[crossfire] Schmorp back on metalist

Sat Sep 15 04:15:00 CDT 2007

Hello.

(including the whole reply of Yann in case Jonas isn't on the list)

I think Yann's description of the issues is pretty accurate.

The issue is basically that schmorp is, now, an incompatible fork, thus 
Crossfire clients can't connect, leading to confusion.

Note also that Schmorp, through Elmex (IRC) / Robin (mail), was warned when 
the old map support (the one Schmorp uses for the Crossfire client) was 
removed, which was some months ago. They didn't react as far as I'm aware 
(and the fact their server appeared on our few weeks-old metaserver shows 
they do follow our development enough to bother to implement the new 
support).

Nicolas

Le vendredi 14 septembre 2007, Yann Chachkoff a écrit :
> Le Friday 14 September 2007 19:27:37 Jonas Stein, vous avez écrit :
> > Dear opensource community,
> >
> > i was very disappointed, when Schmorp disappeared from the metalist.
> >
> > I had no problems with any client on Schmorp in the last weeks. Although
> > this is no evidence, that there are no bugs or problems.
> >
> > It would be the correct and fair way to include this server in the
> > metalist as it would be comletly against the idea of opensource to
> > constrain inventions and forks.
> >
> > I think it is a good solution to inform the user about what he can expect
> > from the server. As long there are bugs reported someone can include a
> > MOTD message wich informs the user.
> >
> > Indeed we all do not want to force the user to select a particular
> > software or user. He should have the chance to select free between a new
> > testing environment or an old stable system.
> >
> > It would be a shame for the nice community on schmorp, when user will no
> > more login because its invisible in the list. Many people have high level
> > characters there and have a lot of fun to play there in their leisure
> > time. So we should not annoy them.
> >
> > Thanks for reading so far,
>
> Dear user,
>
> Just as a side note, I'm writing in my own name, and not of the whole
> project - keep that in mind when reading.
>
> I can understand that you are disappointed. Especially after you have (I
> guess) read the latest news entry on Schmorp's Crossfire TRT website, where
> he explains that
>
> " Both our servers have silently been removed from the Crossfire
> metaservers. While this was expected to happen at one point due to the
> friction between the projects, its unexpectedly harsh to do this without
> giving us any advance notice or explanation. But thats the ways of the
> Crossfire developers: if you can't convince with quality, try to shut them
> down with other means..."
>
> Which indeed made you wonder something like "why are those Crossfire jerks
> blocking those servers ? That's mean ! Maybe they are jealous !" And if I
> were you, I'd ask myself that as well, and would probably write the same
> kind of letter as you did.
>
> Now, given that you wrote that letter, I guess you deserve an explanation -
> from the point of view of a Crossfire (non TRT) developer.
>
> First, let's make this clear: this is not a question of "being jealous".
> Schmorp chose to explore new ways of developing the game. This, in return,
> gave ideas for the next development path of Crossfire itself. There is
> nothing wrong about a derivative of our original code to be successful, or
> to invent new things to improve the gaming experience. I don't care who is
> the project leader - what does are things like "does this change make the
> game better ?" or "What issues players get into ? How can we solve them ?"
>
> You are speaking about the absence of technical problems between the
> "stock" CF client and the TRT servers. I'd like to mitigate this by
> underlining two important points:
>
> - First, the "old" network protocol commands used to transmit map data,
> still used in the 1.10 client, has been removed from the "trunk" code (that
> is, the code for the 2.x version of Crossfire). This means that, for all
> those people using the trunk code for the client, they are unable to
> connect to a TRT server. They'll wonder why, of course, since those are
> labeled as versions 2.x, and may conclude that the whole game is crap. I
> doubt this is a goal either the CF team or the TRT one seeks;
>
> - Second, there are obviously some annoying compatibility irks noted on
> Schmorp's side - else, why are they bothering to print all those
> compatibility notes in red letters when you use the gcfclient to connect ?
> Given that they themselves have to use workarounds to make both
> interoperable, this is probably not a good idea to continue that way on the
> long run, forcing them to support other clients than their own one.
>
> Then, you are underlining the fact that it is correct and fair to include
> their server in our metaserver lists, because it is "how opensource spirit
> works". Sure - I just wonder why they forgot that spirit and forgot to
> display all the other CF servers in their own client's server list.
> Exchanges of ideas and freedom of choice can only properly work when all
> involved sides agree to "play the game".
>
> You point out that it is good to inform the user what he can expect about a
> server. Definitely - and that's all what the metaserver2 was about:
> providing more accurate informations about what a server offers. This is
> why metaserver2 includes a field about the map set used, for example.
> Now, again, this can only work if each server "follows the rules" and
> provide proper informations about its content. TRT clearly isn't using a
> standard content (this is one of its major differences with the original
> Crossfire), yet was saying otherwise to the metaserver2. Same with the
> version number. Or for the "code base" used. Or for the archetypes set.
>
> Why didn't they "play nice" and provide accurate information is a question
> you'd want to ask them, not us. The fact is that I believe our own gamers
> have the right to get infos as accurate as possible. If a server fakes
> those, then it is better for the players themselves to remove it from the
> list.
>
> Next, you underline the importance of not forcing the user to select a
> particular software. That's in perfect sync with what we believe ourselves,
> and that's why you are always free to type the address of a server that is
> not listed in the metas. That's also why there is not name appearing in red
> in the list, with a message telling you that "this may be dangerous to
> connect to this !" - because this is basically bad mouthing, providing
> little help to the player.
>
> Just as a side note, there is nothing like selecting between "a new testing
> environment or an old stable system" here. Our new testing playground is
> made of servers running the trunk code. CF-TRT, on the other hand, is a
> fork of the original project, and cannot be compared to it in terms of
> "newer" or "older". Both are developed in parallel. That's why it was asked
> several times to the TRT team to clearly report that on the version string
> sent to the metaserver. That they chose to number their project as 2.x
> added much to confusion, because people mistook their project for an
> advanced version of the CF 1.x, while it was nothing else than a different
> development path.
>
> Finally, you are saying it is a shame for the players on Schmorp. At the
> risk of sounding repetitive, I'll say again: if the TRT servers played nice
> and provided accurate, non-confusing informations, this would never have
> happened. Notice that the issue is not a new one - it has already been
> discussed in a not so distant past. I find pretty disappointing - and
> somewhat childish - that they preferred pointing fingers on their website
> than come and discuss on the issue.
>
> Well, I think that's all. Again, note that this is only my opinion, not
> representative of the whole CF developers community (even if I tend to
> believe most of what I wrote is a shared opinion). I hope that my answer
> put a different light on your view of the events; I also hope that your
> call to respect, freedom, and fair play will be heard on both sides of what
> appears to be a thickening wall between Crossfire and TRT.
>
> Yours,
>
> Y.E.J Chachkoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> crossfire mailing list
> crossfire at metalforge.org
> http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

-- 
http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de 
l'aléatoire !]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20070915/903d3fa5/attachment.pgp 