Sarge
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > Source Ports > Source port idea!
Pages (12): « First ... « 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
DaniJ
Senior Member


Posts: 2081
Registered: 08-03


The subtle "we" in the above post frames the whole argument in context. I had not realised you were a ZDaemon dev Lyfe. Talk about vested interest...

Old Post 12-06-12 03:25 #
DaniJ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6012
Registered: 08-00



DaniJ said:
The subtle "we" in the above post frames the whole argument in context. I had not realised you were a ZDaemon dev Lyfe. Talk about vested interest...

Yeah. They have a fix to some kind of problem in the design of dynasegs that they will not even describe or share back to me, but instead make mocking-like mentions of it on public forums and then ignore my response asking for clarification.

And Graf wondered why I had to object to my code being used directly? That kind of bullshit is precisely why.

I want that problem and the fix to it described to me in full detail. Even if there is not a single line of my code in there, an intellectual debt is still owed. No one else was prepared to do the research and development work and prove that it was viable in the first place.

Link for context:
http://www.altdeath.com/smf/index.p...msg3937#msg3937

Last edited by Quasar on 12-06-12 at 04:26

Old Post 12-06-12 04:13 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01



DaniJ said:
The subtle "we" in the above post frames the whole argument in context. I had not realised you were a ZDaemon dev Lyfe. Talk about vested interest...

You're just learning that now? I think most of the posters here knew that. Hell, my name shows up in places on the project, not to mention when I can catch up on some of the changes for doing the mac build. (I'm seriously out of date. Venom, phenex & Kilgore have been adding code like madmen.)

And if you want to talk about framing, just look at what you attempted to do to me. You just attempted to debunk all arguments I've posed in this thread on the pretense that they're somehow just the delusional rantings of a member of the ZDaemon dev team.
You're attempting to negate my knowledge of BSD history (which I still learned a little more about). You're attempting to negate my argument that there's more to the success of Linux than it's license (especially in its early days). You're attempting to suggest that my disgruntlement of the GPL has to do with how the doom community has handled it. (I actually disliked the GPL way before I started contributing to ZDaemon.)

So, as far as vested interest, fuck off. And take your insinuations into the background of my opinions with you.

Old Post 12-06-12 04:17 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DaniJ
Senior Member


Posts: 2081
Registered: 08-03


Yes, I am just now learning of that Lyfe. Unlike the ZDaemon team, the majority of developers working on DOOM-related projects frequent these forums and consequently I know the crowd, to varying degrees.

You'll have to point out where I apparently framed you as you so describe as I certainly don't recall doing so and checking back through the thread I can't find it. Don't try to put words into my mouth.

If anyone here is coming off as "angry" as you put it, it is you Lyfe.

Old Post 12-06-12 04:40 #
DaniJ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6012
Registered: 08-00


Fuck framing anything, why don't we let the devs' own words speak for themselves:


I'm not sure if you know, but there's some people claiming that I stole the polyobject code from eternity engine, so I took a quick look at the code there.
and seems that I found some critical bug in it and your map seems to trigger it
Hahahaha, nice.
Guess you can tell 'em to go *&^% themselves then :>
haha, yeah :)
And also prove that your code is superior too 8D
yep :)
The polyobject fix was actually accident :)
It was just a nice side-effect of fixing the slimetrails


I'll give the benefit of the doubt that the "fuck themselves" comment was not directed at us but rather at whomever started the unfounded rumor that the code was taken from Eternity.

But this is still a highly disrespectful and unreasonable attitude being displayed toward my port and my team, laughing and smiling about finding bugs and not offering to share any solution to them, and cock-waving about "superior code". Give me a fucking break.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:02 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01



Quasar said:

Yeah. They have a fix to some kind of problem in the design of dynasegs that they will not even describe or share back to me, but instead make mocking-like mentions of it on public forums and then ignore my response asking for clarification.

I want that problem and the fix to it described to me in full detail.


Given that we did not use your code, I don't think we can describe the fix for it. Either way, I'm not the guy who understands it, so I can't explain it anyway.

While the ZDaemon polyobject code & EE dynsegs both try and address the problem of polyobjects, they do so wildly different. They are o different that while EE suffers from a bug that produces this: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7564/eenaivefail.png (I do not have access to the wadfile used to generate this screenshot. Not sure who did generated the screenshot.), ZDaemon does not.

As far as the problems, I believe you listed those on the EE wiki. I've also been told that you have been provided a sample wad that also shows the bug in question in other threads. (I have no idea what is in this wadfile, so apologies if it's not the correct one.)

Again, I'm not knowledgeable on your implementation or for that matter on ours. All I know is that Venom was basking (privately) to us on how he was able to independently implement it. Shortly after that, he basked some more when he realized that it was shorter, faster, and without the same pitfalls as the designs in EE & ZDoom.

He also suggested (on ZDaemon chat) that if you want his input/help on it, that you should ask him on a ZDaemon-managed system. (namely, zrc.)


DaniJ said:
You'll have to point out where I apparently framed you as you so describe as I certainly don't recall doing so and checking back through the thread I can't find it. Don't try to put words into my mouth.

Framing. It's a linguistic 'tool'. Look it up. It's actually quite useful, especially if you can recognize when someone else is doing it.
Your post (while you may believe it to be innocent) posed implications about my motives. I merely pointed them out to you, with hopes that you'll keep from doing it in the future. After all, if you didn't think I had some ulterior motive you'd have never questioned it in what can only be assumed as an attempt to discredit my entire argument.

Combine the concept with your post, and you get a 'frame' put around my arguments with the headlines reading "ZDaemon team member posts with ulterior motives". Even Ladna has been polite in this thread. What made you so rude about it?

Btw, if you wonder why noone from ZDaemon frequents these boards, it's because of insinuations like what you just posted. Along with the verbal abuse. I swear there's people around here (and many other places) that just like to hate ZDaemon because it's the "cool thing to do."


Quasar said:
Fuck framing anything, why don't we let the devs' own words speak for themselves:

I'll give the benefit of the doubt that the "fuck themselves" comment was not directed at us but rather at whomever started the unfounded rumor that the code was taken from Eternity.

But this is still a highly disrespectful and unreasonable attitude being displayed toward my port and my team, laughing and smiling about finding bugs and not offering to share any solution to them, and cock-waving about "superior code". Give me a fucking break.



It seems the quote you have (from this source):
http://www.altdeath.com/smf/index.p...msg3937#msg3937
Is missing the irc nametags part.

I hate to throw someone under the bus, but it's better to throw the right person under the bus. Especially since he had no problems jumping under it in the first place:

<Venom> I'm not sure if you know, but there's some people claiming that I stole the polyobject code from eternity engine, so I took a quick look at the code there. and seems that I found some critical bug in it and your map seems to trigger it
<Cybershark> Hahahaha, nice.
<Cybershark> Guess you can tell 'em to go *&^% themselves then :>
<Venom> haha, yeah :)
<Cybershark> And also prove that your code is superior too 8D
<Venom> yep :)
<Venom> The polyobject fix was actually accident :)
<Venom> It was just a nice side-effect of fixing the slimetrails

I presume this might put a better perspective on the conversation.

(edit: added response to Quasar's last post)

Last edited by Lyfe on 12-06-12 at 05:16

Old Post 12-06-12 05:04 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6012
Registered: 08-00



Lyfe said:

While the ZDaemon polyobject code & EE dynsegs both try and address the problem of polyobjects, they do so wildly different. They are o different that while EE suffers from a bug that produces this: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7564/eenaivefail.png (I do not have access to the wadfile used to generate this screenshot. Not sure who did generated the screenshot.), ZDaemon does not.

As far as the problems, I believe you listed those on the EE wiki. I've also been told that you have been provided a sample wad that also shows the bug in question in other threads. (I have no idea what is in this wadfile, so apologies if it's not the correct one.)


They are different now, that is true, since Randy rewrote them to use BSP trees. The initial implementation was nowhere near that radical.

I will take a look at the PWAD. That doesn't mean I'll figure out what's wrong, but it's more useful than having nothing to go on.

I don't know what your comment about the wiki means. If you read my last post in that thread, I mention the information being discussed was out of date. Eternity dynasegs are not limited with respect to crossing boundaries of subsectors with distinct characteristics, at least not in the general case (there could be bugs in specific circumstances that I am not aware of, and if so, they are not intentionally tolerated or by-design limitations).

Only the pre-dynasegs distance sorting system allowing multiple objects per subsector had such limitations.

Link me to the preferred form of contact and I'll happily use it. Alternatively my own contact information is quite publicly available, such as my email address or my account here which can be privmsg'd.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:14 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DaniJ
Senior Member


Posts: 2081
Registered: 08-03


Lyfe, you read between the lines and "discover" meaning that never existed. How exactly is my comment rude given the fact I don't even know you? I am not and was not casting aspersions on your motives. I'm sorry if you misconstrued my intentions and took offence to my post.

I was completely unaware of your background and given that knowledge it changed my perception of you and your arguments. So, thinking I'm likely not the only one I posted to highlight it.

Now please, get off that mighty high horse you are riding and stop with the pretentious lectures on linguistic concepts and oh-so-interesting BSD folk law.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:19 #
DaniJ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01



Quasar said:
I don't know what your comment about the wiki means. If you read my last post in that thread, I mention the information being discussed was out of date. Eternity dynasegs are not limited with respect to crossing boundaries of subsectors with distinct characteristics, at least not in the general case
<snip>

Link me to the preferred form of contact and I'll happily use it. Alternatively my own contact information is quite publicly available, such as my email address or my account here which can be privmsg'd.


My mistake. I remember having that discussion about the wiki being out of date. Regardless, screenshot, wadfile (not where screenshot is from). That's all the information I have to go on in terms of showing you the bug.

His preferred form of contact is apparently ZRC. I imagine at the very least, you'd have to reach out to him there to start up a conversation, including one to address an alternative method of communication.

Side note: the ZDoom implementation is inconsequential, since neither EE or ZDaemon use it. I only mentioned it to make sure it was understood that we're using an implementation unique to ZDaemon.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:25 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Csonicgo


Posts: 4435
Registered: 03-04



Lyfe said:


<Cybershark> Guess you can tell 'em to go *&^% themselves then :>
<Venom> haha, yeah :)
<Cybershark> And also prove that your code is superior too 8D
<Venom> yep :)



I hope you guys are proud of yourselves.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:29 #
Csonicgo is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01



DaniJ said:
I was completely unaware of your background and given that knowledge it changed my perception of you and your arguments. So, thinking I'm likely not the only one I posted to highlight it.

So, you read the whole thread, agreeing & disagreeing with statements from various users. Then got to the point where you realized I was a ZDaemon dev, and added a pre-conceieved notion about me & my arguments. Which you then attempted to push that same useless context (framing, if you will) out to everyone else in 2 lines.

Obviously I must be on a high horse, since you're interested in trying to throw me off it.

Why can't you just come clean and acknowledge that you attempted to discredit me & my arguments behind a pre-conceieved notion that "ZDaemon is evil"? That's the only purpose for stating it that I can come up with. So if you're not prepared to defend your statement as something else, then at least own up to it.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:31 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01



Csonicgo said:
I hope you guys are proud of yourselves.

For building a solution to a problem, and sharing the result with people who are actually excited that you did it?

Damn right.

It also seems that Cybershark was proud of rubbing it in someone else's face. (Even if it was on behalf of someone else.)
I'm excited by Venom's work too. I'm just not as likely to rub it in your face. Can't say I blame him when the accusation comes before the question, though.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:37 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DaniJ
Senior Member


Posts: 2081
Registered: 08-03


@Lyfe: This is just getting preposterous. No, I did not add any pre-conceived notions about you or your arguments. You were the one who decided to try to color my intentions with an agenda.

Yes it is a high horse. Given our mutual awareness of the use of such a metaphor I won't press the point any further.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:39 #
DaniJ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01


@DaniJ:
What's preposterous is that you accused me of ulterior motives ('vested interest') due to being a member of the ZDaemon dev team, and are now suggesting that I'm making up the implications of such a statement.

If it didn't have implications, it wouldn't have been worth saying.

At the very least you're drawing causation where only correlation exists.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:48 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DaniJ
Senior Member


Posts: 2081
Registered: 08-03


Eh? I'm doing what now? How can I be trying to u-turn on a statement I never even made?

The vested interest I cited is your position as a ZDaemon developer, which, given the fact it is closed source, shows a significant bias to your arguments to which I had hitherto assumed to be impartial.

You were the one that brought up this whole ulterior motive conspiracy theory.

Old Post 12-06-12 05:58 #
DaniJ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Csonicgo


Posts: 4435
Registered: 03-04



Lyfe said:

For building a solution to a problem, and sharing the result with people who are actually excited that you did it?

Damn right.




Too bad no one can benefit.

Old Post 12-06-12 06:04 #
Csonicgo is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Lyfe
Green Marine


Posts: 48
Registered: 11-01



DaniJ said:
The vested interest I cited is your position as a ZDaemon developer, which, given the fact it is closed source, shows a significant bias to your arguments to which I had hitherto assumed to be impartial.

How could you ever assume that my arguments were impartial, when I came right out in the early stages of the thread and said "I AM AN ANTI-GPL FANATIC."

To be honest, I'm surprised anyone had an argument with me after that statement.

The bias to non-gpl does not come from being a ZDaemon developer. That is a correlation, not a causation. Your implications to my logic are wrong.


Csonicgo said:
Too bad no one can benefit.

Thanks for calling the ZDaemon players (also known as the target audience) "noone".

You ever wonder why none of the ZDaemon devs post here? They always get put on the defensive.

Old Post 12-06-12 06:08 #
Lyfe is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DaniJ
Senior Member


Posts: 2081
Registered: 08-03



Lyfe said:

How could you ever assume that my arguments were impartial, when I came right out in the early stages of the thread and said "I AM AN ANTI-GPL FANATIC."


Clearly, I missed that bit.


The bias to non-gpl does not come from being a ZDaemon developer. That is a correlation, not a causation. Your implications to my logic are wrong.

I don't know you so therefore I can only ever hope to draw correlations which make logical sense. The implication(s) of which may well prove to be incorrect, however, as I did state - your interest showed a bias.

Old Post 12-06-12 06:28 #
DaniJ is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
AlexMax
Senior Member


Posts: 1114
Registered: 01-03



Lyfe said:
You ever wonder why none of the ZDaemon devs post here? They always get put on the defensive.

I'm not sure I buy this.

Well, that's not quite true, you guys do get dog-piled in release threads, but I think that's the wrong conclusion to be drawn from this. There are plenty of people on the DWF who are authors of ports that are not GPL, and to think that ZDaemon developers are to be forever singled out in every possible thread they post in because their port is not GPL is disingenuous.

Though maybe I'm kind of biased, since I'd love to see people like phenex2 and Venom post in Source Ports...preferably in threads with meat to them, instead of the same old licensing debates. :)

Old Post 12-06-12 06:57 #
AlexMax is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 7724
Registered: 01-03



Quasar said:

Voxel loading, rendering, and clipping.



Well, maybe, if you are so interested, you can ask Ken Silverman yourself?

It's easy to complain that others can use code you can't but if you want to change the suituation why don't you take action?

Old Post 12-06-12 07:32 #
Graf Zahl is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Csonicgo


Posts: 4435
Registered: 03-04



Lyfe said:

Thanks for calling the ZDaemon players (also known as the target audience) "noone".

You ever wonder why none of the ZDaemon devs post here? They always get put on the defensive.



I meant the entire source port community. You've sectioned yourself off so well that you forgot there was more than your backyard.

And I think the real reason ZDaemon devs "don't post here" is because they know they're on the wrong side of history.

Old Post 12-06-12 08:04 #
Csonicgo is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Ladna
Member


Posts: 289
Registered: 04-10


Sorry I was procrastinating and I didn't realize we were still strongly contending. Here is a better response.


Lyfe said:

You have a very small sample for a real-world basis.



Your first argument defending BSD's allowing source closing was, "this is not the norm, and when it does happen it requires people to be super evil". My counter-argument was essentially, "even if it's not the norm, whenever it happens it's bad and doesn't require everyone to be super evil, unless you think the ZDaemon dev team is super evil, which I doubt you do". Now you're ignoring my counter-argument, and simply restating the fact that it rarely happens. I'll then restate that its rarity (not that I'm yielding this point, I'm just too lazy to find a list of apps that closed up and killed their communities) doesn't matter, the fact that BSD allows source closing and thus community death sucks and sucks hard. GPL doesn't allow this. GPL wins.


Lyfe said:

Plus, I don't think it was the closing of the source that caused - well, whatever you claim it caused - so much as the extreme reaction to that process.



FWIW, this statement is basically the same as, "I don't think it was the fact that I held a pillow over his face that killed him, I think it was the fact that his brain responded to oxygen starvation by dying and thereafter stopped sending the signal to his heart to beat". Causation is a thing.

I'm guessing you're trying to shift responsibility from the devs to the community, but this actually makes my point. Source closing was a huge blow to the ZDaemon community, the outcry was sharp, and the community ultimately fractured.


Lyfe said:

After all, if it was the closing of the source, where's all the ZDaemon 1.06 forks?



It can't be forked because it's illegal. Or I guess to be more specific, it can't be forked legally.

But this is kind of a disingenuous question. Odamex is for all intents and purposes a ZDaemon fork. It just had to go way back to avoid the Raven code, which was incorporated due to more license ignorance.


Lyfe said:

It seems to me, that the only thing the GPL would have done would have been to chase away the existing developers on the project (who were getting tired of the issues associated with having all the sources in the wild), leaving the project to die.



Given the strength of Odamex development relative to ZDaemon development (up until recently, ZDaemon 1.08.x lasted longer than Odamex' entire lifetime), I would say that ZDaemon lost GPL devs to Odamex. If your argument is that source closing preserved ZDaemon's dev interest, my counter-argument is that keeping the source open would have attracted more devs only interested in contributing to open projects, and my evidence is Odamex's prolific development history compared with ZDaemon's relative barrenness.

Additionally, (stipulating that ZDaemon doesn't steal code, which no unbiased party can currently verify), were ZDaemon GPL it would have access to the deep pool of features represented in the GPL source port community. Therefore, not only would ZDaemon currently have more dev interest and activity, it would also have more features available to it now and in the future as the GPL source ports continue to innovate independently.


Lyfe said:

GPL 'upgrade' clause. You're putting a version of the code into a new license. This seems to me to be relicensing. We'd be pointlessly arguing semantics, but GPL2, GPL3, future GPL4 (which seems inevitable) seem to me to be separate licenses. Call it a revision all you want, but there's a lot of variations between the licenses.



I'm not really trying to argue semantics, I'm trying to argue actors. The only actor who can license or relicense code is the owner. Non owners cannot do this. Your argument is that licensing one's code under the GPL allows someone else to use your code under a different license. This is utterly, entirely false, and this fact has been repeated throughout our discussion. GPL neither implies, demands, nor enforces a owner's loss of control over his/her code.


Lyfe said:

BSD vs. Linux stuff



I'm in the awkward position of not really caring about this point, but feeling compelled to explore it nonetheless.

Obviously early BSD vs. Linux competition is a complex topic. You can't boil down BSD's failure to the AT&T lawsuit anymore than you can boil down Linux' success to the GPL. There are simply no stats, there are no charts documenting developer exodus from BSD due to the lawsuit, or developers flocking to Linux due to its license. Throughout our discussion I've attempted to hedge by saying that I believe a major contributor to Linux' success is the GPL, because a GPL project can never be closed source. This is more attractive to contributors than the BSD license because it means they won't contribute code on day one and watch the project maintainer close the source on day two.

I do think you are trivializing the SCO lawsuits. SCO sued multiple vendors. SCO implied that even developers and users might have committed copyright infringement. Many companies paid licensing fees to SCO. Many companies competing with Linux found ways to fund SCO's lawsuits. They were a pretty big deal at the time.

Finally, I'll point out that the BSDs and Linux are pretty rare birds. Your average software project has 1 dev, and is probably < 10k LOC. Scale and interest level would mitigate the damage from FreeBSD trying to close its source; a fork would be pretty immediate I imagine. But for a smaller project with a non-dev community, source closing can be fatal.


Lyfe said:

A lawsuit against an OS is a bad thing. It takes a long time to recover from that.
Additionally, the GPL wouldn't protect against a lawsuit, much like it had not protected against SCO's lawsuit. The shit still hits the fan.



Agreed, which is why I'm puzzled by your seeming lack of acknowledgement of the seriousness of SCO's lawsuits.


Lyfe said:

You'd have better luck attributing Linux's success on that it written from the ground-up as an open-source OS. Which, after the debacle with AT&T and BSD, was appealing to many people.



Not only that, the assurance that it would always be open was very appealing as well.


Lyfe said:

It seems silly to me to try and enforce the morality of code-sharing (something which isn't detrimental to another person's health & well-being) by legal document.



Well, I don't want to make a "moral" argument; I feel like that implies God will strike down devs who close their source code haha. I'm saying source closing harms communities and kills code reuse. Although I do personally think that's bad, I'm willing to entertain the idea that the premise is wrong or that communities & code reuse don't really matter. I doubt I could be convinced though ;) .


Lyfe said:

Like you said later in your post, programmers will write software, one way or another. Not all of them will share.



I think that's a shame.


Lyfe said:

Granted, we might still have Tenenbaum, Torvalds, etc, develop OSs, but they had something to mimic. In the world we live in, this was UNIX.
Could you imagine Linux if it were based off MS-DOS?



To be honest, I couldn't care less about UNIX or Linux or MS-DOS. I used to have strong feelings about OS design and philosophy but that's really fanboyism. But FWIW, it's really hard--some might say impossible--to come up with something completely new. Even if we didn't have implementation details of UNIX and the POSIX standard to go by, surely many pieces of UNIX would have found themselves in other software, one way or another.

But again, I don't really care. I think Android is pretty cool, but despite being Linux, it's basically nothing like UNIX.

Old Post 12-06-12 08:06 #
Ladna is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6012
Registered: 08-00



Graf Zahl said:


Well, maybe, if you are so interested, you can ask Ken Silverman yourself?

It's easy to complain that others can use code you can't but if you want to change the suituation why don't you take action?


Because what's one guy's voice going to do? I don't think he'd care about what I have to say. But hey maybe, you never know.

In other news, turns out the "problem" is actually just that the polyobjects are concave, which was an admitted limitation of the dynaseg system in Eternity. Two reasons:

  • What I was doing was already revolutionary; adding BSP trees seemed like a separate task completely.
  • I knew it was possible at the time and figured the implementation cost (time and complexity) wouldn't be worth the benefit. Mappers were already accustomed to the limitations of Hexen polyobjects (convex and non-intersecting). Those are the same restrictions that dynamic BSP objects have unless you give them their own self-surface ordering logic.

So really it's not a bug, it's a design limitation. That being said, I should probably bite the bullet and do an implementation of polyobject BSP trees because it really should be pretty simple.

Old Post 12-06-12 13:55 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Blzut3
Member


Posts: 504
Registered: 06-04



Lyfe said:
all because we banned a few people (ok, a lot of people)

That's not the only reason to be mad at ZDaemon. I like how you guys actively try to stop Doomseeker from launching ZDaemon despite that fact that your users (target audience) are the ones that want Doomseeker to support ZDaemon.

To my knowledge you guys don't even share your code with the ZDoom developers (which Skulltag did), but whatever, the license does allow you to do what you're doing and I believe it's up to the users to decide the moral issues.

Old Post 12-06-12 15:00 #
Blzut3 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11075
Registered: 07-07



Quasar said:
Link for context:
http://www.altdeath.com/smf/index.p...msg3937#msg3937




Quasar over there said:
Also, if you find a bug in someone's code, it's nice to explain what it was and how you fixed it. Or, you can just leave me hanging. I'll note EE's polyobjects are already missing a number of fixes/extensions that were subsequently applied in ZDoom, none of which were really shared back to me. I can go try to find them in the code and figure out how to fit them back into my own implementation, but it'll be entirely all my effort without any help or guidance from the ZDoom team.


Graf did share with you some of the issues he ran into and you have access to the ZDoom devdev forum if you want to ask any question about the polyobject code.

Most of the extensions come from having an integrated nodebuilder, and are therefore not really portable unless Eternity integrates ZDBSP too. There is one thing that might apply, though:
code:
// Addition to Eternity code: We must also check any seg with only one // vertex inside the epsilon threshold. If not, these lines will get split but // adjoining ones with both vertices inside the threshold won't thus messing up // the order in which they get drawn.

Old Post 12-06-12 15:34 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 7724
Registered: 01-03


Indeed - and that was the only issue I had with this, if I remember correctly. I did mention it in the discussion if I'm not mistaken but nobody seems to have noticed.

Old Post 12-06-12 15:48 #
Graf Zahl is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
phenex2
Green Marine


Posts: 41
Registered: 06-10



Blzut3 said:
I like how you guys actively try to stop Doomseeker from launching ZDaemon ... moral issues.
Keep in mind that ZD is our product and the protocol is closed for a reason. Did you care to ask us if it's ok to add ZD support? Your defense was that we would have said 'no' anyways, but we'll never know because you forced our reaction to be 'no' when you just implemented it without contacting us and ignored our wishes when you were told that we do not want to be supported by DS. I suppose you had no moral issues in that process? Or does this concept of morality work one way only when dealing with ZD? ;)


Blzut3 said:
To my knowledge you guys don't even share your code with the ZDoom developers ...
Since ZD is based on ZDoom 1.23 there is not much point to share code with ZDoom. It would be of no use to them. But whenever a bug is found in ZD that affects ZDoom we report it ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]). Same with Skulltag, but the forums are gone now.


Quasar said:
In other news, turns out the "problem" is actually just that the polyobjects are concave ...
Just asked Venom and he said that the problem happens with convex polyobjects as well. He does not have a demo map at hand currently, but you are free to contact him on ZDIRC for further details and a solution.
Just a little sidenote about the ZD implementation. It was coded from scratch and was supposed to fix slimetrails only. The improved polyobject support was an unintended side-effect. No ZDoom or EE code was used or consulted for reference.

Last edited by phenex2 on 12-06-12 at 17:02

Old Post 12-06-12 16:45 #
phenex2 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Blzut3
Member


Posts: 504
Registered: 06-04



phenex2 said:
Keep in mind that ZD is our product and the protocol is closed for a reason. Did you care to ask us if it's ok to add ZD support? Your defense was that we would have said 'no' anyways, but we'll never know because you forced our reaction to be 'no' when you just implemented it without contacting us and ignored our wishes when you were told that we do not want to be supported by DS. I suppose you had no moral issues in that process? Or does this concept of morality only work one way when dealing with ZD? ;)

Of course I was only informed by second hand information from tm512. ;) As a result of that I did take down references to ZDaemon in advertising points. Though the point still remains your users want ZDaemon Doomseeker support. (I've gotten requests as recently as yesterday in fact.)

And yes moral issues work both ways. If Doomseeker users find reverse engineering a protocol immoral then they can feel free not to use the plugin (well they're forced not to now, since I don't have time to continue) or avoid the program. I have no morals issues with reverse engineering provided it's done for constructive reasons, and no one would be cheating on ZDaemon since the launcher protocol is public.

I do appreciate that you guys are filing bug reports upstream. However, I do believe you guys could still stand to be a little more open to the whole community, even if it doesn't involve releasing the source.

Old Post 12-06-12 17:25 #
Blzut3 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Gez
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 11075
Registered: 07-07



phenex2 said:
Your defense was that we would have said 'no' anyways, but we'll never know because you forced our reaction to be 'no'

That's a spiteful reaction if true; and a clumsy attempt at shifting the blame if false.

Old Post 12-06-12 18:06 #
Gez is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6012
Registered: 08-00



Graf Zahl said:
Indeed - and that was the only issue I had with this, if I remember correctly. I did mention it in the discussion if I'm not mistaken but nobody seems to have noticed.

IIRC there's also something that needs to be done about extending node bounding boxes so that they cover the full area of the ideal subsector? I don't know for sure where to find that, assuming ZDoom still does it for the benefit of polyobjects. Done at level load?

Old Post 12-06-12 18:31 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (12): « First ... « 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > Source Ports > Source port idea!

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.