Free Flight, Free Speech

Forking FG is such a massive undertaken
I just keep hoping the core-clowns could get their shit together and do a good job, (at something)

A clever organisation would provide the facility to fork or 'ring fence' a portion of modular code facilitating change and work with these changes..... but the error in my thinking is the cle0ver part.

Curt clearly does not want to be clever. He openly states that he wants to hinder the enabling of someone to integrate another language than nasal. He states: "then you are probably on your own with that". Meaning: "Go and untangle our source yourself, we who know the source are not going to document the core internals for you".

*If* you want embedded scripting with hooks inside flightgear, and you don't want nasal, then you are probably on your own with that. When we discussed this previously we decided that we didn't want to encourage multiple optional script engines because of the chances people will create aircraft with dependencies that no one else has and also the extra complexity of maintaining multiple script engines in the core code.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=30626&p=296538&sid=fafc2f74715c4def5be33d782c78feff#p296534

Such protectionism only puts flightgear on the losers end. No serious developer is going to have a look at their spaghetti now, and the pool of developers slowly decays to the level of minor bug fixers only.

Let me give an example of what is not going to happen now.

Thorsten seems to have huge performance problems with updating just 100 nasal properties. Until now none of the minor bug fixer level developers have sorted out the problem. If there were good documentation and some quality developer decided to integrate another scripting language in his *own repository*, then he could get accustomed to the interface source and en passant get rid of a major flaw, resulting not only in getting his language a magnitude faster, but also nasal.

Mind you Curt, you are not hindered by the magnitude faster nasal, because the development has been on a personal repository. Yet the guy can contact you and ask: Do you want this magnitude faster nasal?

But none of such things are going to happen when you act in this protectionist manner and refuse to document. You are left with only minor bug fixes and no improvements whatsoever. Slowly sinking flightgear into oblivion.

I for one am not wasting my time with undocumented spaghetti. And your attitude is not very inviting either.

Kind regards, Vincent

Agreed Kl, what we've read in the last few days has been quite astonishing...

We're constantly told by the core devs that it is us 'that are standing on the shoulder of giants'.... well they seem a lot less tall now.

Also we're told by the core devs that FGM are bad guys who can't be trusted and that all content is rigorously checked by them before being allowed into the core code.... but they don't check for documentation explaining how it works for those that follow it would seem.

D-echo comes here to post when in reality he should be over there doing his nut (can't do it myself I got banned - which he supported)

When someone comes to FG and posts a top level diagram of how FG looks to work, it should be a simple case of pointing to an existing one in reply to explain where his misconceptions lie, not write paragraph after paragraph of 'it's too hard to explain'....... Yes that's why diagrams are drawn.

We're also bombarded with the GPL and sharing mantra....but that's a very hollow statement if their idea of sharing is to offer up thousand and thousands of lines of code with no supporting documentation....

The intellectual knowledge of how it all works and why design decisions were made to go this way or that is what make the code an asset..... without it the code is just a liability

You'd expect an academic to know better...

just a quick clarification.
Can we stop using the "FGM" shortening?

I am just fundamentally opposed to such practice. And FGMEMBERS does not stand to it.

The only reason I know of why the FGMEMBERS detractors (specifically Thorsten, Bugman and Wllbragg) started using that "abbrev" was to keep people uninformed, and causing any google search to fail to obtain information. While at the same time deliberately redirecting people to sick stuff.

IAHM-COL wrote:just a quick clarification.
Can we stop using the "FGM" shortening?

I am just fundamentally opposed to such practice. And FGMEMBERS does not stand to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

bomber wrote:When someone comes to FG and posts a top level diagram of how FG looks to work, it should be a simple case of pointing to an existing one in reply to explain where his misconceptions lie, not write paragraph after paragraph of 'it's too hard to explain'....... Yes that's why diagrams are drawn.

This was the moment where it became shockingly clear to me that no one over there really knows their own program anymore. If they can't even produce a basic diagram, that is the end of it. This also explains their strange behaviour of insulting and scaring away people who ask, and the overflow of rubbish they produce when they talk about it. All to hide the unsettling fact that they do not know anymore.

Kind regards, Vincent