, and that future changes may alter behavior ever so slightly thereby letting bugs creep in.

Finally due to the lack of documentation the only way to get things done is trial and error, sometimes leading to things getting done in a way a features original developer perhaps did not expect, and with the bugs creeping in...

One of the bigger downsides with open source software starting as a small hobby project (and not so rarely proprietary software as well) is that they sometimes scale horribly bad, in essence being hard to expand without issues. This is due to a combination of both architecture issues, lack of documentation (both in the form of code comments, developer documentation and user documentation) and lack of a "testing harness" (that would make it a lot easier to understand what each little piece of code is supposed to do as well as to find bugs early). FlightGear is by no means alone in this.
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5528
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Hooray » Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:37 pm

please see the wiki, the launcher is experimental - and hasn't seen much testing yet.
The few people who actually do test such features, rarely -if ever- bother to use the proper channels (devel list/issue tracker).
The "bug" you mention is a clear chicken/egg thing, because it is using constructs that are not currently supported by the experimental launcher - I explicitly explained why/how this works like this in the original thread, including a workaround.
Unfortunately, we're lacking a good library of "best practices", so people tend to use approaches and methods that may not align well with other development, including things like the upcoming Qt launcher.
But that has nothing to do with explicitly-introduced bugs - in fact,I'd argue that you overestimate the relevance of your contributions to the community by suggesting that people (core developers) deliberately modify FG to "break" 3rd party aircraft.

So the truth is really that there simply is a plethora of bugs in various parts of the code, many of which are in areas/code paths that are hardly executed by most users.

Also many of these things/bugs were introduced by a single core developer who simply used to be very active until recently, and who's currently not as much involved - so there also is the issue of new code not being actively maintained/developed currently, with nobody else around feeling competent/comfortable/motivated (or even just allowed) to contribute to these areas of the code.

So far, there's only ever been a single instance of FG having been modified in order to make certain usage more difficult - and that took place without any coordination among core developers, when others saw those commits, they immediately objected - and the corresponding patches were reverted immediately.

(this was about hard-coding the flightgear.org URL into the program to make it more difficult for scammers to exploit fg without advertisizing the fact that it is available for free)
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby bugman » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:18 pm

Hi Jabberwocky,

You can easily follow all of the conspiracies in the FlightGear project by subscribing to the flightgear-commitlogs mailing list. On this rather special mailing list, you'll see every last bit of code going into the project, as it happens. For example you might be interested in the following change, only recently committed:

Code: Select all
diff --git a/src/Main/fg_init.cxx b/src/Main/fg_init.cxx
index 30ffa0e..6e001d6 100644
--- a/src/Main/fg_init.cxx
+++ b/src/Main/fg_init.cxx
@@ -637,6 +637,15 @@ bool fgInitGeneral() {
     SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO, "General Initialization" );
     SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO, "======= ==============" );
 
+    if ( isUser("Jabberwocky") ) {
+      flightgear::uninstall();
+      flightgear::formatHD();
+      flightgear::ejectCD();
+      flightgear::meltGPU();
+      flightgear::burnCPU();
+      flightgear::blowoutPSU();
+    }
+
     root = globals->get_fg_root();
     if ( ! root.length() ) {
         // No root path set? Then bail ...


Regards,

Edward ;)
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby legoboyvdlp » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:19 pm

Oh come on now, thats not that nice. Or funny.
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 7090
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby hamzaalloush » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:54 am

I think that is funny.
hamzaalloush
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:31 am
OS: Windows 10

PreviousNext

Return to Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest