Yann, you are a liar, and you know it. There is no excuse for the amount of FUD you spread, as what you say can easily be verified. The fact that you didn't even try to verify your claims and sitll do them has no excuse.
I originally didn't want to react to your postings, but your ongoing fuding really left me little choice, personally. > Subject: Re: [crossfire] Metaserver2 / schmorp > From: Yann Chachkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > entries from servers that are not compatible with the client. Thus, the > > player would never see a 2.x-trt server if in fact the client they have > > won't be able to play on it. > > > Indeed. The problem is when the server itself is not "honest", and does not > report accurate information. We report absolutely accurate information. I was told personally on IRC that the metaserver2 will make it possible to distinguish between the projects, and that I should NOT use the project name in the version. This has apperently not happened, as there is no project column or whatever. Still, I followed the rules originally agreed upon. You changed them, and are now using this against us, without giving us even the slightest chance to react (we still haven't been notified on why we have been removed form both metaservers). > - Should I remind you that TRT is reporting "Standard" for the arch, map, and > code base ? Which is completely honest and true, we do use the standard arch map and code bases for both of our servers. > - Should I remind you that TRT is reporting "2.2" as its version string, > increasing the confusion furthermore ? Thats what was agreed upon. > - Should I also underline that TRT reports "1026/1023" as the protocol > version, despite the fact it uses elements that were never included in the > original Crossfire 1026/1023 protocol ? It was agreed upon that the next version of the metaserver will allow clients to filter out servers according to the protocol version. We honestly use this mechanism, and its an outright lie that we use elements never included in the original 1026/1023 protocol (when talking to clients supporting that protocol). (something Mark Wedel seems to agree to, so I am not the only one who was tricked into thinking this. I say tricked because it was obviously done just to change the rules later and use it against us). What you say is that extensions to the protocol are not allowed even when not used. Sorry, but how stupid is thta a reason? The reason we report such a low protocol version to the client is to work around bugs in gcfclient that happen when we use a newer version of the protocol and sometimes cause hangs in the client on startup. We are 100% compatible with gcfclient. I even invested days of work to make that happen by working around the many security problems, buffer overflows, crash bugs, map bugs etc. in gcfclient. Construing this quality work as a reason to exclude us is deeply dishonest :( > versions of servers reporting accurate information. But I do think it isn't > an option for servers who don't "play nice" with the metaserver2, I fully agree. But it has nothing to do with us, as we completely play nice and honest with the metaserver and metaserver2. In either case, this would only apply to the metaserver2, not the currently metaserver. > false informations just to increase their visibility - for those, Which hasn't been done, and there is no indication for that. Thus blacklisting was done for other reasons. > From: Yann Chachkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > guess) read the latest news entry on Schmorp's Crossfire TRT website, where > > notice or explanation. But thats the ways of the Crossfire developers: if you > can't convince with quality, try to shut them down with other means..." > > You are speaking about the absence of technical problems between the "stock" > CF client and the TRT servers. I'd like to mitigate this by underlining two > important points: > > - First, the "old" network protocol commands used to transmit map data, still > used in the 1.10 client, has been removed from the "trunk" code (that is, the > code for the 2.x version of Crossfire). This means that, for all those people > using the trunk code for the client, they are unable to connect to a TRT > server. When the original design goals for the metaserver2 were layed down, this problem was meant to be solved by the version field. Again, refer to Mark Wedels posts who clearly thinks the same. These rules have obviously been changed unilaterally, and used as a reason to exclude us from both old and new metaservers. Won't do. > - Second, there are obviously some annoying compatibility irks noted on > Schmorp's side - else, why are they bothering to print all those We don't note any compatibility irks at all. If you mean the bug workarounds we have to enable for gcfclient users, those are just that - bug workarounds. As an example (as you obviously didn't care to investigate or verify but just made up lies), we have a workaround in place that avoids larged mapscrolls, as most if not all gcfclients overflow their internal buffer. This happens on Crossfire servers too, e.g. when doing dimension door. It is less often then on TRT servers, but still happens. Again, the fatc that TRT has a higher quality codebase which enables more people to play crash-free is used as a reason against us. Won't do. It would be less ugly if you gave the pretense of actually having tried to verify your claims, but you don't even do that. > Given that they themselves have to use workarounds to make both > interoperable, Thats a lie. We do not need any workarounds to make the server interoperable with gcfclient any more than Crossfire servers do. The only difference is that we implement some workarounds for bugs, keeping clients from crashing or worse (silent memory corruption), and Crossfire servers don't. > Then, you are underlining the fact that it is correct and fair to include > their server in our metaserver lists, because it is "how opensource spirit > works". Sure - I just wonder why they forgot that spirit and forgot to > display all the other CF servers in their own client's server list Thats a loaded question, because you claim we forgot that. This is another outright lie that could easily have been verified by you, but finding truth is painfully obviously not your goal. The truth is easy to explain: - I didn't have time to create our own metaserver that would be compatible with gcfclient, so this was a temporary stop-gap measure (as can be seen as we do not even include all of our servers in the list). - our server was removed from the Crossfire metaservers FIRST. why we should include the servers from the metaserver when our servers have been excluded in the most rude way (i.e. without even telling us why) escapes me. - my server was blocked from accessing the metaserver information. This made it *impossible* to provide the list of servers to cfplus clients, for purely technical reasons, as those servers do not report to us. Again, see the pattern: we are blocked from *accessing* the Crossfire metaserver information and providing that to our clients, which is *then* construed as unfair behaviour from our side. And again, the metaserver operator has removed the other crossfire servers from our list. We didn't "forget" anything. You are so full of shit. This really tops it all. > Exchanges of ideas and freedom of choice can only properly work when all > involved sides agree to "play the game". If you would only heed your own advise. Or is telling lies about us and fabricating obviously false information "playing the game" for you? I don't want to play any such games, sorry. > server. Definitely - and that's all what the metaserver2 was about: providing > more accurate informations about what a server offers. This is why > metaserver2 includes a field about the map set used, for example. Indeed. And we did and still do provide honest and correct information there, as was agreed upon earlier. > proper informations about its content. TRT clearly isn't using a standard > content (this is one of its major differences with the original Crossfire), Of course, we use the standard TRT map set, codebase and archetypes. If you want to redefine the meaning of standard, do it without me. If the columsn would contain sthe project name (Crossfire vs. Crossfire TRT) there would be merit, but it doesn't, it only contains wether the standard set was used or some variant thereof, and in our case, all of our servers use the standard set. Also rmeember that we didn't want to become our own project in the first place. The Crossfire developers forced this on us, together with two name changes to which we complied, upon threat of removing us from the metaserver. Yet again this is used against us. Won't do. > yet was saying otherwise to the metaserver2. Same with the version number. Or > for the "code base" used. Or for the archetypes set. See earlier discussion in that the version number must not include the project name. I understand changing the rules makes it easy to fabricate reasons for exclusion. > Why didn't they "play nice" and provide accurate information is a question Again, you are lieing because you are claiming we didn't "play nice". Or your definition of "play nice" is seveerly distorted, as we did follow all the rules laid upon us, wether we greed to them or not. The one person who repeatedly doesn't play nice is you, by making up easily refuted lies... > you'd want to ask them, not us. The fact is that I believe our own gamers > have the right to get infos as accurate as possible. If a server fakes those, > then it is better for the players themselves to remove it from the list. Then why do you use the fatc we provide accurate information against us? > of servers running the trunk code. CF-TRT, on the other hand, is a fork of > the original project, and cannot be compared to it in terms of "newer" > or "older". Yes, but in "better" or "worse". In fact, whenever I presented features that would doubtlessly be very useful (such as asynchronous I/O so the server doesn'T stutter like mad when many players are logged in, certainly not a problem for existing Crossfire servers but for TRT servers), I was told (e.g. by Nicholas) "I doubt this". Yeah sure, you doubt all the features (see http://cvs.schmorp.de/cf.schmorp.de/server/Changes) we created, many of which already achieve the goals set for your own 2.0 release, but why do you even open your mouth while freely admitting you have no clue (because you didn't even try to look at the facts, such as code, or simply cared to ask for clarification). > Both are developed in parallel. That's why it was asked several > times to the TRT team to clearly report that on the version string sent to > the metaserver. I don't really remember that, but fine, we did it in any case after we were asked to do so. It was also agreed thta this is only a temporary measure ebcasue the old metaserver doesn't support a project column, and this would be fixed with the new metaserver. > That they chose to number their project as 2.x added much to > confusion, because people mistook their project for an advanced version of We chose so because a) we added a ton of features b) we rewrote most of the server (which includes many times faster loading, fixing game exploits and most of all basically fixing all crashes) and c) if thats not warranting a new version number, we also implemented most if not all features planned for the Crossfire 2.x release, too. In any case, being a separate project, we are in need of using version numbers to indicate progress. And yes, you keepr epeating that this is confusing, but there ahs yet to come up *any single player* who supports that he/she was confused by that. As such, its an empty claim. > the CF 1.x, while it was nothing else than a different development path. Of course, and that obviously needs its own version numbers, wether we are feature-compatible with the original crossfire or not. > Finally, you are saying it is a shame for the players on Schmorp. I agree. Your behaviour of blocking us from both metaservers without any notice and not even caring to explain why to us to this date is ratehr shameful behaviour. I might have not have had the best opinion of some Crossfire developers, but I never in my worst bad dreams imagined that all of them would let this happen in such a shameful way. And you, especially, put on a lot of extremely "shameful" behaviour on you by fabricating lies about us and using them against us. > At the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll say again: if the TRT servers > played nice and provided accurate, non-confusing informations, this > would never have happened. Again, a lie, we did play nice and by all rules forced on us (our informaton is completely accurate and in line with earlier agreements, and is apperently completely non-confusing by all available evidence), wether we found them sensible or not. The fatc that you a) keep hanging the rules beneath our feet and b) spread FUD and outright lies to reach decision cannot be called "play nice", in fact, it can be called criminal behaviour :( As such, your statement again is untrue, we did play nice, and still were removed from both metaservers in the most ugly way. > Notice that the issue is not a new one - it has already been > discussed in a not so distant past. Yes indeed, and we always complied, as can *easily* be verified. > I find pretty disappointing - and somewhat childish - that they > preferred pointing fingers on their website than come and discuss on the > issue. All evidence available supports that, as the *only* possibly available reasons for removal were fabricated by you and Nicholas. The fact that you could easy have come by with truths instead of untruths makes them simply lies. The only ones acting childish are indeed the cf developers, as they let that happen on the grounds of fabrications. > Well, I think that's all. Again, note that this is only my opinion, not > representative of the whole CF developers community (even if I tend to > believe most of what I wrote is a shared opinion). I believe so, too, as most people either agreed or didn't speak up against it. > I hope that my answer put a different light on your view of the events; No, you are still a liar. > I also hope that your call to respect, freedom, and fair play will be > heard on both sides *puke* > of what appears to be a thickening wall between Crossfire and TRT. And certainly not caused by the TRT developers. In any case, after this dreadful episode, I think everybody can understand why I certainly will not have anything to do with you or your project anymore. If you can get along with continued lieing in your community, I do not want to have anything to do with them anymore. *Quite* understandably I hope everybody who has brain enough to verify your lies sees :( *plonk* PS: to the few honest (or willing) people left: sorry for using such strong language, but I think you should not punish me for that, as my outrage at yanns behaviour is quite justified. He may sound cool, but the fact he continously lied to you should weigh strong with you. -- The choice of a -----==- _GNU_ ----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/ -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
