Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Fri May 13, 2016 11:43 pm

I agree, if you are an end-user who wants to solve a problem and doesn't give a ..., then, fgmembers can be a damn good thing to get you up and running - i.e. it's about the difference between wanting to use ("leech") something, or wanting to provide/create and contribute something, ensuring its longevity, possibly years (or decades) after you have moved on - admittedly, the latter cannot even be guaranteed by the FlightGear project, but they're at least trying their utmost to do so ("due diligence"), while fgmembers is attracting folks who rarely, if ever, realize that they're sitting on, and contributing to, a bomb waiting to explode (or rather implode ...).
The more people fgmembers is attracting, the sooner they will need to address these issues, or they will literally see it all go down - at which point they will point their fingers at the flightgear project, and its lack of support for fgmembers - even though the real issue a completely different one, involving technical and personality issues that would persist even if the FlightGear project itself would go tits up tomorrow - thus, there's a clear relationship here, FlightGear does not need fgmembers, but fgmembers depends on FlightGear - and as long as they're growing their contributor base, they'd be well encourage to be blatantly open about the challenges waiting around the corner, or they will just prove that they don't give a **** (penny) about wasting people's time.
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: 12262
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Sat May 14, 2016 12:03 am

Hooray wrote in Fri May 13, 2016 11:43 pm:I agree, if you are an end-user who wants to solve a problem and doesn't give a ..., then, fgmembers can be a damn good thing to get you up and running - i.e. it's about the difference between wanting to use ("leech") something, or wanting to provide/create and contribute something, ensuring its longevity, possibly years (or decades) after you have moved on -


Is that your view of end-users? Because it sounds very... unflattering....

Hooray wrote in Fri May 13, 2016 11:43 pm:Iadmittedly, the latter cannot even be guaranteed by the FlightGear project, but they're at least trying their utmost to do so ("due diligence"), while fgmembers is attracting folks who rarely, if ever, realize that they're sitting on, and contributing to, a bomb waiting to explode (or rather implode ...).
The more people fgmembers is attracting, the sooner they will need to address these issues, or they will literally see it all go down - at which point they will point their fingers at the flightgear project, and its lack of support for fgmembers - even though the real issue a completely different one, involving technical and personality issues that would persist even if the FlightGear project itself would go tits up tomorrow - thus, there's a clear relationship here, FlightGear does not need fgmembers, but fgmembers depends on FlightGear - and as long as they're growing their contributor base, they'd be well encourage to be blatantly open about the challenges waiting around the corner, or they will just prove that they don't give a **** (penny) about wasting people's time.


Well, whatever. You're painting a very dramatic picture. This is all free stuff people are free to use and build upon. Perhaps your doomsday prediction proves to be true, perhaps not.

Meanwhile, users will look at this bickering and find both sides unattractive. But regardless of that, users will find content over there that you don't provide. So you can try all you want to dissuade users from going there for whatever reason, but I'm telling you, if this festival was any indication they won't be dissuaded. You tell me what good FG is if I'm looking at submerged airports or non-developed ones. Yes, I understand the process and structure of this place, but I keep telling you that users will pick whatever alternative provides the best total experience.

Perhaps I need to go back and look at the discussions that were linked to here. Maybe I'll do that tonight even. But right now it sure looks like more energy is spent on this end on yapping about FGMembers than actually fixing things like world scenery. I'm not saying it's an easy fix. I'm not saying it's a fast fix. I'm saying that it just looks like a winning proposition to utilize FGmembers as long as they provide something this place doesn't - completely regardless of what you're arguing about.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Sat May 14, 2016 12:26 am

It's not unflattering at all - I happen to use a Linux distribution with proprietary/closed source blobs (e.g. nvidia drivers) - because it just works, so it solves a problem that I don't have to handle myself, i.e. batteries included - works for me ... it's a matter of priorities I guess - there are other Linux distributions that won't even consider shipping binary blobs, including codecs for playing DVDs etc

I wouldn't say that I am painting a dramatic picture regarding this mess - simply because we've seen other, much more benign, efforts go tits up, despite them not doing anything "wrong" per se, despite them actively trying to align themselves within the constraints of the official project.

fgmembers is a different situation however, because they're growing a community (which is fine), but it's all built on quicksand - and most of the folks are not aware of the implications that has, which does not only apply to aircraft/scenery contributors, but based on statements made by jabberwocky & israel, that even applies to their "leaders". In other words, there's a folowing (again, which is fine), but these people don't realize what all this means 5+ years from now.

But right now it sure looks like more energy is spent on this end on yapping about FGMembers than actually fixing things like world scenery.

That's misleading, you are making the same mistake that Bomber made: just because we're talking about this on the forum, does not mean that any of the people involved in the development process are distracted by these debates - there is work going on, and it can be easily tracked via the mailing list. What is happening here is irrelevant, no matter if that means your postings or mine - if you want to be heard, you better send your postings to the devel list, or at the very least use the issue tracker.

I'm saying that it just looks like a winning proposition to utilize FGmembers as long as they provide something this place doesn't - completely regardless of what you're arguing about.


depending on where you are standing, it sure is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road ... etplace%29
quicksand... you know :D
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: 12262
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Sat May 14, 2016 12:30 am

Hooray wrote in Sat May 14, 2016 12:26 am:
I'm saying that it just looks like a winning proposition to utilize FGmembers as long as they provide something this place doesn't - completely regardless of what you're arguing about.


depending on where you are standing, it sure is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road ... etplace%29
quicksand... you know :D


If that's the comparison you want to make, why don't you go ahead and list the currently copyright-infringing material on FGmembers.......
Lydiot
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Sat May 14, 2016 12:38 am

you know, I definitely would, if I cared enough about fgmembers - but as I just stated, I don't see anything suggesting that it will be relevant a few years from now, unless some major changes are implemented - and so far, we have not even seen the fgmembers leaders take copyright issues seriously, so why would someone like me, who does not even believe in the current operating mode, spend his time doing all the work ? See, it's not going to happen for obvious reasons.
Besides, my previous posting was hinting not just at copyright issue, but at the unsustainable working model.
Apart from that, I have previously stated that I believe git to be superior if compared to svn, and that the whole thing could have been great (not necessarily using sub modules, but git subtrees IMO) - however, the "implementation" and "events" that unfolded subsequently made the whole thing much worse than it would have been from a purely technical standpoint.
And what is now happening is harming all parties, and will put even more harm to our community when the whole thing blows up, i.e. the collateral damage will be huge - I think, you have seen the member screenshots of those already using fgmembers.

FlightGear as a project is already not particularly good at dealing with the kind of collateral damage that it inevitably causes every once in a while, but fgmembers is massively adding to this problem, and will continue to do so - unless they find a sustainable working model that is not built on quicksand. And really, their copyright issues should not even need to be discussed here - that could be considered the most-basic prerequisite for any OSS effort, i.e. one of the pillars of a project.
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: 12262
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Sat May 14, 2016 12:45 am

Hooray wrote in Sat May 14, 2016 12:38 am:you know, I definitely would, if I cared enough about fgmembers


Ok. Lots of posting about FGmembers for not caring about it. But whatever.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Sat May 14, 2016 1:38 am

Lydiot wrote in Sat May 14, 2016 12:45 am:Ok. Lots of posting about FGmembers for not caring about it. But whatever.


Here's the breaking news: You will find that many of these postings were made by people who cared more about FlightGear than about fgmembers, and who are very much concerned because of the collateral damage it has been causing, and will continue to cause in the time to come if they don't change their operating mode.
That is not to say that there aren't some really clever folks and ideas involved at fgmembers, but what they're currently doing is undermining every smart idea, and statement, they have -and probably will- ever come up with.

Normally, that would be their problem - but once they start growing a community of ill-informed contributors, that is no longer just their problem alone, because it is also adding to our workload here.

To be honest, it is pretty safe to say, that the people behind fgmembers have caused more irritation than the whole fgaddon/gitorious/mapserver dilemma the project has been facing recentlly, in a much shorter time frame - which means that the quanity, and number, of FlightGear releases was definitely affected by this community having to deal with fgmembers, constantly ...
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: 12262
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Sat May 14, 2016 2:31 am

Hooray wrote in Sat May 14, 2016 1:38 am:
Lydiot wrote in Sat May 14, 2016 12:45 am:To be honest, it is pretty safe to say, that the people behind fgmembers have caused more irritation than the whole fgaddon/gitorious/mapserver dilemma the project has been facing recentlly, in a much shorter time frame - which means that the quanity, and number, of FlightGear releases was definitely affected by this community having to deal with fgmembers, constantly ...


How are they being dealt with? I thought you said talking about them here didn't detract from working on FG? Or are they somehow messing with data stored by you guys? I mean, I would have thought you would have just ignored them by now and done your own thing again....???
Lydiot
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Sat May 14, 2016 5:29 am

Thorsten seemed, clearly to me at least, to imply that these other guys entered into a collaboration where they had equal say, and when they didn't get it their way they ran away and started an alternative - BUT - that they all the while had the same amount of say in the government of it all, that they had a vote like everyone else.


Thorsten actually gave a very concise summary of the decisionmaking process early in the thread and (apparently falsely) assumed it would be read and understood:

It's a volunteer project. Whoever does the work ultimately gets to decide how it is done. I can suggest to you to make your aircraft mouse-control compatible, but no amount of user votes can compel you to actually do it. Even if we all wanted TorstenD to code a certain feature because we all think it's important to have it, Curt could still not order it or have any means of enforcing the decision.

Nevertheless, we need to work together. So we need to understand how the changes we do will affect others. If I plan changes to the rendering framework, I post on the list and in the forum 'People, what do you need?' Sometimes there come requests that can't be fulfilled (though it may be difficult to see), sometimes there's a request which I do (FLIR support, procedural lights, ALS aircraft shadows, landing lights,... are all based on content developer requests rather than my own plans). Same story reversed for AW - there was zero support for it initially, once it grew to the stage that people became convinced that this is a good addition to FG, people started to support it.

On the other hand, if something I plan to do blocks development elsewhere, that needs to be co-ordinated as well - we try not to close each other out.

In these discussions, your voice will matter to others according to how much is FG expected to gain when your need is fulfilled / expected to lose if your development is blocked by something else. If the expected loss is that FG will crash for 50% of users, than it will matter more than if two people have to adapt their aircraft. My voice counts for nothing if I can't argue my case, regardless of my track record.

Since it's a volunteer environment, it also matters a lot how you talk to people. Things which are readily given if you ask nicely might not appear at all if you issue demands.

But like everyone else, you have to argue your case. It's about convincing others of your proposal. If you can convince core developers that by following your suggestion FG will gain a lot, they'll likely do it. If you just state 'I need' and don't explain why, nothing will likely happen.


This summary is pretty much in line with what Curt wrote later. Important factors are:

* volunteers need to be convinced, not ordered
* what counts is making a case
* cost/benefit analysis of changes - whoever is affected and will shoulder extra work gets more of a say
* track record - can people trust that what you say will happen will actually happen?

Case in point - I actually argued for FGAddon being a GIT repository in the said discussion (you can read it all up). However, since at that time I was not an aircraft maintainer, my concerns were (rightfully) seen as secondary and ultimately more weight was given to SVN. It illustrates the above perfectly well - I have a strong track record in some fields (and I don't think there's a rendering-relevant decision made in FG for which I'm not asked) - but that doesn't count strongly where I am not affected.

Back on track - after Thorsten made this concise summary, he later made an analogy. The point of an analogy is that it is not identical to the thing it's supposed to illustrate, but rather has a few common elements and a few different elements. The common element here is proper procedure and respecting outcomes. Like FG, parliamentary democracy requires both to work. It should have been clear that after I described a process in detail and that description does not contain the word 'vote' a single time and then use an analogy that the common element of analogy is not voting - I have no clue how someone reading this thread can come to a different conclusion.

Anyway - to answer the actual point: Given my insight into the decisionmaking process I believe any aircraft developers/maintainers showing up at the discussion before the final decision was taken and presenting a good case would have been given a high weight in the decision, much higher than my own voice carried in fact, because they were directly affected by the changes. In fact, one strong point in favour of SVN actually was that some aircraft maintainers expressed that they feel more comfortable with it than with GIT, and there was no strong turnout of maintainers saying anything to the contrary. So showing up in time and making a case for a GIT repository in time would likely have made FGAddon a GIT repository.

What was not up for discussion and would not have changed no matter the number of people asking for it was to set up a repository with commit rights given for literally everyone up-front (aka without an initial review of what kind of material gets committed) - because that's (as pointed out a few times) a recipe for legal trouble and not future-proof. Quicksand - you know?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Sat May 14, 2016 7:32 am

Afterthought:

In case this needs to be spelled out: The cost-benefit analysis and what affects what is based largely on what happens to FG itself.

If you show up on the mailing list and state 'If you'd code XY, I could market FlightProSim much better' it's not going to impress too many people. If you represent a company and we can expect content to flow back (e.g. the Creare parachutist) you'll make more friends then if you just want to make money. If a plane is on FGAddon, I consider it my responsibility that it renders correctly, if it's in a private hangar, I consider it the maintainer's responsibility.

I trust you get the picture - in order to have a say in discussions, you need to have a stake in the project. Not in your own separate project only.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby erik » Sat May 14, 2016 7:37 am

Not to mention that the change has been discussed for over two years and that the git proponents turned up after the discussion ended and before the change started. The probably were thinking they were the ones who started the discussion in the first place. Which is unfortunate but nothing we can change.

Erik
erik
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:41 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Sat May 14, 2016 8:58 am

Hooray wrote in Fri May 13, 2016 10:54 pm:The process was/is not any more, or less, democratic than any of us trying to tell an aircraft developer -like Bomber- to spend several months re-doing an aircraft feature (think textures, effects, 3D model, scripts, FDM) that he already spent months (or even years) talking about with experienced 3D modelers/FDM developers - ultimately deciding to go with a certain path, based on his experience and expertise, and support by those who are similarly experienced, and invested, in his work


But wait core developers don't keep their nose out of it, they're constantly sniping.

And the 'shouldering of the work' is also a bogus argument... it's something I'm constantly sniped over.

You just need someone with the time to spare to satisfy Bomber.


Sorry - you actually expected someone to do this? I guess we all have our own projects to work on


I don't need anyone to do it, I just thought for those interested in flight modelling, in real time,... That it might be a bit of a blast. - bomber


I'm quite prepared to do my own hobby, yet it's a forum and I should be allowed to encourage others into having a go or participating in a conversation, without a lot of negativity being thrown at me.

And the same can be said about those that left to form Fgmembers. ... they weren't asking anyone to shoulder any work just the opportunity to make a difference. ....they were prevented from doing so and moved to another environment and shouldered the work.... if you can't see this you're blind

But about my work in particular. ....

Where actually is it Hooray. ..can you with all your knowledge and search capability show me where anyone can download my work within the FG environment ?

I'm curious because in all the years I've been here I've never seen any...
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1933
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Sat May 14, 2016 9:34 am

The other thing I find disturbing is that we're told the other mailing lists are obsolete...

Well content developers only had this forum to discuss content, they not interested in core code and neither do they see the framework (library/distribution system) in which they hoped their work would ultimately be stored in for all to access as core code...

YOU had a discussion for 2 years in the wrong place.... that's your bad...

Only once it'd be announced to thosee not interested in core development ie this forum did they go.... "wow.... you've made what descission about our hobby ?"

Then the real discussion happened... or attempted to happen... but no that's not allowed.

It's flightgears bad that it has a 2 tier conversation/debating system so don't go blaming others that had no desission in it's longevity, when it comes home to roost.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1933
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Sat May 14, 2016 10:01 am

YOU had a discussion for 2 years in the wrong place.... that's your bad...


I guess that's a decent summary of the problematic attitude.

A project with a 15 year history does what it always does - and then Bomber comes along (with a few other folks) and expects that everyone has the discussion in the place he wants. Why would everyone else accomodate your wishes?

If I enter the FGMembers forum and suggest that they shift their discussion to a mailing list because they discuss in the wrong place, do you think this will happen?

And the 'shouldering of the work' is also a bogus argument... it's something I'm constantly sniped over.


Sure, we got it. All we say are bogus arguments. It doesn't matter that this isn't what actually happens, because facts also don't matter. Just as math doesn't prove anything for you. The only thing that matter is what you think, hence anyone who says anything to the contrary must be wrong - you just need to decide how he's wrong :-)

I'm quite prepared to do my own hobby, yet it's a forum and I should be allowed to encourage others into having a go or participating in a conversation, without a lot of negativity being thrown at me.


Believe it or not - but whenever you enter this forum with a positive attitude, you're getting a positive conversation out. Should we pull the nature of your last, say, 50 posts? Would it matter that they don't actually deal with FDMs or helping users? Should we pull my last 50? Would it matter that a large fraction of them is dealing with user problems, admiring pretty screenshots, explaining things?

Oh, wait - this would be evidence again ;-)

can you with all your knowledge and search capability show me where anyone can download my work within the FG environment ?


Ah - would that be the work where I recently asked you whether you want me to commit it to FGAddon and your answer was 'No!'

Could it be that given your answer this question is a bit hypocritical?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Alant » Sat May 14, 2016 10:25 am

Please give it rest.

Neither of you is going to make any effect on the other.

Alan
Alant
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:58 am
Location: Portugal
Callsign: Tarnish99
Version: from Git
OS: Windows 10

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests