Hi,
John Wojnaroski wrote:
>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.
>
>
But of course it isn't. The whole project isn't (witness the pre-1.0
versions).
>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...
>
>
If this had been a commercial product, it would have been released
from the plib branch, after a suitable period of stabilization (not
feature development).
>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.
>
But just a bit. With no well-resourced and schedule-driven group to
drive this, it will tend to be that way on occasion, but there is really
no other way to drive these decisions (i.e. discuss on the list for a
bit and then the people with the power make the call).
> 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.
>
Not really applicable here since we cannot afford to have a large
number of different versions and let them compete. We must discuss,
decide, and go forward with it.
Note that we have a mostly working system with a degradation in
performance. I've seen much worse during the course of revolutionary
changes in commercial development.
>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.
>
>
Unless there is such a groundswell of support for plib that someone
opts to grab the source, set up repository, manage it, take mods/fixes,
do development, and release new versions. The option is there for anyone
to take it. THAT'S open source.
>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
>
>
Cheers
Lou
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
