SFC 4 Project

[marstone]

If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.

Well, somewhat true.  You will have multiple executables, but they can all come from the same source code if written correctly for crossplatform compiles.  Crossplatform doesn't always mean a ton of more work, mainly working towards that goal from the start.  A few #defines and pulling machine specific code into seperate modules.  Good planning can save alot of work.

[toasty0]

If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.

Well, somewhat true.  You will have multiple executables, but they can all come from the same source code if written correctly for crossplatform compiles.  Crossplatform doesn't always mean a ton of more work, mainly working towards that goal from the start.  A few #defines and pulling machine specific code into seperate modules.  Good planning can save alot of work.

I hope that there will be those who wish to create exe for Mac, or Linux, and are given the opportunity. 

[marstone]

If cross platform compatibility is a concern to the development group, it will mean they will have to develop two, three, or more executables for those who wish to host/play on other platforms. That is a lot to ask of volunteers whose plate will be full enough hacking out the windows compatible executable.

Well, somewhat true.  You will have multiple executables, but they can all come from the same source code if written correctly for crossplatform compiles.  Crossplatform doesn't always mean a ton of more work, mainly working towards that goal from the start.  A few #defines and pulling machine specific code into seperate modules.  Good planning can save alot of work.

I hope that there will be those who wish to create exe for Mac, or Linux, and are given the opportunity. 

Same here, some proper coding can have it run DirectX for Windows, and when compiled it can pull in OpenGL for the other systems (or just use OpenGL for all, but DirectX does have some advantages in the windows side, but would add more coding to double it up)

[Nemesis]

Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well  which is the reson for my question.

If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL.  Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL? 

As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown.  Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.

The answer to that question is yes.

MS has , and I am sure will always provide a free copy of their SQL server for public use.

The difference? It will only run on a single CPU , virtual or physical.

Regards

The limits on MS SQL are the best reason to use MySQL.

After what they did with PlaysForSure I wouldn't want to count on them keeping anything going if there isn't money in it.

[toasty0]

Is this a for sure. MS SQL comes in a free flavor as well  which is the reson for my question.

If it is on MS SQL you limit the platforms that people can choose to run it on compared to using MySQL.  Also can you be sure that there will always be a free version of MS SQL? 

As long as MySQL is opensource it can be kept available even if the project were to shutdown.  Since it was released under the GPL those versions will always be open even if Sun were to take later versions totally proprietary.

The answer to that question is yes.

MS has , and I am sure will always provide a free copy of their SQL server for public use.

The difference? It will only run on a single CPU , virtual or physical.

Regards

The limits on MS SQL are the best reason to use MySQL.

After what they did with PlaysForSure I wouldn't want to count on them keeping anything going if there isn't money in it.

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

[Rod ONeal]

What would make MS SQL a better choice?

[marstone]

What would make MS SQL a better choice?

If it was cross-platform.  If nothing else it would be nice to have the server be able to run on most platforms.

[Nemesis]

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows.  Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software

2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.

3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others?  If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server.  The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.

[toasty0]

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows.  Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software

2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.

3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others?  If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server.  The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.

1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.

[marstone]

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows.  Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software

2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.

3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others?  If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server.  The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.

1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.

all three of your points link into one thing.  MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code.  Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date.  If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.

[toasty0]

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows.  Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software

2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.

3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others?  If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server.  The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.

1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.

all three of your points link into one thing.  MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code.  Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date.  If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.

You can't update what without the source code?

[marstone]

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows.  Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software

2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.

3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others?  If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server.  The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.

1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.

all three of your points link into one thing.  MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code.  Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date.  If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.

You can't update what without the source code?

The SQL if MS drops their version you are stuck with whatever it was at that time.  MySQL is opensource and has people updating it, so even if support is dropped for it, you could work on it yourself.

[toasty0]

I don't get it. Once DL-ed, what do we care what MS does about free software releases?

I can think of 5 concerns that far outweight any consideration about MS' continued support of free software releases.

1/ Compatibility with future versions of Windows.  Not everyone will have old versions of Windows to run obsolete software

2/ Patching security flaws (or any flaw for that matter) that might arise after support was dropped.

3/ Acquisition. Does the MS license allow for distribution by others?  If not then someone who wanted to run a server after MS stopped distribution would have the choice of illegally acquaint one or not running a server.  The same applies to someone who had a legal copy but had it destroyed or lost in some fashion.

1.) Doesn't wash.
2.) Isn't that what is being done here is the team is trying to develop SFC4? I see their work in part as trying to adopt and extend legacy software (Q3) to run on future versions of windows and extend it to embrace other OSs?
3.) Let's hope that the development team has the foresight/and or time to write the application in such a manner that future versions of the database application can be implemented with as little recompiling of exe as possible. But, no matter which base SQL Server solution is chosen, it is going to age and will need to be updated and modernized.

all three of your points link into one thing.  MS SQL is released for use, but not the source code.  Thus is they drop support for the free version.
1) as windows come out with new versions it is possible it will not work with it.
2) We can't update it without the source code
3) Following the coding specs of the SQL package will mostly illiminate the need for updating or moderizing the source, as you just install the newer version of SQL that is being maintained by someone else and you are up to date.  If some of the coding specs change then you will have to update the software to handle that.

You can't update what without the source code?

The SQL if MS drops their version you are stuck with whatever it was at that time.  MySQL is opensource and has people updating it, so even if support is dropped for it, you could work on it yourself.

Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5.  And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 

[marstone]

Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5.  And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 

no you miss the point.  If MS drops the free SQL versions, then you would have to buy the it for whatever MS wants to charge.  Thus for the free version you are stuck with that one forever, and it may not work on the next OS (MS might change things anough that it will brake)

Thus it isn't just installing the new version (yeah that is easy) as there will not be any current iterations for you to use if support is dropped.  Thus you would be left to maintain it yourself and without the code you can't do that. 

And if you hardcoded in MSSQL then you would end up having to rework your old code to support a new SQL you could work with.

[toasty0]

Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5.  And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 

no you miss the point.  If MS drops the free SQL versions, then you would have to buy the it for whatever MS wants to charge.  Thus for the free version you are stuck with that one forever, and it may not work on the next OS (MS might change things anough that it will brake)

Thus it isn't just installing the new version (yeah that is easy) as there will not be any current iterations for you to use if support is dropped.  Thus you would be left to maintain it yourself and without the code you can't do that. 

And if you hardcoded in MSSQL then you would end up having to rework your old code to support a new SQL you could work with.

So, I guess it boils down to nothing more than being open source or not?

[Rod ONeal]

What's the reason(s) to use MS SQL instead of MySQL? I know servers have been run on MySQL. Seems that it would be easier to continue on with that work, but maybe not. Is there a reason to switch to MS SQL that might be an improvement or help somehow?

[toasty0]

What's the reason(s) to use MS SQL instead of MySQL? I know servers have been run on MySQL. Seems that it would be easier to continue on with that work, but maybe not. Is there a reason to switch to MS SQL that might be an improvement or help somehow?

Ron--

Dunno. I'm not on the development team. I do know that what little I do know of the development, I would not be as quick as some to dismiss MS SQL 2005 Express as a viable option.

I wish I could say more...

[toasty0]

What would make MS SQL a better choice?

 

[Rod ONeal]

What would make MS SQL a better choice?

 

Ah, it's a secret! Fair enough. I guess we'll see?

[marstone]

Any SQL Admin worth his salt can upgrade to the current iteration of MS SQL any MS SQL server database and or server going back to SQL Server 6.5.  And yes, just like MS SQL, there will be sp_xx and Datatypes that will need conversion or replacement. 

no you miss the point.  If MS drops the free SQL versions, then you would have to buy the it for whatever MS wants to charge.  Thus for the free version you are stuck with that one forever, and it may not work on the next OS (MS might change things anough that it will brake)

Thus it isn't just installing the new version (yeah that is easy) as there will not be any current iterations for you to use if support is dropped.  Thus you would be left to maintain it yourself and without the code you can't do that. 

And if you hardcoded in MSSQL then you would end up having to rework your old code to support a new SQL you could work with.

So, I guess it boils down to nothing more than being open source or not?

I would think it isn't just that it is open source, but that I for one do not trust MS to keep a product line free.  Standard idea is like a drug dealer giving out free samples.  Get them hooked on it, then put in the cost.  Happens all the time.  The opensource part just lets you know it will be free forever, unlike the MS product.  Microsoft might also try and charge for a license version for the developers to use to make the product even tho the end-user can use the free version.  I have seen that also, the main money comes from the companies who use it to make the programs and the end user can get it free (that is how PDF works, anyone can read it for free so it is a great way to put out your documents, but to write it you needed to buy the program to get the writer).

[marstone]

What's the reason(s) to use MS SQL instead of MySQL? I know servers have been run on MySQL. Seems that it would be easier to continue on with that work, but maybe not. Is there a reason to switch to MS SQL that might be an improvement or help somehow?

Ron--

Dunno. I'm not on the development team. I do know that what little I do know of the development, I would not be as quick as some to dismiss MS SQL 2005 Express as a viable option.

I wish I could say more...

The other and probably best reason MySQL is a better choice is that it is already coded for server use right now.  So it would be just following along the path of least resistance (no changes needed to keep it).  Simple is probably the best answer (we already use it so why change, unless there is a big improvement to do so).

[Cyberkada]

AFAIK, MySQL does require a $600/ server license  for any software not released under GPL or LGPL.

SQLite might be a better option.

[TFO Ghost]

Ok i didn't bother to read but the first 3 posts in this thread so if i missed something fill me in but hey I can do modeling with 3ds MAX and i am also a student at ITT-Tech and know alot of others that might be interested in helping out so i'll pass the word around on the project at school and have them post here too, and i will start working on some 3d ship models in the mean time If there is anything else email me or tell Killswitch and he will get me on vent or just jump on the TFO vent and chat.

[toasty0]

What would make MS SQL a better choice?

 

Ah, it's a secret! Fair enough. I guess we'll see?

Thanks Rod. Though, I just want to clarify that it is not so much a secret, as it is a matter that I have no right to post about a project that;

1.) I am not a member/developer on
2.) Do not have Frey's "all-clear" to relate.

What little I do know of the project I think MS SQL would be a very tight fit. But my opinion is based on a small amount of information . I'm confident the project leads will choose applications, servers, and IDEs that are best for the project.

[Capt_Pestalence_XC]

The reason MySQL is so popular with the SFC titles is because it works with the server kits better.. Taldren was the first to try SQL implementation and they tried both MS SQL and MySql.. the server kit at the time was much more stable under MySQL, at least according to Kenneth Yeast's Dynaverse Admins Group in Yahoo...

From there, Bonk and most of the Dyna Admins have been working on the kit with MySQL .. I'm not sure how stable MS SQL would be with Build 37 of the server kit.

I remember trying to use MS SQL with the server kit build 35 and I had a hard time getting MS SQL to recognize the kit.. and once I did get it to recognize, it was difficult for options to be adjusted in the kit.

However under MySQL, it recognized the server kit off the bat and working options in, though needing skill or borrowing scripts (as in  my case) for MySQL, it was easier to do changes on the fly.. Bonk is the master on it currently.

There is good and bad on both sides, but the major plus for me would be Open Source of the MySQL code .. this would allow for the programmers to go into MySQL source and make alterations.. MS SQL is a private code and alterations at the source levels are not possible, so that is a limitation to begin with..

[toasty0]

Thanks Pesty. I didn't know that Taldren had hooked MySql. It makes sense though.

I guess if the developers are going to try to use and maintain the old code base then it would make sense to use MySql. Otoh, if, as I hope, the project is going to develop things from the ground up, so to speak, many new features could be introduced while discarding a lot of the flaws and limitations of the old code base. I know this means an almost onerious timeline for the community, and it also means the possibility losing some of the good nuggests in the old code base. No way to ignore those ugly possibilites.

I think the results of a better scripting engine/interface; strong, more robust, stable server kit(s); and probably 25 other features I haven't thought of being included in a new code base make any negative result by abandoning the original code base worth the loss.

And, C# and MSSQL with managed code rock.