On Nov 29, 2007 4:13 PM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote:
> No, you got that backwards. From reading the thread it was
> clear that people consider a sane version number more important
> than politics, such as avoiding 0.9.11 because of the incident.
I think your message at least confirms my point that there is substantial
and heartfelt disagreement on something as trivial as version numbers.
Is it your commercial interests in fgfs that make you want it
> be called 1.0? Did someone complain? Those who use fgfs in
> their FAA certified simulator? We would understand it.
You are taking a subtle shot at me here which I could choose to resent or
choose ignore and I'll go with the latter approach. :-)
There are a large and growing number of people in the world that use
FlightGear for one purpose or another. If they didn't use FlightGear, they
would have to purchase something else or spend time & money developing
something else. Do they have a commercial interest in FlightGear? It's no
secret that I work with a flight simulator company (ATC Flight Sims) and
help them leverage FlightGear as part of their FAA certified pilot training
systems. But I see this as a huge win for everyone. And I know of *many*
other companies that I am not involved with that use FlightGear, again for
everyone's benefit.
So if you have a problem, please state it clearly and maybe take it up with
me offline with your first attempt. If you are just taking a shot at me,
then I'll ignore it. :-)
> Here's again what I consider sorely missing for a release 1.0:
> landing/taxi-lights. It's weird to call a simulator 1.0 if you
> have to let your aircraft parked in the middle of a runway
> after having landed at night, because you don't see anything
> but a few dim light points. A daylight-only simulator doesn't
> deserve the 1.0. :-P
How about I say it this way ... our version number system has become too
tedious and ponderous. And are you suggesting that a 10 year old mature
software product can't be allowed a v1.0 version number? It's never going
to be perfect, and never going to have every feature that everyone wants.
If I would have been smart, I would have called the very first release
v1.0which is what I do now with all my other projects, and we wouldn't
even be
having this discussion. Let's move forward, full speed ahead!
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
