Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist McDepravity]

Toady's business model is currently "keep donating and I can keep working on the game".  If other people are able to work on the game, then I can only imagine donations will drop.  Monetary concerns aside, DF is his life's labor and I don't see why he should open it up to others if he doesn't want to.

First of all, I doubt that becoming FOSS would decrease donation rate significantly. Development model and funding are not directly related matters.
Secondly, these are not same concerns that I've addressed - sure, Toady has his own reasons for keeping sources closed and its perfectly fine.
But saying that "releasing sources" would somehow suddenly turn into forks nightmare and chaos is totally another matter.

[Jeoshua]

You're arguing a point that's not going to happen, tho.  It's not fully what I believe is the best and most right course of action, it's what Toady does.  And he wants to keep the code as closed as possible. He hasn't even released Struct headers so that we can make hacking tools, yet look at all that the community has accomplished.

The fact of the matter is that it will not happen because Toady doesn't want it to.

OpenTTD is a wholly different type of game appealing to a totally different type of audience.  Does it get worked on?  Surely.  Does anyone make money off it?

NO.

[alegz]

Wow.
Didn't expected so much answears.

About open source, it can be a long talk, but it's useless.
Because no public code, no open source.

About root privileges.
I use ArchLinux. I've installed it through pacman. Actualy after I tried to launch DF in other way, downloaded from the website and started. Realy, it doesn't ask root privileges. Strange why it is done in packege version.

[Capntastic]

But saying that "releasing sources" would somehow suddenly turn into forks nightmare and chaos is totally another matter.

Considering all of the DF-likes and people making rival DF games and people reverse decompiling DF to do all of that (and all of the people being banned from the community for that sort of drama), there is more evidence that it will happen than it not happening.  This makes arguing from that point of view totally justified.

[Starver]

About root privileges.
I use ArchLinux. I've installed it through pacman. Actualy after I tried to launch DF in other way, downloaded from the website and started. Realy, it doesn't ask root privileges. Strange why it is done in packege version.

I don't know about that particular package manager, but given package managers often (in my experience, at least) require root-access for installs, sometimes asking for it even to run in the first place, although others only when they realise they're going to need to be elevated to complete everything requested, could it be installing as a root-owned package, in whole or in part?

Been ages since I've messed about with things on a Linux platform that I haven't written myself, but I'm just wondering if an "ls -al" on the package-installed DF directory (and maybe sub-directories, thereof) might reveal something that needs chowning, or at least chmodding possibly even up to the 777 level?

(Am I making sense?  Probably not.  I don't talk to people about Linux much, these days, and I've probably forgotten how to talk meaningful in a collaborative and understandable way.)

[alegz]

About root privileges.
I use ArchLinux. I've installed it through pacman. Actualy after I tried to launch DF in other way, downloaded from the website and started. Realy, it doesn't ask root privileges. Strange why it is done in packege version.

I don't know about that particular package manager, but given package managers often (in my experience, at least) require root-access for installs, sometimes asking for it even to run in the first place, although others only when they realise they're going to need to be elevated to complete everything requested, could it be installing as a root-owned package, in whole or in part?

Been ages since I've messed about with things on a Linux platform that I haven't written myself, but I'm just wondering if an "ls -al" on the package-installed DF directory (and maybe sub-directories, thereof) might reveal something that needs chowning, or at least chmodding possibly even up to the 777 level?

(Am I making sense?  Probably not.  I don't talk to people about Linux much, these days, and I've probably forgotten how to talk meaningful in a collaborative and understandable way.)

Thank you Cap.

My misunderstanding is not about privileges. I know this thing quiet well.
My misunderstanding is about why authors of packages did it these way?
But this is more ritorical question neather one that make sence.
If original version works well in user space, it's fine to me. Beter keep it stupid and simple.

[Urist McDepravity]

You're arguing a point that's not going to happen, tho.

I am arguing the points you made in your post about FOSS and "fork chaos" it would bring.
Yes, Toady will not release sources and its his right and I'm not going to say anything about it.
But when people say something like "releasing the source code would lead to 20 separate incompatible branches of the code", I believe it is necessary to point out that it is not true and was proved wrong on practice many times, including games, and including other roguelikes.

[Naryar]

Isn't toady going to release the source code on version 1.0 or something ?

[Starver]

See the many threads about how many years decades people think it will be before that happens.  Still very much not in the foreseeable future.

[MrWiggles]

Isn't toady going to release the source code on version 1.0 or something ?

This is baseless speculation.

[Jeoshua]

Dwarf Fortress will never reach "1.0"

Toady will invent a new numbering scheme as soon as it seems like the next version HAS to be version 1, for whatever reason.  This has been proven in the past

[Starver]

Zeno's Fortress!

(Arguably, all three Paradoxes Of Motion apply!)

[kaenneth]

Version 0.99.99 will be followed by version 0.A0.00

[NW_Kohaku]

Version 0.99.99 will be followed by version 0.A0.00

I would applaud the idea, but why is only the most significant digit in hexadecimal?  Shouldn't it be 0.9A.01?  (And it's not like the minor version iterations rollover at "100", either. 0.34.01 came after 0.31.25, after all - and it skipped .32 and .33 at that!)

[Starver]

That version number reminds me of an allegedly learn'ed[1] professor on a documentary the other day who was reciting out loud some figures he was reading and saying "three point fifty-two, seven point nine, eight point ninety-one", or similar.

(As a confusing example, is eight point eleven more or less than eight point nine?   i.e. 8.11 vs 8.9 or 8.09.  That's why you say "eight point one one" and either "eight point nine [oh]" or "eight point oh nine".)

Anyway, version numbers are often different and tied to two digits ("oh <whatever>") across two separate sub-decimalisations.  But...  when the likes of 0.99.54 majors up, I wouldn't put past someone[2] to makethe next version 0.100.01.





[1] Sorry, but I can't think of any other way of not making it read like plain-old "learned".  Although he didn't sound fitting of the title anyway.

[2] Probably not Toady, in this case...