On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
> > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>   >> Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an
> >> OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?
> > 'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000?
> > 10000?
> > sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but
> > how much?
> >
> >> There are patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, that's all that matters.
> > nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that "much".
> 
> That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway.  If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  10%?  30%?
i believe that when someone says "much more", he didn't take the numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive stats. why else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some numbers. or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got many more patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i will be asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about "many more patches with android" without numbers at least. and then i will ask to show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is not a useless android-specific crap.

see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very hard to say that "microsoft help develops Linux". what those patches do is compatibility with their proprietary "hyperv". useless crap. yet numbers still looks impressive.

> >> You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to care about FOSS doing well.
> > i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is
> > that
> > with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i
> > can't
> > see that as good thing.
> 
> I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant commercial involvement over the years.  Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.
you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, for example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors starts sending patches.

and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS projects which are very usable for "real work" (i don't know what "real work" and "unreal work" is, but hell with it).

> It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.
ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux success? i knew that!

from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose "permissive" license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.

i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i mean "the code i wrote without payment".

and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole.

> >>  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" your needs and has any
> >> usage today is precisely because commercial vendors
> >> contributed greatly to its development
> > i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i
> > didn't
> > have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm
> > seriously
> > thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial
> > support"
> > is suits me lesser and lesser.
> 
> You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?
if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. again. and proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable state now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not me who claims that without commercial proof FOSS is "not ready for real work", so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... let's take emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously.

you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". only when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and, btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.

> The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are more used to open source and actually releasing products based on open source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support contracts.
why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and would sell it for a dime.

> So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly killing off the GPL.
i already heard that. all that i can say is "those who don't believe Stallman are doomed to live in the world Stallman describes". the bad thing that they help build such world *for* *me* too. so i can't live 'em alone in their brave new world.

> I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model almost five years ago:
> 
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
> 
> What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited mixed model is ultimately the endgame.
this is all about the ways vendor can fuck me. but i don't want to be fucked at all. and i don't care how much PITA for vendor it is, just like vendor don't care about my needs.

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 15:44:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway.  If it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  10%?  30%?
> i believe that when someone says "much more", he didn't take the
> numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive stats. why
> else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some numbers.
> or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got many more
> patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i will be
> asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about "many more
> patches with android" without numbers at least. and then i will ask to
> show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is not a
> useless android-specific crap.

But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.

> see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very hard to
> say that "microsoft help develops Linux". what those patches do is
> compatibility with their proprietary "hyperv". useless crap. yet
> numbers still looks impressive.

Except that Android obviously has nothing so narrow as Hyper-V to which it's isolated to.

>> I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these hobbyist OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant commercial involvement over the years.  Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.
> you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, for
> example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors starts
> sending patches.
>
> and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS
> projects which are very usable for "real work" (i don't know what
> "real work" and "unreal work" is, but hell with it).

What would be "proofs" of being made much more viable by commercial involvement?  As for linux and gcc not being the only mature projects, every other one you can think of very likely also benefited greatly from commercial investment.

>> It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.
> ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux
> success? i knew that!

Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D

> from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose "permissive"
> license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in
> proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.

If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?  Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors?

> i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that
> product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
> product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i
> mean "the code i wrote without payment".

You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code.

> and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole.

Yes, you mentioned that before.

>> You think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?
> if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made
> computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. again. and
> proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable state
> now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not me who
> claims that without commercial proof FOSS is "not ready for real work",
> so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... let's take
> emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before
> corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously.

I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof.  As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself.

> you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". only
> when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and,
> btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.

This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.

>> The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are more used to open source and actually releasing products based on open source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support contracts.
> why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will
> get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and
> would sell it for a dime.

I already explained why: because that means they put more money into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.

>> So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly killing off the GPL.
> i already heard that. all that i can say is "those who don't believe
> Stallman are doomed to live in the world Stallman describes". the bad
> thing that they help build such world *for* *me* too. so i can't live
> 'em alone in their brave new world.

Stallman accidentally got some things right, but his turning FOSS into some sort of idealistic crusade for pure open source, ie free software, is hopelessly ignorant.  That's why the GPL is dying off.

>> I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model almost five years ago:
>> 
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
>> 
>> What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited mixed model is ultimately the endgame.
> this is all about the ways vendor can fuck me. but i don't want to be
> fucked at all. and i don't care how much PITA for vendor it is, just
> like vendor don't care about my needs.

I don't see how they're doing anything to you, nor do I say anything about a vendor's PITA.

Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.
do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all?

> >> It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more individuals choose a permissive license for their personal projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing the GPL by default like they did in the past.
> > ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate
> > Linux
> > success? i knew that!
> 
> Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D
individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero.

> > from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose
> > "permissive"
> > license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution,
> > use it in
> > proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.
> 
> If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?
i obviously meant "he accepted my patches, and then..."

> Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors?
does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was talking about selling the software product (as a standalone product or with accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built some system whose output then sold is ok.

> > i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until
> > that
> > product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
> > product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely.
> > oh, i
> > mean "the code i wrote without payment".
> You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code.
and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me all the code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute.

> I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof.
that wasn't me who created such situation.

> As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself.
so you have no proofs. q.e.d.

> > you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS".
> > only
> > when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in
> > it. and,
> > btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.
> This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.
and that kills the whole your argument about "OSS software can't be grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support".

> > why do you think that i should care how much money corporations
> > will
> > get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their
> > freedom and
> > would sell it for a dime.
> I already explained why: because that means they put more money into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.
the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less.

> Stallman accidentally got some things right
no, that wasn't "accidentally". he is *always* right. and each time RL goes "by Stallman", people keep telling me that "this was an accident and pure luck(unluck)". won't buy it.

> That's why the GPL is dying off.
but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules and subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually doing is just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some time to grok that "permissive" licenses are used to took away people's freedom, and then everything will start all over again.

> I don't see how they're doing anything to you
this is the root of the whole problem.

> Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.
not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we have to protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really don't care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those tools were designed.

Sigh, I did ask you some questions, which you've answered with a couple more questions, so I'll give you one last response.

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 18:52:00 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> But nobody cares to prove it to you.  I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that.  If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.
> do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all?

No, I see that you asking me to quantify something and then dodging the question of why it should be quantified, ie when I asked you what your magical threshold of relevance is, makes no sense at all. :) In any case, whatever you think that would prove, I have not offered to prove it to you.  The raw data is out there: if you want certain statistics extracted from that data that only matter to you, it's up to you to collect them.

>> > ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux
>> > success? i knew that!
>> 
>> Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D
> individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero.

Whatever that means.  Both have become much more successful in recent years by using mostly permissive licenses.

>> > from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose "permissive"
>> > license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in
>> > proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.
>> 
>> If he's the author, how is he stealing your code?
> i obviously meant "he accepted my patches, and then..."

If you sent him patches, he's not stealing your code.  No wonder you left that part out, but your whole story made no sense without it.

>> Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors?
> does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was talking
> about selling the software product (as a standalone product or with
> accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built some system
> whose output then sold is ok.

I see, so it's okay if google takes outside patches for their kernel, creates a search engine on top of it, and then sells access to the advertising on that search engine without releasing any kernel source, but not okay if they sell those same servers with that patched kernel and search engine bundled without including any kernel source.  This is the classic idiocy of GPL zealots, where they imagine they are purists for "freedom" then twist themselves in knots when it's pointed out the GPL actually doesn't accomplish that in any meaningful way, since most GPL code actually runs on the server.  Of course, some then go use the AGPL, but that's a small minority.

>> > i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that
>> > product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
>> > product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i
>> > mean "the code i wrote without payment".
>> You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code.
> and that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me all the
> code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute.

Funny how you don't make the same demands of google or some other cloud vendor who runs your code.  I guess distribution must be magical somehow, ie it's okay if they run your code on the server, just not on the desktop.

>> I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such proofs."  Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof.
> that wasn't me who created such situation.
>
>> As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself.
> so you have no proofs. q.e.d.

Lol, _you_ created the impossible situation of demanding proof you couldn't define, nobody is going to prove it to you.

>> > you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". only
>> > when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and,
>> > btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.
>> This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.
> and that kills the whole your argument about "OSS software can't be
> grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support".

I was only agreeing that anything successful usually starts as guerilla and that when a large company starts investing a lot in it, they often make mistakes.  No idea how you draw the conclusion from that that OSS can't be made more viable through corporate support, especially given that that has been shown invariably to be the case.

>> > why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will
>> > get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and
>> > would sell it for a dime.
>> I already explained why: because that means they put more money into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.
> the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less.

Well, a billion people do care, so the money and support they're pouring into those projects means they're obsoleting the projects you do care about. :)

>> Stallman accidentally got some things right
> no, that wasn't "accidentally". he is *always* right. and each time RL
> goes "by Stallman", people keep telling me that "this was an accident
> and pure luck(unluck)". won't buy it.

Haha, "Stallman is god," thank you for making it clear that you're not thinking clearly on this topic.

>> That's why the GPL is dying off.
> but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules and
> subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually doing is
> just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some time to
> grok that "permissive" licenses are used to took away people's freedom,
> and then everything will start all over again.

Keep dreaming.  I've pointed out to you the economic reasons why permissive licenses are winning, but you either don't understand them or are willfully ignoring them.

>> I don't see how they're doing anything to you
> this is the root of the whole problem.
>
>> Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.
> not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we have to
> protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really don't
> care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those tools
> were designed.

Except when that purpose is to run the software on the server, then you don't care about "freedom."  The "freedom" that you want isn't really provided by the GPL, and is impossible if you demand that all software must be completely free, instead of parts of software being open source, like with Android.

But it's not about reality and any meaningful definition of freedom for people like you, it's about creating some fantasy inconsistent definition and then clinging to it, no matter how irrational.

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:06:24 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
> I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and
> limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled
> indie games.
>
> Features:
>
> -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile
> layers
> -Support for sprite scaling and rotation
> -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette
> -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can
> work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the
> same size on one layer
> -Collision detection
> -Support for modding
> -Sprite editor, tile map editor
>
> It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
> to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
> can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't
> decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
> by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
> it).

I'm halfway throught the development. Now the engine is in a debuggable state. The display of sprites works well, the collision detection is simple (pixel based collision detection is not yet implemented), no effects, no input event handling.

https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine

Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be expanded later.

On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 16:30:27 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
> https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine
>
> Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be expanded later.

had a quick look:

public class Color....

This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache
friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data
oriented design'.

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 17:15:28 +0000, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> had a quick look:
> 
> public class Color....
> 
> This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data oriented design'.

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/data-locality.html

--Ben

On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 17:15:29 UTC, Zoadian wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 16:30:27 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
>> https://github.com/ZILtoid1991/VDP-engine
>>
>> Alpha release. Very basic functionality at the moment, will be expanded later.
>
> had a quick look:
>
> public class Color....
>
> This is probably going to be slow. you want to read about 'cache
> friendliness'. And for a game/graphics engine also google 'data
> oriented design'.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Also do somebody know how should I speed up the sprite part of the code? In my opinion, it's pretty slow alrought it was the easiest way I could come up with.

> Also do somebody know how should I speed up the sprite part of the code? In my opinion, it's pretty slow alrought it was the easiest way I could come up with.

Hi,

you have wrong approach to this problem. From design OOP view it is perfectly ok and this is how you universities teach it in their SQL classes... But you probably don't aim for clean OOP design but for speed. You work with every single sprite as entity. But you should aim to process sprites in batch. Your sprite should be probably struct, then feed array of them into separate function instead of calling on every sprite.

Difference:
foreach(sprite)
 sprite->doSth();

vs:
doSth(sprite[]);

this is good read:
http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/flyweight.html