CKAN Discussion Continutation

[RoverDude]

And in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with reserving the right to de-index a mod that you have created.  Case in point, I had to pull teeth to get some ancient, deprecated mods de-listed.  If they change their policy, I'll put my stuff back up.  And continue to maintain my own metadata.  And if in the future there's a reason for me to pull one down (retirement, a rework, consolidation, whatever) I want to know that I (and other modders) have that right.  All of the modders.  Regardless of what license they use.  I do not consider that disingenuous.

[benad]

1 minute ago, RoverDude said:

And in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with reserving the right to de-index a mod that you have created.  Case in point, I had to pull teeth to get some ancient, deprecated mods de-listed.  If they change their policy, I'll put my stuff back up.  And continue to maintain my own metadata.  And if in the future there's a reason for me to pull one down (retirement, a rework, consolidation, whatever) I want to know that I (and other modders) have that right.  All of the modders.  Regardless of what license they use.  I do not consider that disingenuous.

So yes, it is just a general protest, which i said was fair enough. You are missing my point, i said it comes across as disingenuous. I'd recommend making your intentions clear if you are going to post that on all your threads.

[RoverDude]

We can agree to disagree then, no worries.  CKAN is no longer supported by me.  If they want that to change, the policy needs to change.  Pretty simple, really.  Short, sweet, and to the point.

[benad]

5 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

We can agree to disagree then, no worries.  CKAN is no longer supported by me.  If they want that to change, the policy needs to change.  Pretty simple, really.  Short, sweet, and to the point.

Jesus, there is nothing to agree to disagree on.

' CKAN is no longer supported by me.  If they want that to change, the policy needs to change. ' Is short sweet and to the point and is exactly what i was suggesting you change your comment to! 

[Sigma88]

36 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Note:  Installation via CKAN is not supported.  
If you wish to see this change, encourage the CKAN project to revise their de-indexing process, and allow modders to choose if they want in (or out) of CKAN without having to resort to restrictive licensing.

I have decided to adopt this as well.

25 minutes ago, benad said:

This comes across as disingenuous. Your effectively drumming up support from your followers (who use CKAN on the basis you know they'll want/need CKAN support) for a policy change so that you can in future remove all your mods from CKAN which will leave your mods unsupported on CKAN . . .

Now if your just making a general protest, fair enough but that's not the way it comes across.

my decision has come not because I have had problems with CKAN, but because I believe it should be the right of the modder to decide to take off their mods if they so desire.

In future I will not remove all my mods from CKAN, on the contrary, if the attitude becomes more friendly I will give them permission to manage my mods installation again.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Sigma88

[benad]

Just now, Sigma88 said:

I have decided to adopt this as well.

not because I have had problems with CKAN, but because I believe it should be the right of the modder to decide to take off their mods if they so desire.

In future I will not remove all my mods from CKAN, on the contrary, if the attitude becomes more friendly I will give them permission to manage my mods installation again.

Again, fair enough, i agree this is your right, and i'm leaning towards this being the best course of action available for the modders here, i'm just asking people to be clear with their intentions that is all. . . 

I'll be stepping away from entire thread now as some people here are completely incapable of keeping their cool long enough to actually read and digest a post before responding.

[Stone Blue]

51 minutes ago, benad said:

I'll be stepping away from entire thread now as some people here are completely incapable of keeping their cool long enough to actually read and digest a post before responding.

If you are referring to ME and my posts, I dont believe "I" have lost my cool... I apologize if I ended up reiterating something that posted, that I had not read yet... The thread is moving fairly quickly, and some of the posts are quite long... With the way quotes work (horribly), its tough to read thru a full page of posts, THEN to go back and try to quote posts and reply, AND to remember my thoughts about said posts...

I already conceded that I erred in doing so, and I will slow down on the quoting and replying to posts AS I READ them...Which is easier for me, but seems to tick off people... Gee, kind of like CKAN is doing: making things easier for SOME people, at the cost of, and ticking off OTHER people...

[kreutzkevic]

10 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

 

Case in point, here is one of those interactions from the UKS thread that I assume are meant by support issues:

On 22-6-2016 at 8:44 PM, kreutzkevic said:

Hey RD. Excellent work as always. Really loving your work.

 

They're not showing up in CKAN, however.

For me, anyway.

On 22-6-2016 at 8:50 PM, mcortez said:

Install KSP-AVC and use the download links it provides.

CKAN is one of RD's nemeses, and creates more support headaches than any 2 dozen other issues put together.

On 22-6-2016 at 8:53 PM, kreutzkevic said:

Done. Thanks.

Was that so bad? Who did that hurt? It's 3 messages, and RD didn't even have to get involved. Are those the "support issues"?

 

 

You can quote me, but you don't understand my reasoning.

 

I was merely surprised at Roverdude's mods not showing up in CKAN, because I know he updates them beforehand. I had never looked into how CKAN works for modders and I just use it (quality of life and all that). Had I known RD's feelings on the matter, I wouldn't have bothered asking, but just immediately installed them the old-fashioned way.

I already knew about KSP-AVC from my RSS/RP-0 install.

I didn't know CKAN was such a divisive issue. I don't care really care either way. It's easy to use as a player, but if modders don't want their mods to be hosted there that's fair enough. Their work. Their choice. If I come across them and I like them, I'll install them either way and check periodically for updates myself if I have to (like we all had to do around 0.21)

Edited June 24, 2016 by kreutzkevic

[kiwi1960]

8 hours ago, benad said:

This comes across as disingenuous. Your effectively drumming up support from your followers (who use CKAN on the basis you know they'll want/need CKAN support) for a policy change so that you can in future remove all your mods from CKAN which will leave your mods unsupported on CKAN . . .

Now if your just making a general protest, fair enough but that's not the way it comes across.

Roverdude is a good guy, and I use his mods, like many others, but I suck up to no one.... not even rover dude. However... this time, he has my support.

[Angelo Kerman]

10 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Yup - I love KSP-AVC, and have huge respect for @cybutek.  

Thinking tho... it may not actually be that bad to make a modder-friendly CKAN.  If I can find a collaborator or two, it's something that would very likely be doable - especially since there would be no metadata grooming (which is likely a big chunk of the CKAN workload).

My thoughts on this would be an app that scans your game directory for the mods you have installed manyally at least once, and then downloads updates as needed. Think AVC with the extra step of downloading and installing stuff for you. If you mod has AVC versioning files, you're good to go. To me that would be more modder friendly and require the user to manually install a mod at least once. To be modder friendly, maybe some kind of opt-in/opt-out file in the mod tells the installer to leave it alone. It would not go out and find mods for you, there are other tools for that like Curse and Spacedock.

While I think CKAN in conept is a nice idea, the execution is troubling. It is not unusual for users to have problems with my mods as a result of a botched CKAN install. I respect the CKAN team for their efforts and recognize that they are volunteering ther time. But at this time I have to discontinue supporting CKAN users and change my licensing to reduce my support workload.

For my own stuff, I get that the public licensing means no matter what I do, my mods will be on CKAN up to the point where I change my licensing. At that point any versions with the new licensing won't be allowed. That means I will continue receiving support requests, which is why I'm updating my threads to let CKAN users know that they're on their own.

KSP would benefit from a mod installer that was rock solid and lets modders decide what can be published to the catalog and what cannot. Unfortunately in its current state, CKAN is not that solution. Should its policies and reliability improve, I would be interested revisiting my decision.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Angel-125

[RoverDude]

I agree with you re a KSP-AVC Plus.  And opt-in, etc. could be handled via the version file that is already there.  Then a simple out of game executable that parses the version files, etc. and can even dump the mod and version list (which I find invaluable for troubleshooting).

May not be a bad idea to ping Cybutek or toss him a PR or two.  I might at least knock out an out of game version checker, since that's one of the larger complaints.

[mjl1966]

*backs slowly away from thread*

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by mjl1966
Stumbled into wrong thread

[nobodyhasthis2]

So lets recap:

1. Mod author does a cool update and releases for testing and feed back

2. End user submits incorrect metadata. Mod breaks. Mod author gets upset.

The solution

Drop social bomb on CKAN. ( So lets attack a whole ecosystem because we can't be bothered to fix a tiny bit of metadata. In fact it not really the problem. The lack of knowledge of how the reporting system works is the problem. )  

or

Drop social bomb on mod author. ( Force ARR. If it stops contributions and sharing of their ideas. This can be devastating. Mod creation is done for fun. Why make it less fun? )  

what?

The problem is the metadata and the verification process (or lack thereof) !

What has it got to do with the actual original mod creator?

With only a few exceptions. The metadata has has nothing to do with the mod author. Most of them never look at it. Don't even ask them to fix it because it has nothing to do with them. If fact quite a few don't know how to change it. Asking a mod author to change a license to get rid of bad metadata is kind of crazy.

( Note for the sake of argument. Yes, I know how it works for Roverdude which has produced some interesting CKAN bug reports. Which is just one of the reasons I feel socially obliged to buy him a coffee now and again with no strings attached. I expect nothing from him but he is nice enough to share his toys and herds cats. Pretty cool. He is none the less is an exception to general principle raised above about mod author not knowing about metadata ) 

Ok so if the it is just metadata who do I ask to fix it?

Sorry that question normally never gets asked on the forum. The assumption for new users is go to the mod author. Here mod author tolerance is a large variable. Some don't mind and some will bite your head off for asking a CKAN question. It does not matter if the response is justified or not based on previous posts. New users just normally have no idea how things work. If a mod is on CKAN the mod author must have done that. Nope that assumption is wrong. 

That is the current starting conditions. Then changes get introduced through the game it's self. Pushing out a version change to KSP is the weakest time of stability in the community. A upgrade to KSP is a big event and everyone gets shaken up. Waiting for mod fixes, possible new bugs in stock and of course new metadata for CKAN. 

So the social "cold war" can start to warm up. Mistakes can happen. Tempers are lost. etc. There is also a fair bit of social "friendly fire" in the confusion. Now here is the most disturbing question. The question that honestly keeps me awake a night. What happens if someone else comes along. That didn't know anything about the KSP community?

Some new kid picks up KSP and learns about the modding. Then comes into the social mine field. Unaware and naive. This is not hypothetical. The forums continue to grown steadily with new comers.  

Hey what if CKAN is wrong and it is not metadata related?  

This one is a pickle. However guess what. Same answer. It has got nothing to do with the mod author. Raise a CKAN bug report. Develop a work around which may involve manual installs or metadata override. There is whole list of user fixes. Learn them and talk to other users. CKAN does have it's own support thread.

Don't expect an actual programming fix anytime soon. CKAN development is very slow. It is also in beta and probably all always will be. What ever you do don't post to the other mod authors.

Hey, ok I submitted a CKAN bug / metadata change and it still a pain in my work flow?

Stop and fall back to manual systems till resolved. Which could involve delisting the metadata! Remember this has got nothing to do with mod authors. Wait a minute?

We have to change the mods license to ARR to delist somebody else's incorrect data ?

No please. see what section above and start reading again.

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[cantab]

1 minute ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

So lets recap:

1. Mod author does a cool update and releases for testing and feed back

2. End user submits incorrect metadata. Mod breaks. Mod author gets upset.

The solution

"The solution" is simple: stop accepting metadata from every idiot on the internet.

[Stone Blue]

12 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I agree with you re a KSP-AVC Plus.  And opt-in, etc. could be handled via the version file that is already there.  Then a simple out of game executable that parses the version files, etc. and can even dump the mod and version list (which I find invaluable for troubleshooting).

Any way to add in or list known conflicting mods in the version file?

[nobodyhasthis2]

18 minutes ago, cantab said:

"The solution" is simple: stop accepting metadata from every idiot on the internet.

Yes but the community will continue to bang on for for several more pages in spite on this. To be fair. They are not "idiots".  Saying that is just flame baiting.

They are actually looking up a page and following the instructions. The next set of users come along and think the mod author was responsible. It is actually very easy to fix mistakes later on. Plus it all happens very fast. Most people will none the less come onto the forums and complain to the mod author. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[Angelo Kerman]

27 minutes ago, nobodyhasthis2 said:

Yes but the community will continue to bang on for for several more pages in spite on this. To be fair. They are not "idiots".  Saying that is just flame baiting.

They are actually looking up a page and following the instructions. The next set of users come along and think the mod author was responsible. It is actually very easy to fix mistakes later on. Plus it all happens very fast. Most people will none the less come onto the forums and complain to the mod author. 

That's part of my frustration. I'm paying the consequences for faulty installation software and incorrect metadata files that are beyond my control. My solution is to change my licensing and discontinue support for CKAN users. That to me is the best use of my limited time. I also vaguely recall a Curse Client from my days of playing WoW, and am wondering if that client is still around and works for KSP. That might be another solution, though when it comes to hosting mods on Curse, I'm a total noob.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Angel-125

[mjl1966]

*Puts on business project manager hat*

As a data security analyst, I've had to do things like stand in a room and tell developers they need to put a password on their source code server while they look over the rims of their glasses with that look that says six shooters will be produced if I pursue the topic any further.  Yeah, things that seem "obvious" on the outside are often impeded by deep cultural paradigms which have to be understood, navigated and eventually changed.

So, here's my attempt on this subject.

Let's look at the business case here.

There are three parties: content creators, a content distributor and content consumers. 

The *common* business objective is to create mods and distribute them to as many consumers as possible such that the mods are easily installed with minimal problems for any party.  That's kind of broad, but that's usually how you have to start off these things.

Currently, we have conflicting interests between two of these parties: content providers and distribution. 

Content providers want their mods to be installed as they intend, according to technical specifications which determine the functionality of their content. 

Distribution wants consumers to use their system to distribute as many mods as possible.

Now, at this point, there's usually a lot of coffee drinking, refereeing, questions, answers and brain storming.  But we don't have a conference room.  I'm going to have to assume that all parties will agree that they at least *understand* the other's objectives, even if they don't support them.  Just understand. 

Putting them together, we get a business objective:

The centralized distribution of as many mods as possible such they are properly installed according to technical requirements as defined by the content developer.  OK, this requires distribution part to give a little bit of ground up front.  Let's talk about that.

Currently, there is a paradigm that says, in effect, we all have the right to distribute as much content as we want due to open licensing.  OK, but let's examine that in the context of the business mission.  We still have the issue of content needing to be installed by consumers according to technical requirements as defined by the content providers.

Here, we have to ask if there can be agreement on that.  Can distribution agree that content needs to be installed by consumers according to technical specifications defined by the content providers?  If we can, we have a next step.  If not, we're dead in the water.  Read it again. 

To distribute without taking into account the need for adherence to technical requirements set forth by the developers leads to several problems, among them:

1.  Incorrect installs - unhappy users.

2.  Incorrect installs - overworked developers who don't trust the distributor.

Neither of these serve the *common* business mission of getting as many working mods as possible into the hands of users.

This, in my mind, is the core problem that needs to be solved in order for this team to move forward in the achievement of the common business mission. (Again, everyone has to agree on that mission for it to work.)

Let me redefine it:  There is currently an inadequate process by which developers and distribution can coordinate their efforts to ensure content is distributed to facilitate installation by users in accordance with developers' technical requirements.

The problem isn't devs.  The problem isn't distribution.  The problem is a missing process.

Given this definition of the problem then the solution is for the developers and distributor to design and implement a process whereby content is distributed and installed according to technical requirements as defined by the developers. 

The goal, then, becomes the development of such a process.

If enough of you can agree on this, then my suggestion would be to assemble a closed-door committee of leading developers and the distributor to work on developing that process so that you all can achieve the common business goal of getting as many working mods as possible into the hands of users.  It's an effort that requires commitment, good faith and an initial dose of trust for the sake of the mission.

Goal.  Problem.  Solution.

Whether or not that happens is up to a small group of very smart people who created all this stuff for us humble users who really do appreciate all your hard work.  Work it out.

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by mjl1966
grammar

[nobodyhasthis2]

1 hour ago, Angel-125 said:

That's part of my frustration. I'm paying the consequences for faulty installation software and incorrect metadata files that are beyond my control. My solution is to change my licensing and discontinue support for CKAN users. That to me is the best use of my limited time. I also vaguely recall a Curse Client from my days of playing WoW, and am wondering if that client is still around and works for KSP. That might be another solution, though when it comes to hosting mods on Curse, I'm a total noob.

I actually remember posting about the last time this was a problem for you. Can't take any credit for reporting a change to the old .netkan you had on Github. However I do remember looking it up. The actual working Netkan repository copy was ancient. The fixing PR was already up super fast. That honestly that fix took less than 5 minutes to investigate and hopefully has not given you any problems since. 

The only thing that I found upsetting is all the users before me that complained about you fixing CKAN in you mods forum. Seriously all it would have taken to get a fix was to tell the CKAN people. Yet people would tell you about the problem ad nauseum. That is just not fair and I completely understand all the frustration. 

1 hour ago, Angel-125 said:

also vaguely recall a Curse Client from my days of playing WoW, and am wondering if that client is still around and works for KSP. That might be another solution, though when it comes to hosting mods on Curse, I'm a total noob.

Ah that one. Yes it active. In fact it has just had a bit of a update. It is pretty bad from a KSP modding point of view. That opinion comes with a huge pinch of salt. I am drawing evidence from another better established community on that platform. So could be wrong. The following is at best a starting point for further investigations rather that a complete summary.

Ksp curse client projects are there but not developed much beyond social media. A better view of the future comes out of minecraft modding of all things. Yes, I know people will be failing to see the connection here. It's not the game application I am discussing. It is the future of mod project management wrapper that KSP will end up in. In terms of support, dependency checking and feedback. It is bad. The primary aim is to push distribution and tie up social media. If you want to mix mods safely it has to be done in an external mod pack. Seriously it is a monster waiting to pounce on unsuspecting end users. It will list mods and post updates. Not much else that is value to mod control.

Ironically. As a result the Curse staff have actually had some minor input into CKAN project in the past. A mod on Curse is still listed on CKAN it just requires one extra step right now. Plus with CKAN being open source Curse is welcome to using bits of it to fix the current snags. Whilst pushing adverts in everybody's face of course. As a mod hosting website not that bad. As a client on your computer. Potential malware right now for both end users and mod authors.

Edited June 25, 2016 by nobodyhasthis2

[goldenpsp]

@mjl1966 Cute post.  There is one key factor to keep in mind when trying to apply your "business model" to this issue.

In large part modders don't create content for consumers.  They create content for themselves that they then share.  I will call out @RoverDude as I understand his standpoint the best and he has been openly vocal on the forums, Twitch livestreams etc.

To paraphrase "I make mods for myself.  I am then nice enough to share them with the community.  The community gets some fun bits to play with.  I (Roverdude) get playtesters and bug reports.  And as long as this situation comes with a hassle factor low enough, all is good in the world".

The reality is that Roverdude doesn't really care if 5 or 500 people use his mod.  As long as the benefits he gets from sharing the mod outweigh the hassle of sharing, he is happy.

To that end, the very easy method of manual mod installation works perfectly fine to install his mods, and really it is only the very occasional user who cannot figure out how to copy the mod to the gamedata folder.  Beyond that, I don't think Roverdude really cares if it is a hassle to manually manage the other 295 mods you chose to install beyond his. 

 

[mjl1966]

40 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

@mjl1966 Cute post.  There is one key factor to keep in mind when trying to apply your "business model" to this issue.

In large part modders don't create content for consumers.  They create content for themselves that they then share.  I will call out @RoverDude as I understand his standpoint the best and he has been openly vocal on the forums, Twitch livestreams etc.

To paraphrase "I make mods for myself.  I am then nice enough to share them with the community.  The community gets some fun bits to play with.  I (Roverdude) get playtesters and bug reports.  And as long as this situation comes with a hassle factor low enough, all is good in the world".

The reality is that Roverdude doesn't really care if 5 or 500 people use his mod.  As long as the benefits he gets from sharing the mod outweigh the hassle of sharing, he is happy.

To that end, the very easy method of manual mod installation works perfectly fine to install his mods, and really it is only the very occasional user who cannot figure out how to copy the mod to the gamedata folder.  Beyond that, I don't think Roverdude really cares if it is a hassle to manually manage the other 295 mods you chose to install beyond his. 

 

Are you a mod developer?

 

[ferram4]

He may not be, but I am.  And I agree pretty much completely with exactly what he said.

[goldenpsp]

13 minutes ago, mjl1966 said:

Are you a mod developer?

 

Published?  No, but I stayed at a Best Western last night.

[nobodyhasthis2]

12 minutes ago, mjl1966 said:

*Puts on business project manager hat*

I have got that hat too. Admittedly mine comes from another line of work. However the principles are the same everywhere at least. Sorry if that bit is unclear. I am honestly trying to put your analogy within the context of the CKAN project. As I currently see it. I am not a CKAN developer just a fellow end user. That might have shared some similar project manager experiences that you have. 

Hopefully this is an accurate summary. Please let me know otherwise. Not going to quote you. No point in repeating the whole thing. In short. Your right in general but the basic analogy you using above is slightly wrong. I do however like it overall. The outcome of your analysis is none the less mostly correct I think. Although I suspect in will be lost in translation for some.

26 minutes ago, mjl1966 said:

There are three parties: content creators, a content distributor and content consumers.

There is no distribution here. It is a metadata index. Basically a list of download links. So it is better to think of it as:

1. Content creator.

2. Index system (Which is crowd sourced information and usually not related in any way to the content creator ). 

3. Content Consumers. ( which are in fact at best bug testers that might help group 1. Or can be safely ignored.)

I think you whole point is aimed at 2. Honestly in terms of actual volume of mods and downloads. This whole debate is really a storm in a tea cup in the grand scheme of things. It is actually about how direct problem traffic away from group 1 and 3. However the tricky thing those groups will not help. Or rather should not be expected to help. There are mostly not even aware there is any problem. 

Here is the main point. Group 1. Simply does not care at all about group 2. It is all irrelevant to them. There is no process to improve here from their point of view. They are not interested. Creating content is fun. Whist doing the indexing is not fun. In fact until recently there was still few individual mod authors packaging slightly outdated copies of module manager in manual downloads. Why?

Version checking is a group 3 job. That is what best bug testers are for and module manager is just another mod to manage. Version checking outside of owned mods has nothing to do with the content creators really.

So yes there is a slightly broken process in regards to managing the input and verification of indexing data for group 2. If you know how things work socially everything is all ok. Stuff gets fixed. If people come into the forums and direct wrath at a content creator instead. Bad stuff happens. It always goes from a polite "CKAN is not my problem". To "burn CKAN users at the stake" as they become more irritated.

 

 

 

 

 

[mjl1966]

19 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

He may not be, but I am.  And I agree pretty much completely with exactly what he said.

Sir, you have created a logo, detailed descriptions of your mods, videos, a Wiki and a donate button.  Your actions are not consistent with the notion that you do not have a sincere interest in sharing your mods with the user community beyond a casual coincidence of convenience to yourself. 

You may very well take issue with my proposal, which is your prerogative, and one that I respect.  But I honestly see a very real interest on your part in sharing your mods with the community.  And we have benefited from that.