Hi Lee,
Thanks for taking the time to write. It's well worth airing these issues,
even if I disagree completely with your analysis. :)
Others have already addressed a number of points, but my own
tuppence is below.
LeeE wrote:
> Hello dev list,
>
> If you're in no mood to critically appraise a rant then read no
> further.
>
> For quite a while now, since I stopped actively contributing to FG,
> I've been sitting here watching the direction in which FG
> development is heading and if ever there was a good project, which
> has potentially boundless scope in the field of VR, but which has
> lost it's way and is now chasing it's tail up it's own fundament
> then FG is it.
>
> What finally broke this camel's back was the thread about release
> schedules, but it goes further than that.
>
> The idea that FG should be updated and released to what is a purely
> abstract schedule is disingenuous and destructive nonsense. The
> origin and sole purpose behind the idea of releasing new versions
> of software on any sort of regular schedule is to upset and exploit
> the market for the type of software you're producing; it's a thinly
> veiled attempt to deter your market from trying, and perhaps
> adopting, alternative solutions by promising even better things in
> your future product. This simply doesn't apply to open-source
> software projects because maintaining or increasing market take-up
> of your product brings no benefits to you, other than massaging
> your egos.
You are correct that a regular release schedule brings no benefit to me
personally (ego aside). However, I think that is to completely ignore users
who don't compile from source and track CVS. It also ignores the altruistic
side of the FG project in favour of a very self-centered viewpoint, which I
doubt you intended.
We now have a huge variety of contributors: those that develop scenery models
(sometimes using sketch-up - <shudder> ;)), contributors to The Manual (yes,
there are some, and their help is very much appreciated) and aircraft
developers.
Many of these people have no interest in compiling CVS. They do have an
increasing stake in the FG project, and are an important part of our community.
I think it is very easy for those of use who inhabit the -dev list to forget
about them.
Producing regular releases so they can benefit from new features and
developments
is extremely worthwhile, if only to keep them closer to the core developers, and
therefore a single community.
For a lot of new contributors, having their work available to the public is
quite
important, and encourages further contributions. Having to wait a year for
your grammatical corrections to The Manual to finally become public is
hardly encouraging!
<snip>
> In
> just about every case, the software changes that make it in to FG
> are a good idea, and should make FG better, but in practise now,
> they are just making a confused situation worse.
Sorry, I have to diagree with you on this. There have been significant
code clean ups by James Turner and Tim's work in moving to OSG.
For my part, a significant part of the 3D clouds work involved
unravelling what was a mess in the METAR / Environment code
(admitedly, that took a couple of goes to get right ;) )
<snip>
> Having got that off my chest, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not
> trying to criticise anyone, or the FG dev community in general, and
> as such, I'm not interested in arguing about any of this. The
> reason that I've bothered to spend a couple of hours composing this
> post is not to annoy & diss people but because I care. If I
> didn't, I wouldn't have bothered. And at least I waited until
> after xmas so I didn't spoil it for anyone:)
No problem. These sort of issues are much better discussed openly.
> Happy new year,
>
> LeeE
And you too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
