Jon Stockill wrote:
> This needs to take into account the platforms that flightgear is used 
> on. If it's closed source then ideally whoever produces the app is going 
> to need the capability to build (at the very minimum) linux, mac, and 
> windows binaries, since handing the source over to someone else to let 
> them build for their own platform isn't an option.

Not necessarily. I think, Holger was talking about some kind of proxy
server. In terms of server OS, we don't need to be that picky, although
I would term it a benefit if the server could be run on all OS'
flightgear runs on.

Curt, as far as I understood it, VATSIM asked Holger wether he wanted to
write such a proxy, which I interpreted as an expression of interest
from their side, so I don't think that the interest is single sided.

Of course we could benefit from an integration with an already
established network with a huge number of participants. My work with the
technical staff of the VATSIM network was some time in the past, so
maybe something has changed. However, from what I had seen in those days
and the fact that the protocol is still closed, I'm a bit suspicious.

BTW: I didn't know that VATSIM is commercially dependent on closing down
the protocol...

I will drop out of the thread here, because this is getting more
destructive criticism than I wanted it to become...


This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to