[crossfire] Metaserver2 / schmorp

[Yann Chachkoff]

Le Saturday 15 September 2007 13:55:51 Marc Lehmann, vous avez écrit :
> Yann, you are a liar, and you know it. There is no excuse for the amount of
> FUD you spread, as what you say can easily be verified. The fact that you
> didn't even try to verify your claims and sitll do them has no excuse.
>
I don't like answering personal attacks, because most of the time, there is so 
much hatred behind them that it is pointless to attempt to conduct a 
reasonable debate. I'll do anyway, not because of the answer you could 
provide, or the exchange of ideas we may have (none of this being possible, I 
think), but so that all other readers may make their own opinion by knowing 
both points of view.

I'll try to keep this short, as I don't think spending hours on this is very 
useful.

1. On the issue of "reporting absolutely accurate information"

The metaserver2 is, in case people forgot, "The Crossfire Metaserver List". 
This means that the reference implementation is the "original" Crossfire 
server, mapset, and archetypes. To distinguish between it and other variants 
without having to use complex version strings as in the metaserver1, the 
arch/maps/codebase fields were introduced. This is clearly the only way one 
can distinguish a CF and a CF-TRT. 

It is true that the project name should not be used in the version field - 
there are the arch/maps/codebase fields for that purpose. This was clear from 
the start; AFAIK, none of the TRT developers asked for any clarification on 
their meaning on the Mailing List; the metaserver webpage 
(crossfire.real-time.com/metaserver2/meta_html.php) makes quite obvious that 
outside those three fields and the version one, there is no way for the 
client to guess the variant.

2. On the various code improvements and code quality

I never questioned the code quality of the TRT project in this debate - this 
never was the issue discussed, and it has little to do with protocol-level 
interoperability. Neither did I discuss about the server stability in a 
comparative or particular way. Bringing those points on the table only helps 
derivating from the central point.

3. About "forgetting the CF servers in the TRT clients lists"

Schmorp used the following arguments to explain that they didn't forget 
anything at all:

a) they didn't have time to create their own metaserver compatible with 
gcfclient;
b) they were removed first from the metaserver;
c) his server was blocked from accessing metaserver information.

I find point a) rather strange, actually. There was already a working 
metaserver; metaserver2 is now also available. Both provide the infos 
required to connect to a game server, and are completely independent of the 
particular implementation of the server notifying its presence. Both 
metaserver implementations are freely available and can be deployed to 
provide an alternate metaserver in a matter of minutes. Both are also 
obviously recognized by the TRT servers, and they actually used them.
It seems quite odd that TRT developers weren't able to make their client 
interoperable with any of those, to display the whole list of available 
servers, and not only the TRT ones.

Point b) is simply not true. The TRT servers were removed from the CF 
metaservers only a few days ago; original CF servers were already missing 
before that date.

Point c) could have easily been solved by discussing the blocking issue with 
the metaservers administrator. Note that this is somewhat irrelevant, as the 
TRT client could simply have read the infos from the CF metaservers directly 
(see point a) above).

Whatever the reasons, the result was the same: TRT servers used the CF 
infrastructure to advertise their presence, but TRT clients didn't bother 
listing the CF servers.

4. On being blocked "without any notice"

First, the discussion was conducted on the public mailing list. One that some 
of the TRT developers are subscribers of. They (or you) had the opportunity 
to participate in the discussion, and formulate objections. If you chose not 
to take part on the debate and expose your own position, it was up to you.

Second, *I* didn't block TRT from both metaservers without any notice; I just 
exposed my point of view that they should be. I never prevented the 
metaserver maintainer to ask the TRT team complementary information if they 
deemed it necessary - they have a brain and can decide by themselves if my 
proposal is grounded or not.

As a side note, the original discussion that led to the exclusion of TRT 
servers, was about the metaserver2, and not the metaserver1. Note that my 
original proposal was to use metaserver1 for 1.xx compatible servers (TRT is 
one of them), and metaserver2 for 2.xx only (this means that I'd 
have "banned" CF 1.xx servers from metaserver2 as well as TRT ones). 

5. About "criminal behavior"

On this, I'd just like to point out that calling somebody a criminal on a 
public discussion when no crime has been committed is, in most countries, 
condemnable by law.

> PS: to the few honest (or willing) people left: sorry for using such strong
> language, but I think you should not punish me for that, as my outrage at
> yanns behaviour is quite justified. He may sound cool, but the fact he
> continously lied to you should weigh strong with you.
>
Most of the "honest" people here (and I believe all of the CF devs nowadays 
are honest and willing) already know what I said on several occasions: "This 
is *my* opinion. See for yourself, and make your own idea about it".
Do I sound cool ? No idea. Do I try to stay polite ? Yes; and that's why I'll 
not point accusing fingers. 

This will be my final message on this topic. There is nothing left to discuss, 
unless the goal is to bind me on a mast and burn me on the public place - but 
Witch Hunting is sooo old-fashioned these days... :)