ZDaemon 1.09 Released

While I disagree with the idea of 32-bit executables or libraries being a "security risk" they certainly are a liability, and honestly, I find it sad that this has to be debated. It's been 9 years since the first x86_64 processor came out and it's been a huge success, even to the point that Linux and Windows are all showing strong indications of fully removing old x86_32 support in the semi-distant, but quickly approaching future(And I think OSX already has AFAIK). Granted this is a few years from now, but this could end up making ZDaemon into a dead port.

Obviously asking for the source is going to get us nowhere, many have been there and done that. But the programmers of ZDaemon should strongly consider creating 64-bit builds for OS X, Windows AND Linux. Who knows how long it will be until 1.10? Another 7 years? A decade? x86_32 will certainly be dead by then.

It's highly doubtful Linux will remove x86-32 support any time soon. I can well imagine it falling into wide disuse and applications not supporting it well, if at all, but the kernel itself is rather unlikely to drop it barring maintainers for it dropping totally off the face of the earth (Linux still supports a whole bunch of obscure and mostly-dead CPU architectures); or even dropping 32-bit support out of the x86-64 port is unlikely too.

Windows 9 dropping x86-32 doesn't seem far-fetched, but I'm willing to bet that only means that it requires a 64-bit CPU and arch to run, not dropping 32-bit app compatibility.

With all that said, for convenience's sake, it certainly would be nice to have a native 64-bit binary for ZDaemon but it's not crippling. I don't know of any distros that actually turn off 32-bit compatibility in the kernel packages, so you'd have to go pretty far out of your way to build a kernel that can't run it.

I've decided you people are all off your rocker. What happened to people responding in an announcement thread of "nice job", or "about time" (to be sarcastic)?

When did an announcement turn into a place to vent complaints? Didn't you people ever learn that if you have nothing nice to say to shut your mouth, smile, nod, leave the room, and express it at the right time & place?

Regardless, to fire back:

There is nothing inherently insecure or dangerous about 32bit libraries on a 64bit system. The dangerous part is that you don't know enough about your system to know this. 32bit libs have exists for a very long time, and their bugs are very well worked out. Any dangers from having 32bit libs on a 64bit system stem from that early 64bit builds (especially of linux!) were CRAP. They were buggy and inconsistent (even across distributions).

You are right though, FreeBSD != Linux. FreeBSD knows how to build a 64bit platform that doesn't have issues with 32bit libs.*


Few points:
- ZDaemon does not currently build in a 64bit environment. This will eventually change, but it's obviously not a high priority for 1.09, since 1.09 is still a 32bit build, and was released. Just accept it. There won't be a 64bit 1.09 build, you're not about to change that. 1.10 might support it, but it won't be because you bitch about it here. It will be because the dev's choose to make it work.

- The only case for a 64bit ZDaemon is "I don't want to install 32bit libs." I probably have the strongest case for it, while playing catch up on the mac version. OS X defaults to trying to build everything in 64bit. So including libs we use on it means having to get universal (32bit/64bit) builds of everything. Since I'm developing stuff, I should be using universal builds for everything, even when ZDaemon does compile in 64bit, so this will still be a future issue.

- ZDaemon is based on zDoom 1.23, and the primary focus has been making it perform more like Doom2, but with a fantastic client/server architecture. This also includes adding some features for mappers to do more interesting things. Obviously, 64bit builds have not be anywhere near the top of the list, and probably still aren't. Don't suggest that we upgrade, it's not going to happen. We're a whole lot more picky on code we use.

- 32bit platforms are not going away anytime soon. Even if MS decides Windows 9 won't have 32bit libs, we haven't even seen Windows 8 hit release yet (soon). It will have support for 32bit apps.

- MS supports all of it's OS's for 3 (5?) years past the last release/service pack. This is why Windows XP hung on for so long, given the release date for XP-SP3. Well, that and they released extended support for it.

- Mac OS X, while requiring a 64bit cpu, still has 32bit libs. Yes, even on 10.8 (Mountain Lion).

- Linux 32 bit compatibility will not go away anytime too soon, since people run some REALLY OLD HARDWARE using the OS. Not to mention embedded platforms.


* Yes, I'm just taking a stab at the concept that there's a fear of running 32bit libs on a 64bit Linux. FreeBSD had trouble making it work just like everyone else. MS, Apple, Linux, various BSDs - they all had trouble making 64bit work flawlessly. Did you know, that there were issues with whether a long (in c) was 32bit or 64bit, depending on which platform you were using? Yeah, tell me 64bit was flawless. No wonder 32bit compat libs had trouble everywhere.

AlexMax said:

The old license over the overall codebase was invalid, as the supposedly-GPL bits of Nightfang's (and other contributors) code were paired with ZDoom 1.23's BUILD stuff.

That doesn't make any of their GPL bits less GPL. However, supposedly the development team either got permission from the old contributors to close the source or they rewrote the code.

I thought we set this to rest.

DSL is incompatible with GPL. Any project trying to integrate both is breaking both of the licenses. Nowadays of course, you could take the route of just upgrading your DSL-licensed code to GPL, provided you can get permission for it.

At the time this took place there was no DSL->GPL upgrade (thank god) so it was logical to remove and replace the GPL code put there by a predecessor. Removing all illegitimately used GPL code, and replacing it with code written by ZDaemon devs is what happened.

The argument for wanting to compile a 64-bit binary is a weak one. A much stronger one is the fact that ZDaemon would literally not exist if it wasn't for John Carmack releasing Doom in the first place and the community norms that led to open-source ports like ZDoom in the first place.

Lyfe said:

When did an announcement turn into a place to vent complaints? Didn't you people ever learn that if you have nothing nice to say to shut your mouth, smile, nod, leave the room, and express it at the right time & place?

There's already a community for ZDaemon sycophants over yonder if you just want a pat on the back.

Lyfe said:

I thought we set this to rest.

DSL is incompatible with GPL. Any project trying to integrate both is breaking both of the licenses. Nowadays of course, you could take the route of just upgrading your DSL-licensed code to GPL, provided you can get permission for it.

I think you and I are on the same page. The DSL is incompatible with the GPL, but if I say my code contributions are under the GPL, just because they happen to be included in a project that breaks that license doesn't magically entitle them to that GPL code.

The ZDaemon team supposedly removed all of that code, and I have no reason to consider you a liar. So it is still a question that is "put to rest".

DSL/GPL incompatibility didn't stop you guys from releasing ZD 1.06. Are we supposed to believe you rewrote everything contributed under the GPL? This would be all csDoom releases and all ZDaemon releases up to 1.06. Personally I don't.

Fortunately you guys have a great opportunity to make me look like a little bitch. Release the source for 1.08. Or I guess you can continue to try and take the moral high ground after years of running one of the most paranoid, hypocritical gaming community administrations ever, but it just looks stupid.

There are good reasons for wanting source, btw, which is largely what people have been asking for in this thread. APIs change, hardware platforms change, but ZDaemon only releases a new major version once every million years. The three fans you have left would probably be really sad if they couldn't play their favorite port anymore, don't you care about your fans?

Open source is also a good defense against stuff like backdoors and security threats. With the c/s community's bad record of backdoors (Fly hardcoding his IP address, Carnevil hardcoding his IP address), ZDaemon's myriad security problems, and the ZDaemon administration's perversely high level of interest in what goes on in our games, you can understand our unease.

I wish you guys would just fuckin google "why is closed source retarded" instead of trying to make shit arguments. The debate is kind of old. Even ST went open source.

Vermil said:

Doomworld is one of the few, perhaps largest, 'neutral' Doom forum; i.e a forum not affiliated with any particular port etc etc, where people of all ports come.

AlexMax said:

There's already a community for ZDaemon sycophants over yonder if you just want a pat on the back.

Thanks for pointing out that Vermil was wrong. I'm so glad this place is so "neutral," given how full it is of biased commentary. I guess my opinion from a decade ago on the place wasn't quite so wrong.

Ladna said:

DSL/GPL incompatibility didn't stop you guys from releasing ZD 1.06. Are we supposed to believe you rewrote everything contributed under the GPL? This would be all csDoom releases and all ZDaemon releases up to 1.06. Personally I don't.

It also didn't prevent 1.05, 1.04, or even 1.0. I claim naivety. Not just of myself, but of the guy that caused the incompatibility in the first place. We righted something that was wrong, and because it didn't work out the way *you* wanted, you chastise us for it. Thanks.
Believe what you want. This is what happened. It wasn't very difficult to figure out what came from where, when the changes prior to that were pretty damn obvious. Not like there were a lot of contributors back then either. Thankfully, to simplify our lives, burden of proof is on you anyway. So, get that decompiler out and start working. I'll let you in on a secret: you won't find what you're looking for.

Ladna said:

Fortunately you guys have a great opportunity to make me look like a little bitch. Release the source for 1.08.

I actually don't need to do anything to make you look like a little bitch. You do that well enough on your own. What you're suggesting isn't going to happen anyway, but I do have to ask: why request the sources for 1.08? Why not 1.07, which had the minimal set of changes, or 1.09 which is current? What is so magical about 1.08?

Ladna said:

There are good reasons for wanting source, btw, which is largely what people have been asking for in this thread. APIs change, hardware platforms change, but ZDaemon only releases a new major version once every million years. The three fans you have left would probably be really sad if they couldn't play their favorite port anymore, don't you care about your fans?

Open source is also a good defense against stuff like backdoors and security threats. With the c/s community's bad record of backdoors (Fly hardcoding his IP address, Carnevil hardcoding his IP address), ZDaemon's myriad security problems, and the ZDaemon administration's perversely high level of interest in what goes on in our games, you can understand our unease.

I wish you guys would just fuckin google "why is closed source retarded" instead of trying to make shit arguments. The debate is kind of old. Even ST went open source.

There are good reasons for wanting the sources, yes. None of the people here have *any* demand for using the sources in those fashions. Say what you want, but you're lying to everyone (including yourself) if you do say otherwise. The primary reason people here want the sources is to fork the project. That's a pretty shitty reason. Your arguments for wanting the sources due to future change of APIs and hardware is invalid while development is continuing. It's not like we didn't release a hot fix for the windows 7 palette incompatibility. Oh wait, you all forget that we actually do release bug fixes & updates, because you're too busy scoffing at us.

ZDaemon does not have a myriad of security problems. This is just spreading FUD. I also fail to understand your unease. I can only think of one or two things to which you might be referring, but perhaps you're just one of the paranoid and hypocritical people to whom you refer.

Open sources hasn't prevented any of the backdoors and security threats. It has not made OpenSSL lack security threats. It has not made PHP fail to be found to contain a new exploit every month (week?). Open sources ability to help prevent against security threats is only as the people who look at the sources and are good enough to spot them. Again, the people here aren't even looking for them, much less likely to find them. Backdoors? We have one isolated incident in our history (which we told the guy not to release, even though he did) which tarnished our reputation on backdoors/viruses/whatnot. We're not interested in repeating it.

You are right on that the debate is old. We're not going to change, so why don't you shut the hell up about it?

Lyfe said:

Thanks for pointing out that Vermil was wrong. I'm so glad this place is so "neutral," given how full it is of biased commentary. I guess my opinion from a decade ago on the place wasn't quite so wrong.

This place is neutral, you guys legitimately deserve scorn for the way you've acted. AlexMax was saying if you want to get around that, you can just hide on the ZDaemon forums where you can and do ban people for no reason. Good deliberate misunderstanding though, classic ZDaemon tactic.

Lyfe said:

It also didn't prevent 1.05, 1.04, or even 1.0. I claim naivety. Not just of myself, but of the guy that caused the incompatibility in the first place. We righted something that was wrong, and because it didn't work out the way *you* wanted, you chastise us for it. Thanks.
Believe what you want. This is what happened. It wasn't very difficult to figure out what came from where, when the changes prior to that were pretty damn obvious. Not like there were a lot of contributors back then either. Thankfully, to simplify our lives, burden of proof is on you anyway. So, get that decompiler out and start working. I'll let you in on a secret: you won't find what you're looking for.

1.06 was the first version to include BUILD code. Otherwise, from what I understand, there was a tacit understanding between ZD devs and Randy that GPL was OK.

I think your obvious ignorance as to the content of the codebase, your admitted naivety, and ZDaemon's history of dishonesty and insane pursuit of control over the community all mean you're not a good authority. It's like you're a magician and there's a huge elephant on stage, and then you pull a big black board in front of it and say "TADA!!! THE ELEPHANT HAS DISAPPEARED!!!" You're gonna have to do a little better than that. Fuckin "get that decompiler out", do you even know how those things work?

Lyfe said:

I actually don't need to do anything to make you look like a little bitch. You do that well enough on your own. What you're suggesting isn't going to happen anyway, but I do have to ask: why request the sources for 1.08? Why not 1.07, which had the minimal set of changes, or 1.09 which is current? What is so magical about 1.08?

WHOA!!!!!! Come on newly-self-appointed-civility-sheriff! No need to call people names! Unless you feel like you're justified because of the way you were treated, then that would mean we agree. But if that's the case, then why if we act that way on the ZDaemon forums and in IRC do you guys ban us? Oh hypocrisy, OK.

There is absolutely no reason you guys can't release 1.08. You don't have to worry about cheaters using it, because everyone uses 1.09 now right? What are you guys hiding?

I requested 1.08 because I was hoping it gave you guys the most chance to obfuscate your "rewrite", and 1.09 is the "current version" so your bullshit argument about cheating and what-not wouldn't apply to 1.08. I'm really only considering your convenience and the health of your community. If you want to release 1.07, 1.08 and 1.09 that's great! AlexMax is a pro at setting up public source repos, I would recommend talking to him.

Oh you were just calling me names and making a terrible argument. Classic ZDaemon. I should've known.

Lyfe said:

There are good reasons for wanting the sources, yes. None of the people here have *any* demand for using the sources in those fashions. Say what you want, but you're lying to everyone (including yourself) if you do say otherwise. The primary reason people here want the sources is to fork the project. That's a pretty shitty reason. Your arguments for wanting the sources due to future change of APIs and hardware is invalid while development is continuing. It's not like we didn't release a hot fix for the windows 7 palette incompatibility. Oh wait, you all forget that we actually do release bug fixes & updates, because you're too busy scoffing at us.

I'm sure that your fans are 100% reassured that you guys have all taken solemn oaths to:
- Not die
- Not go to jail
- Not get tired of developing ZDaemon and disappear
- Develop ZDaemon forever
- Never introduce features they hate, or break existing functionality (CTF crash lasting months)

Popular closed source programs and their communities have died because their devs said exactly what you said, and then they disappeared. I know that I'm implying that you guys care more about your community than your control over that community, and that that's probably laughably wrong, but I'm a dreamer. Also (again), please Google benefits to open source. Or don't, and just continue with your bullshit justifications. It's like the Tea Party refusing to get wise on climate change because then they'd have to give up a huge party platform, or refusing to accept President Obama's U.S. citizenship because then they'd have to accept him as the legitimate leader of the free world. You can't just hold your hands over your hears and yell "LA LA LA LA LA" and expect to be taken seriously. Refusal to admit error: another classic ZDaemon tactic.

Forking is actually really great. There are forks of Linux (Android). There are forks of Firefox, Chromium, vi, emacs, Apache, OpenSSH, blah blah blah. There are forks of Skulltag, Zandronum is keeping that community alive (WAAAAY more alive than ZDaemon, by the way), ScoreDoom was a fork, MM8DM is a fork (I think?), Action Doom was a fork of ZDoom, ZDaemon is a fork of ZDoom (ROOOOOFL you are an idiot).

I can see how forking would be bad for you, because then players would be able to play ZDaemon however they wanted. But who cares about you guys? Oh you guys do, and that's why you won't release the source. OK, but please refrain from bullshit arguments from now on. All I want to hear in the future is, "we get boners whenever we ban people, and we couldn't do that as much if there were a fork".

Lyfe said:

ZDaemon does not have a myriad of security problems. This is just spreading FUD. I also fail to understand your unease. I can only think of one or two things to which you might be referring, but perhaps you're just one of the paranoid and hypocritical people to whom you refer.

I've been able to run ZDaemon 1.09 server for exactly 6 days (not that I ever would) so I don't know about it, but I do know that 1.08 crashed so frequently that:
- The recommended way to run the server was to run it in a while [ 1 ] loop in a script (ROOOOOOOOOFL)
- You guys had to implement a feature that remembered the current position in the map list in the event of a crash

Crashes are security vulnerabilities. Besides the ones you guys fixed yourselves (I'm not gonna dig through the changelog, or all the stuff that the Odamex team fixed in code that you both obviously share), but I think you owe your community honesty about these issues. Or you could just open the source and let them all have a look and help you find them and fix them. But again the community control thing....

Lyfe said:

Open sources hasn't prevented any of the backdoors and security threats. It has not made OpenSSL lack security threats. It has not made PHP fail to be found to contain a new exploit every month (week?). Open sources ability to help prevent against security threats is only as the people who look at the sources and are good enough to spot them. Again, the people here aren't even looking for them, much less likely to find them. Backdoors? We have one isolated incident in our history (which we told the guy not to release, even though he did) which tarnished our reputation on backdoors/viruses/whatnot. We're not interested in repeating it.

Wow these are some of the most pathetic, ignorant arguments I've ever encountered in the wild. More terrible logic brought to you courtesy of the ZDaemon development team.

1. Software with no known security vulnerabilities is more secure than a giant binary blob (ZDaemon)
2. More people looking at the code = more security
3. You can't look at the code (maybe that's why "the people here aren't even looking for them") if it's not open source

OpenSSL is security critical software developed by security experts, all of whom specifically have security in mind, and is regularly audited for security issues. It's also worth mentioning that nearly all the issues on the vulnerabilities page were reported by outside groups. Despite all this, NOT EVEN OPENSSL IS PERFECT. So excuse me if I don't take your word that ZDaemon doesn't have a myriad of security problems when you guys clearly have an embarrassingly flawed understanding of security, and can't even get the server to run reliably.

Please assure me that there's nothing in the ZDaemon server that backdoors my machine. Give it your best shot. I'll save you some time and say that you'll need to open source the code.

Finally, I think it's particularly ironic that you, Lyfe, have a problem with people derailing this thread and not taking your word that your software isn't malicious. I'm pretty sure we discussed exactly these issues before, in more reasonable times.

Ladna said:

Open source is also a good defense against stuff like backdoors and security threats. With the c/s community's bad record of backdoors (Fly hardcoding his IP address, Carnevil hardcoding his IP address), ZDaemon's myriad security problems, and the ZDaemon administration's perversely high level of interest in what goes on in our games, you can understand our unease.

Heh, what do backdoors cause in practice? I understand they give certain people in power advantages, but that sounds more amusing than harmful. I'd love to play against the admin who gets to run and shoot much faster :)

Second, I respect their choice to keep their code closed.

Congratulations commissars Alexmax and Ladna in keeping up with your fine FUD and walls of text. Guaranteed to drown out anyone that goes against the party position.

I'll only repeat what another DW poster said last year:

http://i.imgur.com/QkdpV.png

It's too bad you can't deactivate forum accounts here. This FUD spreading is getting really out of hand.

@Ladna:

I was going to reply to you, going almost point-by-point to rip your small argument (spread out by a lot of really bad examples) apart, but I was asked not to by the rest of the devs, who suggest you're not worth my time. Which is a shame. I love a good argument that I can win.

Either way, I think Kilgore summed it up for me.

Btw, go learn your licensing. Quit filling the minds of the people here with your FUD and lies. I've been through it. Even AlexMax seems to have acknowledged that there is no reason to doubt me on the licensed code in ZDaemon.

https://twitter.com/kilgorequotes

HumanBones said:

It's too bad you can't deactivate forum accounts here. This FUD spreading is getting really out of hand.

I love how the default ZDaemon reaction to dissent is censorship.

Fact: Closed-source Doom ports are unethical.

Good job staff on a nice release, alot of people have been waiting for 1.09 for so long. Personally not many of the features change much for me but to players who do everything and anything it's brilliant. 1.08.08 was suffice but still really well done!

Ladna said:

AlexMax is a pro at setting up public source repos, I would recommend talking to him.

Not that using github (or a myriad of other sites) is particularly hard...

exp(x) said:

Fact: Closed-source Doom ports are unethical.

Ethics aside, they just aren't very practical. Poor security records, trust issues, support issues...

Kilgore said:

Congratulations commissars Alexmax and Ladna in keeping up with your fine FUD and walls of text. Guaranteed to drown out anyone that goes against the party position.

I'll only repeat what another DW poster said last year:

http://i.imgur.com/QkdpV.png

Yeah, pointing out gaping holes in you guys' logic is exactly what Joseph Goebbels did. Ludicrous hyperbole to the point of non sequitur combined with super-loaded language (commissar, party, etc.): classic ZDaemon.

Also the guy who posted that graphic was an astroturfer. Way to choose unbiased sources. Then again I'm guessing you already knew he was, but who knows for sure.

Lyfe said:

I was going to reply to you, going almost point-by-point to rip your small argument (spread out by a lot of really bad examples) apart, but I was asked not to by the rest of the devs, who suggest you're not worth my time. Which is a shame. I love a good argument that I can win.

Hey I'm having fun too, don't let those jerks tell you what to do. You can't tell me you don't have the time, your hobby is development of a 20-year-old video game and posting on video game forums.

Don't be a quitter. If you can't even have a discussion about ZDaemon on Doomworld, how are we supposed to believe that you have the motivation and drive to continue development on ZDaemon FOREVER AND EVER? Don't let the 7 people who still play ZDaemon down, stand up for yourselves!

Or could it be you guys can't actually defend your actions, and you're running back home? Why don't you guys just release the source to the old 1.08 version? What are you trying to hide?

Lyfe said:

Either way, I think Kilgore summed it up for me.

All that guy did was compare AlexMax and me to the Nazi minister of propaganda and copy/paste some pic from an astroturfer. Again, if I did something like that on the ZDaemon forums, I'd be banned for life, but you guys are totally free to come to a neutral forum and do comically outrageous things. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! WHO ARE THE REAL NAZIS?!?!?!.

Lyfe said:

Btw, go learn your licensing. Quit filling the minds of the people here with your FUD and lies. I've been through it. Even AlexMax seems to have acknowledged that there is no reason to doubt me on the licensed code in ZDaemon.

I haven't said anything wrong about licensing (or about anything). Quit filling the minds of people here with your FUD and lies.

HumanBones said:

It's too bad you can't deactivate forum accounts here. This FUD spreading is getting really out of hand.

I have this image in my head of Kilgore trying to log into Doomworld over and over again, furiously trying to delete my forum account and not understanding why his password doesn't work, until he finally realizes he doesn't have admin access on every forum in the world. In his embarrassment, he sheepishly creates an account to compare AlexMax and me to a man who massacred hundreds of Jews and killed all six of his children, afterwards thinking to himself, "that'll show 'em".

But yeah, all that aside I have no doubt you guys have only the noblest of intentions.

EDIT:

Oh printz I forgot you. A backdoor can be anything from "Kilgore has RCON to your servers no matter what your password is" to actual remote user access on your server. For example, if I run the zserv binary as the "doom" user, then Kilgore could run commands like "rm", "passwd" or whatever as the "doom" user on my server.

As was said before, the C/S community has had to weather hostile administrators and developers since its inception, from Fly putting backdoors into csDoom, Carnevil putting backdoors into Skulltag, and Doom2Pro (ZDaemon developer) releasing a "fake cheat" that deleted doom2.wad from a would-be cheater's machine. Something like this isn't farfetched at all.

Oh, shit, more pointless arguing and drama surrounding this port?

Can we just leave this issue at "there are large differences in opinion and philosophy of the port's development and moderation" and leave it at that? I don't see how going back and forth at each other with the same arguments and ad hominems is going to solve anything. At the end of the day, no one's changing their mind. The ZDaemon staff and developers will continue their community moderation tactics and security policies, and many non-ZDaemon players will continue to express strong opposition in philosophy, policy, and opinion.

While I can't say that I fully agree with several aspects of how ZDaemon is run, I really, really don't care about it enough to be terribly vocal about it. Bickering isn't going to produce anything but unneeded hatred. So, in closing, I don't give a shit about the issue, and everyone should shut up unless they enjoy the "sport of debate" (or in this case, going "BAWW YOU'RE EVIL AND I'M RIGHT" over and over, accomplishing absolutely nothing in the process).

RottKing said:

https://twitter.com/kilgorequotes

Wasn't someone masterbanned for posting that?

Sodaholic said:

blah blah blah

Get off your high horse, seriously.

zap610 said:

Get off your high horse, seriously.

My horse isn't high, I am. Besides, I don't even have a horse.

But no, really, all I'm saying is that I've seen this "debate" occur over and over, and all I was doing was pointing out that since it accomplishes absolutely nothing, and that nothing comes of it, that it's a little absurd to continue it time and time again.

but it's fun...

zap610 said:

Wasn't someone masterbanned for posting that?

Yup, me and Shane were masterbanned for linking it in #zdplayers, it was worth it IMO.

printz said:

but it's fun...

In that case, have at it. It doesn't concern me very much, I was just throwing my two cents in.

RottKing said:

Yup, me and Shane were masterbanned for linking it in #zdplayers, it was worth it IMO.

How could he possibly justify that? Seriously, I would love to see his justification. Not even Carnevil masterbanned Shai for TFT. For God's sake he didn't even masterban me for calling his house years ago!

Does masterban equal "NO DOOM FOR YOU" too? Then it must suck if you don't have an alternate port to go to.

Lyfe said:

Thanks for pointing out that Vermil was wrong. I'm so glad this place is so "neutral," given how full it is of biased commentary. I guess my opinion from a decade ago on the place wasn't quite so wrong.

I only apply that sort of standard of criticism because it's one that I myself adhere to my work. If you or anybody else has a problem with something I've had a hand in creating, I want to hear about it, not put my fingers in my ears and say "La La La I can't hear you".

Kilgore said:

I have nothing substantial to say at all.

Coward.

Ladna said:

If you can't even have a discussion about ZDaemon on Doomworld, how are we supposed to believe that you have the motivation and drive to continue development on ZDaemon FOREVER AND EVER?

Or could it be you guys can't actually defend your actions, and you're running back home? Why don't you guys just release the source to the old 1.08 version? What are you trying to hide?

I haven't said anything wrong about licensing. Quit filling the minds of people here with your FUD and lies.

We're not having a discussion. I've been staying as factual as I can, and you're slinging mud. By definition a discussion involves examining an issue. You're not examining anything. You're making shit up in order to justify your mistake ideas, and continue

Since you don't want to drop the licensing thing, I suggest you go read up on it.
BUILD was released under the BUILD-license. It is NOT GPL compatible. So, all the GPL projects using it - yeah, fuck you all for being license-breakers. Yes, there is a scenario where you could have gotten the code under GPL, but it's not from the BUILD website.
Raven's Heretic/Hexen code was released under a non-commercial license much like Doom. Nearly a decade later, it was re-released under the GPL license.

Yes, please. Tell me where we got GPL code from again? Oh that's right, you're making it up as you go along instead of doing the research. On second thought, don't tell me anything about it, I'm not going to believe you.

"Don't let the facts get in the way of the truth."

Fact: ZDaemon will not be releasing the 1.08 sources.
Ladna's FUD: There is something to hide.
Truth: We don't want a forked project. It's not good for us, and it's probably not good for the the community we have built. Don't include yourself in that, since you've obviously decided you're not part of it.

Fact: ZDaemon uses code from multiple sources with their own licenses.
Ladna's FUD: They're breaking GPL somewhere.
Truth: We've done our research. We pay attention to it.

AlexMax said:

I only apply that sort of standard of criticism because it's one that I myself adhere to my work. If you or anybody else has a problem with something I've had a hand in creating, I want to hear about it, not put my fingers in my ears and say "La La La I can't hear you".

Criticism, sure. But outright slander? That shouldn't be acceptable anywhere, except apparently in politics.

Some people are obsessed with seeing others' source code. Fact is, ZDaemon crew has the right to keep the recipe to themselves.

Lyfe said:

Don't include yourself in that, since you've obviously decided you're not part of it.

Let's not stretch the truth here. He was masterbanned over a bullshit cheating accusation and didn't really have a choice.

Lyfe said:

Criticism, sure. But outright slander? That shouldn't be acceptable anywhere, except apparently in politics.

Criticism, no. Even today I overheard someone who was afraid to speak frankly about ZDaemon because he was afraid that if someone "snitched" on him that he would end up on some admins shitlist and eventually masterbanned over something stupid. This is not a healthy attitude for members of your community to have! They shouldn't be afraid to contradict you guys on hot-button issues.

But getting back to the licensing issue, the trouble is that because ZDaemon is closed source, people can only take you at your word. I happen to do so, and Ladna doesn't.

And I'm not implying that every GPL violation is malicious...hell, I was reassured that Skulltag had no GPL code in it, and what did I find when I was going through the source repository but Hexen 2's GPL huffman encoder. And there are several instances of going through Randy's older ZDoom codebase that were reaaaaaally suspiciously similar to bits of Quake.

printz said:

Some people are obsessed with seeing others' source code. Fact is, ZDaemon crew has the right to keep the recipe to themselves.

The ZDaemon crew doesn't owe their source code to me or any other developer. If it wasn't for the fact that multiplayer doom ports have network effects (ha), ZDaemon would have faded into obscurity years ago.

What they do owe it do is their community. ZDaemon's reputation was built on top of an open source engine, which was then pulled away by fiat once the community was self-sustaining and in enough of a bubble to effectively lock-out people Kilgore and other admins disagreed with. I helped to open source Zandronum because I never ever want players of Zandronum to have the rug pulled out from under them like that, but there is still groups of players that only really exist inside of the ZDaemon bubble, and they deserve better.