Guess I'll jump in too with my two cents.... I have OSG and FlightGear CVS installed and kind of running -- at least it starts ;-) but have not had any time in the past week and a half to go any further. But I have to take Andy's side on this one, not so much based on technical issues (all with merit), but the idea that it really wasn't ready for prime time.
If this had been a commercial development and the product had been released in this state, we would all be updating our resumes at this point... To move FG/OSG to the head of the class and stipulating no work on the plib branch seemed a bit dictatorial to me and not in keeping with the philosophy of open-source development. If OSG is superior in performance, ease of development, features, etc then it needs to win that argument based on the principal of natural selection. And those advocating its selection need to endure the pain of dual paths and double work until the existing plib head shrivels and dies from user/developer apathy. Regards John W. Andy Ross wrote: >Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > Andy Ross wrote: > > > Look, the points wasn't that plib is great. The point wasn't that > > > OSG has no advantages. > > > > I'll just jump in here with a couple quick comments. OSG does have > > advantages that we should be able to realize pretty quickly, it is not > > completely without advantages. Let's have a little patience before we > > jump too far to conclusions. > >I, er, don't think you interpreted what I wrote correctly; check the >double negative. :) > >And sure, patience is good and panic is bad. But at the same time: >recognize that patience is limited, and there's a point at which panic >is justified. It's already been almost two weeks since the OSG code >started going in, and there still remain many issues. Performance >under windows (but not linux, at least not my box) has suffered a >serious 20-50% regression that can't be ignored. Several aircraft >look just awful right now due to missing features. FlightGear can't >be built easily by non-coders (at least those who can apply a patch to >a CVS checkout) and can't be run at all on a system with OSG already >installed (again, by a regular user). > >These are all regressions, not just bugs. They are things (important >things, often) that used to work. Now, no one understands better than >I do that you can't improve things without breaking stuff sometimes. >But there's a limit. Stuff that's broken needs to be fixed, and it >needs to be fixed very soon. The masses are restive out there. > >Honestly: I would have suggested putting the OSG code (and not the >plib fallback) into a CVS branch and working on it as an experiment >for a while. Doing in on the head* was too much breakage to absorb >cleanly. > >Andy > >* And especially then trying to refuse new features on the plib > branch, which is what got me into this fight. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? >Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier >Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >_______________________________________________ >Flightgear-devel mailing list >Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
