CKAN Discussion Continutation

[blu3wolf]

1 minute ago, goldenpsp said:

Today you are seeing the results of modders having their support via their threads get choked with CKAN this and CKAN that.  If Modders never saw a CKAN question they wouldn't care about CKAN working or not.

IMO CKAN should own their solution start to finish.  CKAN issues should be brought up with the CKAN people.  At the very least they would be like the tier 1 support.  Then if necessary the CKAN people could reach out directly to modders when necessary.  This outreach would be coming from someone knowing what's up, not a clueless end user, and as such would still be far less frustrating to a modder when that support comes up.

 

If its a CKAN issue, then sure. Still irrelevant though. Joe User already disregards clear instructions on where to make posts for support.

Doing support via a single forum thread... Seems like this is based on poor choice of medium by mod authors for support, really.

[RoverDude]

And right now, CKAN has no motivation to sort this because they lock everyone - whether you like it or not - in a perpetual, irevoccable, opt-in.  Unless you take a nuclear option and lock down your mod (which not all modders can do) into ARR.

If you feel you have to use force to lock people into your product - the same people with which your product would not exist, you should really question it's value.

 

[cantab]

For what it's worth, we have a recent counterexample to the "manual installation is easy" argument some people have made. This is how Ferram says to install FAR:

"Copy the GameData and Ships folders into the KSP root directory and merge them with the existing GameData and Ships folders. Make sure that you copy over everything in the GameData folder. Serious issues will occur unless this is done."

And this is how Thomas P says to install Kopernicus:

"Copy the contents of the GameData/ folder to KSP's GameData/ folder"

And lo and behold, users who follow those exact instructions then get bugs because those two mods are bundling two different versions of Modular Flight Integrator and so stomp over each other's files.

That is the kind of situation that a good mod manager will prevent, and why I find it so disappointing that CKAN has become the centre of unnecessary drama.

[goldenpsp]

Just now, blu3wolf said:

If its a CKAN issue, then sure. Still irrelevant though. Joe User already disregards clear instructions on where to make posts for support.

Doing support via a single forum thread... Seems like this is based on poor choice of medium by mod authors for support, really.

Then maybe CKAN should have an install support button right in the app.  The bottom line is all CKAN issues should go to CKAN first.  They can be the clearinghouse.

1 minute ago, cantab said:

For what it's worth, we have a recent counterexample to the "manual installation is easy" argument some people have made. This is how Ferram says to install FAR:

"Copy the GameData and Ships folders into the KSP root directory and merge them with the existing GameData and Ships folders. Make sure that you copy over everything in the GameData folder. Serious issues will occur unless this is done."

And this is how Thomas P says to install Kopernicus:

"Copy the contents of the GameData/ folder to KSP's GameData/ folder"

And lo and behold, users who follow those exact instructions then get bugs because those two mods are bundling two different versions of Modular Flight Integrator and so stomp over each other's files.

That is the kind of situation that a good mod manager will prevent, and why I find it so disappointing that CKAN has become the centre of unnecessary drama.

This kind of stomping seems to be what causes install issues, especially with the larger modders who have whole suites of mods that pull from other dependencies as well as are dependencies of other mods.  So I wouldn't call the drama unnecessary.

[blu3wolf]

Its not a bad idea. I dont think it will prevent modders from getting annoyed at idiotic bug reports, mind, but its not a bad idea. 

[ferram4]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Unless you take a nuclear option and lock down your mod (which not all modders can do) into ARR.

And I'll note that in the latest CKAN issue there were people arguing that they had no obligation to de-list ARR either.  Which is concerning if CKAN ever decides they should go for that option.

4 minutes ago, cantab said:

That is the kind of situation that a good mod manager will prevent, and why I find it so disappointing that CKAN has become the centre of unnecessary drama.

Yes, a good mod manager would prevent my minor error there.  However, at the same time that error is not fixed unless MFI 1.1.5 is distributed.  FAR bundles MFI 1.1.4.  CKAN (as of this moment) doesn't distribute anything newer than MFI 1.1.3.  This is the exact thing we're complaining about in terms of support issues.

[Sigma88]

2 minutes ago, cantab said:

That is the kind of situation that a good mod manager will prevent.

or, you know, you could always choose to not redistribute mods

just link to MFI forum thread (or download page) and tell them which version your mod is build to work with.

I know this is not a popular stand tho.

[blu3wolf]

6 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

And right now, CKAN has no motivation to sort this because they lock everyone - whether you like it or not - in a perpetual, irevoccable, opt-in.  Unless you take a nuclear option and lock down your mod (which not all modders can do) into ARR.

If you feel you have to use force to lock people into your product - the same people with which your product would not exist, you should really question it's value.

 

you personally are not locked into anything. ARR is not a nuclear option, its the default option under copyright law virtually the world over. If you have a mod which is incapable of licensing its future releases under ARR, you have yourself to blame. Irrelevant to the point, but there you go.

No force in question, nothing. As a mod author, the product in question isnt even aimed at you.

2 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

And I'll note that in the latest CKAN issue there were people arguing that they had no obligation to de-list ARR either.  Which is concerning if CKAN ever decides they should go for that option.

Yes, a good mod manager would prevent my minor error there.  However, at the same time that error is not fixed unless MFI 1.1.5 is distributed.  FAR bundles MFI 1.1.4.  CKAN (as of this moment) doesn't distribute anything newer than MFI 1.1.3.  This is the exact thing we're complaining about in terms of support issues.

Which, they dont. As discussed above, its policy to delist ARR works on request, not a legal obligation to do so.

As pointed out in several places today, there exist good options to fix that exact thing you are complaining about.

[Sigma88]

17 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

you personally are not locked into anything.

the problem is.

I would like my mod's code to be open source so people can take bits and pieces from it and use them in their own mod.

I would also like to maintain control of my mod's downloads because that helps me give better support for users.

I also want to waste as little time as possible thinking of this issues.

I used to be able to release something as open source and trust that the community was polite enough that they understood my choice.

when you say that I should choose the license that reflects better my needs, what should I choose ?

[blu3wolf]

So far, the most foolproof method of controlling downloads is to password protect the file, and not give out the password.

 

[Sigma88]

3 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

So far, the most foolproof method of controlling downloads is to password protect the file, and not give out the password.

I guess you are being sarcastic here.

mine was a genuine question. but if you feel like I should not wish to be the one who distributes my mod I'm fine with you thinking that

Edited June 25, 2016 by Sigma88

[blu3wolf]

No sarcasm. If you want to control where your mod is distributed from, you can do that with an ARR - so basically not licensing it.

That still doesnt legally prevent CKAN or any other mod manager from pointing to your mod download location, but with present policy for CKAN at least, you can ask for your mod to be delisted (As I am aware you have done so).

You dont want to mess with the license, really. You want (I assume) to make a point about how you feel wronged by CKAN policies. Im pretty sure your mods (The ones I am aware of and have used, anyway) have not been messed up by CKAN installs. I dont think (and please correct me if I am wrong) you have had support issues wrongly sent to you that should have been for CKAN maintainers. You shouldnt have an issue primarily with the fact that your end users are installing your mod with a script instead of a browser download and manual install (I assume).

As far as not wanting to distribute your mod, Im not sure what to say to that. Some of those are useful to me personally. I guess your current open licenses would permit me to reupload them if you decided you did not want to distribute them anymore. That is of course, as far as I am concerned, one of the great things about open source - the ability for someone else to pick up where you leave off, if you have not the time or inclination to carry on.

[HebaruSan]

49 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

CKAN (as of this moment) doesn't distribute anything newer than MFI 1.1.3.  This is the exact thing we're complaining about in terms of support issues.

If any of the CKAN folks are still reading, it looks like this is caused by the KSP versions for 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 being overly specific...

		"ModularFlightIntegrator": {
			"module_version": {
				"1.1.5.0": {

					"ksp_version": "1.1.2",

				"1.1.4.0": {
                  
					"ksp_version": "1.1.2",

				"1.1.3.0": {

					"ksp_version": "1.1",

Apparently if you have KSP 1.1.3 installed, that matches "1.1," but not "1.1.2," so it falls back to installing that older version that was (accidentally?) flagged as being more broadly compatible; if I change that first ksp_version value to 1.1.3, "ckan available" switches from 1.1.3.0 to 1.1.5.0. This should probably be using ksp_version_min and ksp_version_max instead (and/or "1.1" should be changed to "1.1.0").

[Divstator]

I think CKAN's mission scope is too vast, It should be limited to maintenance, conflict and dependency detection. Right now it is maintenance, acquisition, conflict and dependency resolution. Acquisition should be left to the user, so that the instructions are read first. Conflict resolution and dependency resolution should probably be a separate mission altogether(maybe through plugins?).

I realize that CKAN is trying to be a repository for KSP, like Linux. But I don't think that is the correct methodology here. Linux is a vast operating system with many subcultures, which is why the repository methodology is probably the best solution for that, it's just not the case for KSP.

[Sigma88]

23 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

No sarcasm. If you want to control where your mod is distributed from, you can do that with an ARR - so basically not licensing it.

That still doesnt legally prevent CKAN or any other mod manager from pointing to your mod download location, but with present policy for CKAN at least, you can ask for your mod to be delisted (As I am aware you have done so).

You dont want to mess with the license, really. You want (I assume) to make a point about how you feel wronged by CKAN policies. Im pretty sure your mods (The ones I am aware of and have used, anyway) have not been messed up by CKAN installs. I dont think (and please correct me if I am wrong) you have had support issues wrongly sent to you that should have been for CKAN maintainers. You shouldnt have an issue primarily with the fact that your end users are installing your mod with a script instead of a browser download and manual install (I assume).

As far as not wanting to distribute your mod, Im not sure what to say to that. Some of those are useful to me personally. I guess your current open licenses would permit me to reupload them if you decided you did not want to distribute them anymore. That is of course, as far as I am concerned, one of the great things about open source - the ability for someone else to pick up where you leave off, if you have not the time or inclination to carry on.

with sarcasm I was referring to "use a password protected archive and do not give out the password"

I have probably misundersood that, because to me that sounds like saying that an user would download the mod but wouldn't be able to use it because he doesn't have the password to unzip the mod.

not wanting my whole mod redistributed is just one of my desires, I also would like people to feel free to take some of the bits and use them for their own mods.

there are multiple mods that use stars copied from GalacticNeighborhood, and other mods that use stuff I have written. I know who those are even if they never asked permission and don't give credit. and I don't bother reporting them because most stuff is not that important.

I only report people that redistribute my mods without giving credit and add nothing to the mod to justify the redistribution.

but I digress.

I use ARR just because it let's me not bother about all these problems anymore, and when I'll get fed up with KSP and I'll leave this community be assured that I will put everything I made under an open source license and let whoever wants take on the mod.

 

and regarding the issues, I never said CKAN created problems to me. I was always collaborative with the team and made changes to my mods to allow for a better CKAN compatibility.

to be clear: I did see some issues coming from CKAN, but they never become a problem for me mainly because my mods are not that popular

[blu3wolf]

You have misunderstood it slightly, it should sound like the user would not be able to download the mod in the first place without the password.

If they could download it but couldnt use it, that would still be distributing the mod, just not in a very useful format.

 

[Van Disaster]

12 minutes ago, Divstator said:

I realize that CKAN is trying to be a repository for KSP, like Linux. But I don't think that is the correct methodology here. Linux is a vast operating system with many subcultures, which is why the repository methodology is probably the best solution for that, it's just not the case for KSP.

The name derives from CPAN, which is a rather more targetted repository than a linux distro - and has also had a fair share of problems ( I seem to remember one dev withdrawing his libraries & breaking anything depending on them... ) probably worth studying.

[Sigma88]

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

You have misunderstood it slightly, it should sound like the user would not be able to download the mod in the first place without the password.

If they could download it but couldnt use it, that would still be distributing the mod, just not in a very useful format.

ok, but I do need to give out the password so that people can download the mod

I mean, I don't really need to. but sharing my mod allows me to work on multiple mods (which is something I like) and get feedback from players that test the mod instead of having to do all by myself.

basically players want mods, I want testers, and we are all happy.

I could just move to curse and ARR, but I would rather enjoy a community where paranoia is not required.

I get already enough ppl trying to take advantage of me in real life, no reason to have the same issues in my free time as well

[blu3wolf]

telling other peoples computers where they can download your mod from is not taking advantage of you, and it provides you with testers.

No paranoia required, but it seems to be popular lately anyway...

[Boris-Barboris]

CKAN shaming

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

I could just move to curse and ARR, but I would rather enjoy a community where paranoia is not required.

Too late for that.  CKAN took the distribution control from the modder and gave it in any rando who wants it.  That is the unfortunate side effect of open source licensing; it allows this sort of blanket carelessness.  Best bet for all modders who want to retain control of their mod distribution is to move to ARR immediately.

[DStaal]

33 minutes ago, Van Disaster said:

The name derives from CPAN, which is a rather more targetted repository than a linux distro - and has also had a fair share of problems ( I seem to remember one dev withdrawing his libraries & breaking anything depending on them... ) probably worth studying.

Notably CPAN is completely voluntary on the programmer's part, and gives them complete control of their own metadata.  I think it's one of the best and most successful distribution systems out there.  Yes, your program can break because a dependency's been changed/broken - but that's not a problem that a distribution platform can solve on it's own.  (And CPAN allows you to specify which versions of a dependency are required, so it mitigates as best it can.)

 

(And actually - I've been a CPAN user and subscribed to their mailing list for a decade and a half now, and I can't think of the incident you're referring to.  If you can, can you point me to a link?  I remember an incident like that with Javascript - because the dev didn't like the behavior of the distribution platform's team - but I can't think of one on CPAN.)

Edited June 25, 2016 by DStaal
Asking about library removal incident.

[Randazzo]

24 minutes ago, regex said:

Too late for that.  CKAN took the distribution control from the modder and gave it in any rando who wants it.  That is the unfortunate side effect of open source licensing; it allows this sort of blanket carelessness.  Best bet for all modders who want to retain control of their mod distribution is to move to ARR immediately.

This is the primary reason I pulled all my stuff, and then ended up losing interest when I realized how much I would have to re-do to release ARR. Not only will CKAN refuse to stop listing a mod, they will go far out of their way to ensure the continued distribution even if all outside sources are removed. It's not just carelessness, it's willful attitude of "screw you".

@blu3wolf Out of curiosity, do you have a dog in this fight? A Mod? Work on CKAN?

[blu3wolf]

As a mod user, Id say I have an interest in the outcome of this disputation. Ive done a couple PRs for CKAN in the past, but thats about it.

I would naturally be fairly irked if the actions of some invalidated the best tool I have for maintaining my KSP install. Therefor, I am arguing against those who would do so.

[passinglurker]

On 6/23/2016 at 5:08 PM, politas said:

Forum bug ignore this quote

6 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

As a mod user, Id say I have an interest in the outcome of this disputation. Ive done a couple PRs for CKAN in the past, but thats about it.

I would naturally be fairly irked if the actions of some invalidated the best tool I have for maintaining my KSP install. Therefor, I am arguing against those who would do so.

So how much do you value the authors time vs. Your own?

Edited June 25, 2016 by passinglurker
Ugh this bug is getting on my nerves