| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:46 |
|
aerozoic joined #minetest-hub |
| 01:39 |
|
ANAND joined #minetest-hub |
| 02:25 |
|
CBugDCoder joined #minetest-hub |
| 03:16 |
|
NathanS21 joined #minetest-hub |
| 03:53 |
|
garywhite joined #minetest-hub |
| 04:00 |
|
FrostRanger left #minetest-hub |
| 07:00 |
|
jluc_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 08:30 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-hub |
| 08:46 |
|
jas_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 09:32 |
|
FrostRanger joined #minetest-hub |
| 09:45 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-hub |
| 11:32 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-hub |
| 11:49 |
|
jluc joined #minetest-hub |
| 11:53 |
|
MinetestSam joined #minetest-hub |
| 12:25 |
|
Unarelith joined #minetest-hub |
| 12:36 |
|
kilbith joined #minetest-hub |
| 12:37 |
kilbith |
https://i.imgur.com/Bdc2Qd2.jpg |
| 12:37 |
kilbith |
The first 2.5D FPS game in a formspec, using raycasting |
| 12:37 |
kilbith |
~10s to generate a frame |
| 12:43 |
nerzhul |
ouch 10sec is huge |
| 12:43 |
nerzhul |
for a such trivial model |
| 12:44 |
rubenwardy |
well, it's a collection of boxes |
| 12:45 |
rubenwardy |
although, that is surprisingly long |
| 12:45 |
nerzhul |
do you want to add model viewer on formspec ? |
| 12:45 |
kilbith |
there are half a million of boxes |
| 12:45 |
rubenwardy |
are you using table.concat |
| 12:45 |
kilbith |
no |
| 12:45 |
nerzhul |
we see ~50 polygons |
| 12:45 |
kilbith |
I will release the code soon |
| 12:45 |
nerzhul |
maybe they are stacked |
| 12:47 |
kilbith |
Each box is a pixel, there are no genuine "polygons" |
| 12:47 |
kilbith |
These are fake |
| 12:47 |
kilbith |
Well, this is how OpenGL is working actually |
| 12:48 |
rubenwardy |
switching .. with table.concat will speed it up |
| 12:48 |
kilbith |
Let's see |
| 12:50 |
rubenwardy |
well, *Should |
| 12:50 |
rubenwardy |
.. involves copying, table.concat involves slightly less |
| 12:50 |
rubenwardy |
string.format is the best, but doesn't allow variable args |
| 12:51 |
rubenwardy |
by table.concat, I mean appending to a table with t[#t + 1] and calling table.concat right at the end |
| 12:53 |
rubenwardy |
there's also the copying from Lua to the engine, and across the wire, and then to the client |
| 12:55 |
kilbith |
Yep, definitely faster |
| 12:55 |
kilbith |
THanks |
| 12:56 |
kilbith |
About a second to make a frame now |
| 12:58 |
nore |
<@rubenwardy> by table.concat, I mean appending to a table with t[#t + 1] and calling table.concat right at the end <-- I'd advise not appending to the table like that |
| 12:58 |
nore |
but instead using an index that holds the position to insert to and incrementing it |
| 12:58 |
nore |
because computing #t is linear in #t, so appending is quadratic as well |
| 12:59 |
kilbith |
This is even faster, yes |
| 13:02 |
kilbith |
Any good video recording software on Windows 10? |
| 13:03 |
rubenwardy |
oh yeah |
| 13:04 |
rubenwardy |
OBS |
| 13:04 |
rubenwardy |
quite heaby though |
| 13:04 |
nerzhul |
obs, like on linux |
| 13:04 |
nerzhul |
it's used by many youtube streamers |
| 13:05 |
kilbith |
I don't mind if it's not OSS though |
| 13:05 |
rubenwardy |
I use simplescreenrecorder on Linux, but no Windows support |
| 13:05 |
rubenwardy |
there aren't any good non-OSS screenrecorders |
| 13:05 |
rubenwardy |
well |
| 13:05 |
rubenwardy |
all the ones I found add watermarks |
| 13:05 |
nerzhul |
OBS is the most used as i said |
| 13:05 |
rubenwardy |
OBS doesn't and is OSS |
| 13:05 |
nerzhul |
and it has youtub estreaming support embedded :) |
| 13:06 |
kilbith |
VLC? |
| 13:06 |
nerzhul |
VLC doesn't record screen |
| 13:07 |
nerzhul |
OBS permits to record the screen, a part of the screen, a window, do transition between record sources |
| 13:07 |
nerzhul |
it's very nice |
| 13:13 |
|
tumeninodes joined #minetest-hub |
| 13:14 |
* tumeninodes |
is impressed https://i.imgur.com/Bdc2Qd2.jpg |
| 13:15 |
kilbith |
Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtQXNJ8n3p0 |
| 13:16 |
kilbith |
Ok this is dog slow |
| 13:17 |
tumeninodes |
screen recording sucks in 2018 |
| 13:18 |
tumeninodes |
I've been looking at external screen recorders, they seem the better way to go |
| 13:21 |
tumeninodes |
just speed up the playback on youtube :P |
| 13:27 |
|
skyfight joined #minetest-hub |
| 13:52 |
|
scr267 joined #minetest-hub |
| 14:04 |
ChimneySwift |
you can set a screen as a VLC capture device, not recommended |
| 14:05 |
tumeninodes |
so, this will be fun to add into mods such as stairs, walls, etc. : / https://pastebin.com/5erRfFfu |
| 14:06 |
tumeninodes |
if there is an ultra easy method to do this, someone please let me know :P |
| 14:07 |
tumeninodes |
as this will only impact nodes which have multiple versions/texture varients |
| 14:12 |
|
scr267 joined #minetest-hub |
| 14:35 |
|
IhrFussel joined #minetest-hub |
| 14:36 |
IhrFussel |
Wait wait wait... you always say "my server, my rules...obey or leave" but now you consider adding a way to allow the CLIENT to NOT obey to SSCSM sent mods?? That makes absolutely NO sense |
| 14:36 |
IhrFussel |
If a client wants to play on MY server they have to ACCEPT all terms of it INCLUDING sent mods I want them to run! |
| 14:37 |
IhrFussel |
Don't give clients the freedom to CHOOSE which server sent CSMs run on them |
| 14:37 |
IhrFussel |
nerzhul ^ |
| 14:38 |
IhrFussel |
Don't take "client freedom" THAT far, if a client wants full freedom they need to play SP |
| 14:38 |
IhrFussel |
Plain and simple |
| 14:39 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel why i should accept all your rule, it's like disable JS on a website or block adds |
| 14:39 |
nerzhul |
these rules are not only for server owners but also for clients if they want. It's interesting to see servers owners only think about their servers but doesn't always think about their gamers/clients |
| 14:40 |
nerzhul |
i just returned the CSM drama point of view to the gamer point of view :) |
| 14:40 |
IhrFussel |
You HAVE TO accept all rules on a server or else you can get punished...it was ALWAYS like that ... don't compare it to JS, cause most websites don't need it for essential features... when a server wants to run a CSM it will most likely have a very good reason for it |
| 14:40 |
sfan5 |
IhrFussel: just like you can disable JS in a browser, clients will have the option of accepting no CSMs from the server |
| 14:40 |
sfan5 |
if you do not like that, it's on your server to reject clients that do this |
| 14:41 |
sfan5 |
(similarily to how modern websites or even Cloudflare's DDOS protection do not work with javascript disabled) |
| 14:41 |
nerzhul |
yes; if server owner can have choice, the client should have choice too |
| 14:41 |
IhrFussel |
sfan5, nerzhul wants a way to disable CERTAIN CSMs only and not a flag to enable/disable all sent mods |
| 14:41 |
IhrFussel |
That will complicate things A LOT |
| 14:41 |
nerzhul |
and we can enhance protocol at a point to make serverlist attribute "SSCSM mandatory" permitting clients to filter servers like this |
| 14:42 |
sfan5 |
certain CSMs? not sure if that is useful from a client perspective |
| 14:42 |
nerzhul |
if particle spawners sent from server make me laggy, why not ? |
| 14:42 |
IhrFussel |
He expects the client to then tell "if you disable this CSM then feature x won't be available" |
| 14:43 |
nerzhul |
currently i just expose the idea that if we have server CSM restriction we need to also think about client SSCSM restrictions to make their game correctly works as intended. It's an idea, nothing is developed |
| 14:43 |
nerzhul |
and we can flag the server with SSCSM mandatory in server list, like we did with creative for example |
| 14:44 |
nerzhul |
and when the client connects if he disabled SSCSM or refuse SSCSM server just disconnect it |
| 14:45 |
nerzhul |
the client should have the choice too. It's not server owners dictatorship :) freedom is what we always expected in mt |
| 14:45 |
IhrFussel |
But if a client then refuses to run SSCSM x then the code needs to be run server side? I mean you surely cannot just remove essential server features the need to be run somewhere |
| 14:45 |
IhrFussel |
they* |
| 14:45 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel, i suggest you to discuss about this when we will start to think about that, and it's not in the 5.0.0 dev cycle |
| 14:46 |
nerzhul |
first release 5.0.0, after prepare 5.1.0 with SSCSM and how to implement the correct behaviour for everybody |
| 14:46 |
nerzhul |
i agree with you that offloading to client is nice |
| 14:47 |
IhrFussel |
The client shouldn't be able to "hog" the server just because it refuses to run SSCSM...that is my point |
| 14:47 |
nerzhul |
but i think some heavy calculation requires to be restricted if needed by client. offloading particles is very very nice, but a restriction (or just a setting for a such use case) permits the client to disable particles and increase its FPS |
| 14:47 |
kilbith |
Code's released: https://github.com/kilbith/raycast |
| 14:48 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel, some contributors refused to contribute on GH because of JS , we accept them. I think we should accept client who refused server mods too |
| 14:48 |
nerzhul |
if the client doesn't want the SSCSM you have two choice: he connects on your server, has a bad experience and disconnects forever or he is informed that there is SSCSM and can just not connect |
| 14:48 |
nerzhul |
it's its choice, not yours |
| 14:48 |
nerzhul |
his* |
| 14:49 |
IhrFussel |
So server then need to run a SS mod AND send a SSCSM mod to clients that allow it ... that kinda defeats the purpose of SSCSM |
| 14:49 |
nerzhul |
it's interesting to see server owners are equal in terms of behaviour |
| 14:50 |
nerzhul |
(some server owners) |
| 14:50 |
nerzhul |
always extremists |
| 14:50 |
nerzhul |
it's a compromise, and a contract with players. By default the setting should not be enabled but client who doesn't want to run code from servers can be able to refuse to go to those servers |
| 14:50 |
IhrFussel |
No, but until now you always told people "servers decide what you do on there, if you need full control you can play SP" |
| 14:51 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel, extremist. |
| 14:51 |
nerzhul |
We can have well balanced servers. |
| 14:51 |
nerzhul |
and there is |
| 14:51 |
shivajiva |
nerzhul: stop talking crap, how dare you presume all server owners are the same, that's like me saying all devs are rude... |
| 14:52 |
IhrFussel |
I said CORE DEVS said the above thing and agreed on it ... I saw it multiple times on GH issues |
| 14:52 |
nerzhul |
if i want to play multiplayer without running non controlled code it's my choice, not yours (note: i personnally don't care about this on MT) |
| 14:53 |
rubenwardy |
I agree with allowing users to opt out, however the API should be designed in such a way that it doesn't matter to the server in a lot of cases |
| 14:53 |
IhrFussel |
Yes it can be your choice, but then the server also has the choice to just refuse you... and that would make things very complex if the client needs to have a flag for EACH possible SSCSM mod/callback and needs to compare it with the server on connect |
| 14:54 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel it's not server role to refuse clients who doesn't want SSCSM, but in the implementation i think it's the only implementation possible, and it's core side :) |
| 14:54 |
rubenwardy |
Client-side mods sent by the server should also contain a signature created by ContentDB, with certified information such as mod name author and hash |
| 14:55 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel, as a first step have a opt out for all is the easier to handle, but we can think in 5.2 for example to have fine grained things. Remember the particle example, i think it's a good example without being too disruptive on the gameplay |
| 14:55 |
nerzhul |
rubenwardy i agree with you, but we need a CA i think to sign those mods |
| 14:55 |
IhrFussel |
Don't force servers to run code they want to off-load server side JUST because clients don't want to run SSCSMs is what I say |
| 14:56 |
IhrFussel |
Don't give clients control over which code runs server side and which doesn't |
| 14:56 |
rubenwardy |
Anything you offload shouldn't matter to the server |
| 14:56 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel i don't think we can restrict CSM hud offloaded from servers for example, because it's a gameplay thing. Same with formspecs |
| 14:56 |
rubenwardy |
If it matters to the server, then that's a vulnerability - don't trust the client |
| 14:57 |
nerzhul |
but restricting 3D performance used by SSCSM to permit users to play correctly on low devices is a good choice |
| 14:57 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-hub |
| 14:57 |
nerzhul |
particles, light... |
| 14:57 |
nerzhul |
i will open the debate on that part when the code will be mature enough |
| 14:57 |
nerzhul |
there is no point in 5.0.0 as there is no SSCSM |
| 14:57 |
rubenwardy |
That's more of a graphics setting though, than a csm thing |
| 14:58 |
shivajiva |
if we have to have this bastardisation of csm you presented then both server and client can turn it off, the server can reject the client if it wishes and the client can choose to play elsewhere. Anything else is unacceptable. I find celeron55 to be polite and you to be rude but I'm not daft enough to claim all devs are the same... |
| 14:58 |
nerzhul |
rubenwardy, yeah maybe a restrction based on graphic settings |
| 14:58 |
IhrFussel |
So basically...what you want is just a client info that says "This server uses SSCSMs and if you disagree to load it then you will experience inferior gameplay" and then the particles the server uses (inside SSCSMs) are just gone? That is not a good idea but okay |
| 14:58 |
rubenwardy |
Also, I hate all these acronyms |
| 14:59 |
Unarelith |
do you have a better one IhrFussel? |
| 14:59 |
Unarelith |
+1 rubenwardy |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
SPCSM is better |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
because there is CPCSM |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
it's more logical :D |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
we can also remove S |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
CPCM and SPCM |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
client mods |
| 14:59 |
nerzhul |
"side" is useless :p |
| 14:59 |
Unarelith |
:D |
| 15:00 |
rubenwardy |
I think client scripts may be a more accurate term, maybe |
| 15:00 |
rubenwardy |
But doesn't matter |
| 15:00 |
nerzhul |
rubenwardy: if content store sign the mods sent from servers, why don't distribute it too ? |
| 15:00 |
rubenwardy |
Well, they could contain more information than .lua |
| 15:00 |
rubenwardy |
nerzhul: celeron55 is against that |
| 15:00 |
nerzhul |
okay |
| 15:00 |
IhrFussel |
Unarelith, YES don't implement a flag for each callback and refuse the client server side as soon as it disallows CSMs sent by the server |
| 15:01 |
nerzhul |
rubenwardy, you don't distribute SM ? |
| 15:01 |
rubenwardy |
He's against relying on any other services to connect to a server |
| 15:01 |
nerzhul |
but if you verify signature you do it :p |
| 15:02 |
IhrFussel |
The client needs to either allow all or none ... everything else will make it hell for server owners |
| 15:02 |
IhrFussel |
But you don't seem to care much about us |
| 15:02 |
rubenwardy |
The signatures would be generated before the server installs the csm |
| 15:02 |
rubenwardy |
Then verified without a connection |
| 15:02 |
nerzhul |
i care about everybody who is constructive :) |
| 15:02 |
rubenwardy |
Because the client will have cdb's public key |
| 15:02 |
rubenwardy |
This was sofar's suggestion btw |
| 15:02 |
nerzhul |
i don't see how to implement that :p |
| 15:02 |
nerzhul |
but okay |
| 15:02 |
nerzhul |
at least we can start without signing i hope |
| 15:03 |
Unarelith |
IhrFussel, so explain why it would be hell for you? |
| 15:03 |
rubenwardy |
well, at some point we will have a secure hashing function to validate builtin |
| 15:03 |
rubenwardy |
do the same with client/ folders (and ignore and signature files) |
| 15:04 |
rubenwardy |
then compare that with the hash signed by CDB's private key in the signature file |
| 15:04 |
rubenwardy |
I mean, heh |
| 15:04 |
IhrFussel |
If you have a server with 200 mods (like mine) and want to offload certain features to the client BUT that client disallows features x and y and you STILL want to make it work for them then you have to code ANOTHER server side mod JUST to be able to make it work for them |
| 15:04 |
rubenwardy |
basically, I'd like there to be some method of securing saying the author of a mod at the bare minimum |
| 15:05 |
rubenwardy |
you can't show a list of SPCMs names and authors without it being signed, because the server could lie |
| 15:05 |
IhrFussel |
We are NOT talking about a stupid website here that doesn't need all the fancy stuff with JS to work... we talk about a GAME and every single feature a client misses over another can be dramatic |
| 15:05 |
Unarelith |
IhrFussel, well it depends on what features can be disabled. if it's only graphical features then it's a good idea. if it forces modders/server owners/game makers to duplicate code it's not. |
| 15:06 |
rubenwardy |
A better approach would probably have all authors have an RSA key, but this is more complicated |
| 15:06 |
Unarelith |
rubenwardy, why would it be? |
| 15:06 |
rubenwardy |
the benefit of CDB integration is all versions of CMs will be archived |
| 15:07 |
rubenwardy |
well, it would reduce dependency on CDB |
| 15:07 |
rubenwardy |
this does need more thought really |
| 15:08 |
nerzhul |
rubenwardy: at least we have openssl dep through curl :p |
| 15:08 |
rubenwardy |
yeah |
| 15:08 |
nerzhul |
but we will make curl and openssl mandatory in MT build then |
| 15:08 |
nerzhul |
(it should, MT without curl is a little bit limited) |
| 15:08 |
rubenwardy |
I don't think that's unreasonable |
| 15:08 |
rubenwardy |
because yeah, cURL is a little central |
| 15:09 |
rubenwardy |
I mean, you could make this non-cryptographic just by asking ContentDB what it knows about a particular hash |
| 15:09 |
rubenwardy |
but this adds a potentially hard dep on CDB |
| 15:09 |
nerzhul |
rubenwardy the RSA key for MT server owners can be complicated. It's done like this on nextcloud apps, you should look at their store implementation |
| 15:09 |
nerzhul |
i have a private key and a public key signing releases signed by their CA |
| 15:09 |
nerzhul |
each release is signed with openssl |
| 15:09 |
Unarelith |
rubenwardy, what if you decide to separate the launcher from the game itself? |
| 15:10 |
nerzhul |
openssl dgst -sha512 -sign ~/Téléchargements/ocsms.key ~/Téléchargements/ocsms-2.1.0.tar.gz | openssl base64 |
| 15:10 |
nerzhul |
i do this :) |
| 15:10 |
Unarelith |
the launcher can actually have a hard dep on CDB |
| 15:10 |
rubenwardy |
s/launcher/menu/g |
| 15:10 |
rubenwardy |
:) |
| 15:10 |
nerzhul |
please don't create a launcher... |
| 15:10 |
Unarelith |
well, it's more like a game launcher to me |
| 15:10 |
Unarelith |
and with the integration of CDB it really looks like one |
| 15:10 |
nerzhul |
using the same binary is nice |
| 15:11 |
Unarelith |
why? |
| 15:11 |
nerzhul |
less code dup, only one window to manage |
| 15:11 |
nerzhul |
and also it's a game |
| 15:11 |
Unarelith |
code dup? you just compile with the same code. |
| 15:11 |
nerzhul |
we can share code like server/client yes |
| 15:11 |
nerzhul |
but it's soo 1990 to use launcher on games :D |
| 15:12 |
Unarelith |
._. |
| 15:12 |
Unarelith |
all modern games has launchers nerzhul |
| 15:13 |
rubenwardy |
not really |
| 15:13 |
nerzhul |
the witcher 3: no, world of warcraft : no (i can use Wow directly), assassin's creed: no, all RTS games i play (and there is plenty): no |
| 15:13 |
Unarelith |
nerzhul, Steam is a launcher |
| 15:13 |
nerzhul |
but yes there is some launchers, in skyrm |
| 15:13 |
rubenwardy |
Steam is not a launcher |
| 15:13 |
nerzhul |
i can play without Steam |
| 15:13 |
rubenwardy |
that's stupid |
| 15:13 |
nerzhul |
without Battle.net |
| 15:13 |
rubenwardy |
that's like saying MyFileManager is a launcher |
| 15:13 |
rubenwardy |
sure, it starts the program |
| 15:13 |
nerzhul |
and download updates |
| 15:14 |
nerzhul |
but it's the only feature |
| 15:14 |
rubenwardy |
so does apt, though |
| 15:14 |
Unarelith |
rubenwardy, you can download texture packs, mods, update the program, backup your saves |
| 15:14 |
Unarelith |
sounds like a launcher to me |
| 15:14 |
rubenwardy |
that's just stupid |
| 15:14 |
nerzhul |
Unarelith you want to only connect to server with MT main window ? |
| 15:14 |
nerzhul |
when disconnecting returning back to your desktop ? |
| 15:15 |
Unarelith |
what do you mean? |
| 15:16 |
Unarelith |
rubenwardy, Steam is just a "superlauncher" to me, and imo Minetest should have a separate launcher, I'll explain why: |
| 15:16 |
|
jas_ joined #minetest-hub |
| 15:16 |
Unarelith |
1) If someone ever decides to create a new launcher from scratch using any other libraries, he could do it |
| 15:17 |
Unarelith |
2) Since the launcher is separated, a hard dep to CDB isn't a big deal |
| 15:17 |
nerzhul |
except game should validate mod just before loading :) |
| 15:17 |
Unarelith |
and? |
| 15:18 |
Unarelith |
don't tell me what should happen, but explain why it won't. |
| 15:27 |
|
benrob0329 joined #minetest-hub |
| 15:29 |
|
aerozoic joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:07 |
Shara |
nerzhul: your attitude toward server owners is disgusting |
| 16:07 |
MinetestBot |
Shara: Dec-12 07:39 UTC <paramat> see http://irc.minetest.net/minetest-hub/2018-12-12#i_5456929 onwards |
| 16:08 |
jas_ |
:D |
| 16:08 |
Shara |
Your comment on github too: "i think SSCSM should have restrictions from client side too. If a client doesn't want server to use some API it should have the freedom to do it. And yeah server owners will not like this suggestion" |
| 16:08 |
Shara |
Don't assume all server owners are tyrants who want to lord it over players. |
| 16:08 |
Shara |
I want clients to have control as well |
| 16:08 |
Shara |
You are just revealing your bias over and over |
| 16:08 |
nerzhul |
If i'm so rude just re-read what you said about players and CSM :) |
| 16:09 |
Shara |
What exactly have I said? |
| 16:09 |
nerzhul |
Shara i like your opinion about client and freedom |
| 16:09 |
Shara |
(or do you direct that to someone else?) |
| 16:09 |
nerzhul |
please note in the gh original discussion opened 3 or 4 days ago nobody answered to my technical question whereas i said it 3 times :) |
| 16:09 |
Shara |
Well, you also ignored a bunch of thigns server owners said many times |
| 16:10 |
jas_ |
so what |
| 16:10 |
Shara |
things* |
| 16:10 |
nerzhul |
then if i'm acid with some people sorry, but just answer my questions when i ask some informations ;:) |
| 16:10 |
jas_ |
stahp |
| 16:10 |
Shara |
The point is everyone is tired |
| 16:10 |
nerzhul |
Shara: i think it's the point yes |
| 16:10 |
nerzhul |
my point is enhance the CSM mod loading restriction to restrict builtin and rename it in master |
| 16:11 |
Shara |
Server owner speaks. You imply they are stupid or don't read, while you ignore what they say. |
| 16:11 |
Shara |
Round and round in stupid silly circles. |
| 16:11 |
nerzhul |
trigger that feature freeze, fix the real bugs (CSM is not a bug, i think we have bugs in other parts than CSM in core no ?) and release the 5.0.0 |
| 16:11 |
Shara |
nerzhul: I have tried to recommend compromise |
| 16:11 |
Shara |
Tried to say: let's talk about defaults or similar |
| 16:11 |
Shara |
No.. ignored every time |
| 16:11 |
nerzhul |
my compromise is extend the CSM mod loading restriction to the whole lua stack |
| 16:12 |
Shara |
CSM may not be a 'bug' but it should never have been merged. That alone means you should speak with a bit more respect |
| 16:12 |
jas_ |
wow |
| 16:13 |
Shara |
It's not okay for you to assume all server owners are bad bad people and speak like that |
| 16:13 |
nerzhul |
Shara, sorry but i can't do compromise for a such sentence. |
| 16:13 |
Shara |
Sorry, I don't understand what that means |
| 16:13 |
jas_ |
what's the big deal anyway? sorry i'm out of the loop. |
| 16:13 |
nerzhul |
when you will answer my GH questions, not answer to questions i never ask, we can go ahead :) |
| 16:13 |
nerzhul |
jas_ give me money dude and i give you drugs :D |
| 16:13 |
Shara |
Oddly enough, I have |
| 16:14 |
jas_ |
i got your money dude |
| 16:14 |
jas_ |
check is in the mail |
| 16:14 |
jas_ |
"" |
| 16:14 |
Shara |
You ignored mine though, and it's been left to paramat again to try and answer |
| 16:14 |
nerzhul |
jas_: heh |
| 16:14 |
jas_ |
but what's the matter? what's even the question? |
| 16:14 |
nerzhul |
Shara: paramat has took time to understand the issue and do the compromise i proposed |
| 16:14 |
nerzhul |
and it's the best thing we can do |
| 16:14 |
nerzhul |
now go ahead, stop the battle and focus on real bugs |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
i wanna throw this out there real quick if i may: when there are walls and walls of text, between bluebird, shara, and paramat, i honestly cannot read all that |
| 16:15 |
nerzhul |
CSM is not used by majority of the users we should really focus on other code bugs |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
it's a tactic, i presume. maybe unintentional, but effective nonetheless |
| 16:15 |
Shara |
jas_: honestly, better not to |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
anyway |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
so what's the big conflict? |
| 16:15 |
nerzhul |
jas_ trump wall with mexicans |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
check |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
!next |
| 16:15 |
MinetestBot |
Another satisfied customer. Next! |
| 16:15 |
Shara |
right now, the conflict is simply that I'm sick of nerzhul insulting server owners |
| 16:15 |
jas_ |
ok. nerzhul stop insulting server owners! |
| 16:16 |
Shara |
show some respect, get some respect |
| 16:16 |
nerzhul |
i never said: "servers owners are cowards" |
| 16:16 |
jas_ |
(and optionally, apologize.) |
| 16:16 |
jas_ |
good luck have fun o/ |
| 16:16 |
nerzhul |
i respect people who take time to read the doc and answer my question |
| 16:16 |
Shara |
nerzhul: I never mentioned "cowards" |
| 16:17 |
nerzhul |
i don't respect people complaining just for complaining without verifying the implementation, and who are based on a 0.4.16 code and think we never listen to them whereas many efforts has been done for them, but are not released yet |
| 16:17 |
Shara |
Sure, which would be fine |
| 16:17 |
Shara |
Until you say things like: |
| 16:18 |
Shara |
nerzhul: it's interesting to see server owners are equal in terms of behaviour |
| 16:18 |
nerzhul |
i fixed the sentence to add "some server owners" |
| 16:18 |
nerzhul |
just after :) |
| 16:18 |
Shara |
And on github you just assume server owners won't support a fair system for players |
| 16:18 |
nerzhul |
the 5.0.0 restriction system is fair |
| 16:18 |
nerzhul |
but nobody tested it |
| 16:18 |
Shara |
Talking about: "i think SSCSM should have restrictions from client side too. If a client doesn't want server to use some API it should have the freedom to do it. And yeah server owners will not like this suggestion" |
| 16:19 |
nerzhul |
complaining servers owners are just complaining based on asumption we never coded the restrictions |
| 16:19 |
Shara |
I'm a server owner. I never assumed that |
| 16:19 |
Shara |
I thanked you for working on it in fact |
| 16:19 |
nerzhul |
It's real, some server owners will not like that, and just reread IhrFussel reaction ti's exactly what i said :) |
| 16:19 |
Shara |
We're not all Fussel |
| 16:19 |
nerzhul |
i know |
| 16:20 |
nerzhul |
i need to fix my sentences to add some everywhere i think :p |
| 16:20 |
Shara |
Then please remember it. That's what I am asking here. |
| 16:20 |
Shara |
Thank you |
| 16:20 |
nerzhul |
but also i said "server owners", neither "the server owners" or "all server owners" |
| 16:20 |
nerzhul |
it's undefined |
| 16:20 |
nerzhul |
in french we have a correct distinguish between "des" and "les" |
| 16:21 |
nerzhul |
"des" is undefined , "les" point on the majority |
| 16:21 |
nerzhul |
in english they drop the "des" |
| 16:21 |
Shara |
Well I'm not the only one who takes offence at comments like this. Language barrier don't help, I know. |
| 16:21 |
nerzhul |
i think so, because each language and translation done to native language can be with errors. What is your native ? |
| 16:22 |
tumeninodes |
how the hell does everything here correlate to "Trump" and Trump wall with Mexicans... tired of seeing it. No one here I guess would like if I started spewing my political views |
| 16:22 |
Shara |
English, or maybe bad english, or sometimes backwards english :P |
| 16:22 |
tumeninodes |
keep IRL politics out of it all thank you, unless you want to hear the other side |
| 16:24 |
Shara |
But I am so tired of the discussions on CSM not being constructive. I'm probably just going to out-shout anyone who fails to talk constructively at this point, at least in -hub. |
| 16:24 |
Shara |
And that goes for both sides of the debate |
| 16:24 |
tumeninodes |
we really should have a no politics and no religion rule to this project, cuz it's starting to piss me off |
| 16:24 |
Shara |
Well, they both fall under off-topic :P |
| 16:29 |
Shara |
nerzhul: regarding the client being allowed to block things sent by the server: I really think this is fine. Servers can then decide how vital they want certain server-provided mods to be. Servers might choose to make certain things optional or required. If server-provided mods are required, the players get to make an informed choice about whether they want to accept or play somewhere else. |
| 16:32 |
nerzhul |
Shara: the idea to have feature levels to make client choose the feature level is nice, if configured_feature_level >= feature_level => execute |
| 16:32 |
nerzhul |
example: if CONFIG_FL_REQUIRE and feature_level is OPTIONAL => not execute |
| 16:33 |
nerzhul |
a such thing must be implemented with SPCM then |
| 16:33 |
Shara |
However it's done, clients need a choice |
| 16:33 |
nerzhul |
i open an issue about that linked with 5.1.0 roadmap |
| 16:38 |
nerzhul |
see #8002 |
| 16:38 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/8002 -- Server Provided Client Mods: Required features |
| 16:38 |
shivajiva |
I think nerzhul is simply avoiding the hard question, why is his version of csm a clone of the server api that lets clients add their own mods and why its acceptable to develop it to deliver mods when it didn't deliver the intent, that's what I really want to understand :) |
| 16:40 |
nerzhul |
response: it's not a clone of server API. Some features has been cloned from server API to be offloaded on the client by client mods yes |
| 16:41 |
nerzhul |
reponse2: why the server doesn't deliver mods: time to define the need, the serialization format, what embed, time to live outside MT with 3 childs |
| 16:46 |
shivajiva |
so letting a client add it's own mods was the only method available to you and merging it forced that reality essentially though I suspect it was always part of your vision? |
| 16:47 |
nerzhul |
do you know i'm not the only coredev ? :p |
| 16:47 |
sofar |
kilbith: I'll post that to minetest-mods, thanks |
| 16:48 |
nerzhul |
in fact client adding its own mod was the first method because we need to test APIs by ourselves while implementing them |
| 16:48 |
nerzhul |
and after nothing more |
| 16:48 |
nerzhul |
you can imagine we tested the API no ? :p |
| 16:48 |
nerzhul |
it's why the code is as is |
| 16:49 |
shivajiva |
It seems to me that you had a free hand in it and wasn't closely checked on the implications and conformity to the concept by the other devs tbh |
| 16:49 |
nerzhul |
now go ahead, trigger the feature freeze after merging the restriction extent :) |
| 16:49 |
nerzhul |
no i don't have a free and |
| 16:49 |
nerzhul |
hand* |
| 16:50 |
nerzhul |
remember one thing: mt is done by its contributors. celeron55 has given some devel ideas, but there is no real roadmap in the project becaus ethere is no project owner (in project management meaning, not a line on GH repository) |
| 16:50 |
shivajiva |
I'm just making clear what my issue is so you don't think I haven't spent time reading and looking at this |
| 16:51 |
nerzhul |
shivajiva: then answer my question : what CSM API found in the CSM API doc is a problem to release minetest because there is no restriction you can do server side ? |
| 16:52 |
nerzhul |
i understand we don't have CPCM, it's a fact. But it's a feature and don't block minetest regular usage. Security issues are a blocker |
| 16:52 |
nerzhul |
CPCM is not a security issue, i don't see how pushing mods to client can enhance their security |
| 16:52 |
nerzhul |
SPCM sorry § in the two previous lines :) |
| 16:52 |
nerzhul |
i'm tired ^^ |
| 16:53 |
shivajiva |
the api looks fine from that perspective, I have no issue with it. That's why I am making clear what my issue is |
| 16:53 |
nerzhul |
you want a feature and it's not developd due to dev team time |
| 16:53 |
shivajiva |
no |
| 16:53 |
nerzhul |
i think it's the idea |
| 16:54 |
nerzhul |
i will leave work, i will read your answer later today |
| 16:56 |
shivajiva |
I wanted what was conceptualised by celeron55 in the discussion and subsequent poc he provided instead of this mess tbh |
| 16:57 |
sofar |
it's not a mess imho |
| 16:57 |
shivajiva |
the situation is :) |
| 16:58 |
|
bobr joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:58 |
|
bobr joined #minetest-hub |
| 16:58 |
sofar |
has anyone actually looked at that poc? |
| 17:01 |
sofar |
anyway, I don't think it's relevant as I believe that the current CSM API is more than complete enough to be used for server-sent, signature validated CSM and exclusively, meaning, flavors/restrictions can be removed entirely, and we can remove the cpcsm vector entirely |
| 17:03 |
sofar |
I believe that's what celeron55 intended and nrzh's work would be almost entirely wholly used - the important parts are on the API side anyway |
| 17:06 |
shivajiva |
okay, this is the time for some wisdom from celeron55 I guess :) |
| 17:11 |
|
Andrey01 joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:31 |
|
Andrey01 joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:33 |
|
Andrey01 joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:40 |
|
twoelk left #minetest-hub |
| 17:41 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:41 |
Krock |
hi tenplus1 (imaginary) |
| 17:43 |
IhrFussel |
I got mad earlier because of the idea to "let clients decide which functions are allowed to run from the server side" WITHOUT thinking about how server owner would have to realize ESSENTIAL features they want to offload to clients |
| 17:45 |
IhrFussel |
And the ONLY option I can think about it "run the exact same code server side in case the client doesn't want to run the server sent mod' which defats part of SSCM |
| 17:45 |
|
Andrey01 joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:46 |
IhrFussel |
defeats* |
| 17:46 |
IhrFussel |
Cause there is nothing to offload to those "muh privacy" clients |
| 17:47 |
|
Andrey01 joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:50 |
Krock |
path calculating for objects could be offloaded if the server sent the LuaEntity's name |
| 17:55 |
|
Andrey001 joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:57 |
T4im |
prediction might be; but you probably continue to want server side physics |
| 17:57 |
IhrFussel |
But what's the point of SSCM if the server needs to basically ask for each client function to execute? And then some clients will say 'sorry cannot run this callback' |
| 17:58 |
T4im |
better prediction might be one point |
| 17:58 |
Peppy |
mmm, much to read today |
| 17:58 |
IhrFussel |
You cannot even create a mod/game that RELIABLY executes fine on every client |
| 17:58 |
Peppy |
Android app is still broken, I guess most players will be gone before this endless debates about CSM/SSCSM ends |
| 17:58 |
|
kilbith joined #minetest-hub |
| 17:59 |
Krock |
yes sure. predict what happens in lags using SSCSM, and correct with the server-sent data |
| 17:59 |
Krock |
Peppy: did you try the 5.0.0-dev build yet? |
| 18:00 |
Peppy |
Krock, yes, but I don't use Android |
| 18:00 |
Krock |
question was whether you tried a 5.0.0-dev build yet |
| 18:00 |
Peppy |
yes I did |
| 18:00 |
Krock |
okay |
| 18:00 |
sofar |
IhrFussel: prediction and mods that coordinate server-client are only part of the story. Most mods will likely never send data to the server and just act based on instructions from the server (e.g. sounds/decorations/particles/messages/hud stuff) |
| 18:02 |
Krock |
well, if some improvements aren't applied for iOS systems, you'd have to fix the stuff by proposing a PR - iOS is not officially supported |
| 18:02 |
IhrFussel |
sofar, but nerzhul wants to implement a PER CALLBACK flag for SSCM which means one client allows only feature 1 and 3 and another only allows 2 and 4 while a third one only allows 1 2 and 3 |
| 18:02 |
Peppy |
Krock, let's face it many young players do use Android |
| 18:03 |
sofar |
IhrFussel: is that documented/drafted somewhere? |
| 18:03 |
Krock |
for me it feels like all kids use an outdated fork of the Android Minetest client |
| 18:03 |
Krock |
except octactian. he uses the PC version :D |
| 18:03 |
Peppy |
sure, but they have no alternative :( |
| 18:03 |
IhrFussel |
sofar, https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/8002 |
| 18:04 |
Krock |
they do. there's a beta program for the official Minetest client |
| 18:04 |
Krock |
they can try the newest clients there |
| 18:05 |
Peppy |
they can't play their beloved 0.4.17 servers with that |
| 18:05 |
sofar |
IhrFussel: seems a lot of work for little benefit, the other 2 points are much more critical |
| 18:06 |
Krock |
it's called 5.0.0-dev for a reason. months after it's released the situation will surely become normal again |
| 18:06 |
Krock |
a protocol break is quite special |
| 18:06 |
Peppy |
krock : I understand the break was necessary |
| 18:07 |
Krock |
It Sucks But We Cannot Help It ™ |
| 18:07 |
Peppy |
xD |
| 18:09 |
Krock |
I spotted kilbith again! https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=338432#p338432 |
| 18:09 |
IhrFussel |
sofar, it would cause more work for server owners who want to implement something important as SSCM ... either the client who disallows that feature needs to disconnect or the server owners puts that much effort into it and copies the code (if possible) into a server side mod |
| 18:10 |
IhrFussel |
But that is not the definition of "offload" |
| 18:10 |
sofar |
offloading isn't the goal of csm |
| 18:11 |
sofar |
it's a benefit, the goal is always better game experience |
| 18:11 |
IhrFussel |
Huh? It was one of the major goals |
| 18:11 |
Krock |
sofar: I think offloading is a very handy thing for CSM |
| 18:11 |
sofar |
I'm not saying it isn't handy |
| 18:11 |
Krock |
or at least "smoothing" the game |
| 18:12 |
sofar |
I'm just saying the goal is better game experience, and offloading is a tool/path to some of it |
| 18:12 |
|
garywhite joined #minetest-hub |
| 18:12 |
Krock |
indeed |
| 18:13 |
Peppy |
so, 0.5 will be out in months with SSCM, then server owners will struggle to have their mods running, then "hey, still anybody there ?" |
| 18:13 |
sofar |
hehe, peppy is in a doom mood |
| 18:13 |
sofar |
(palindrome) |
| 18:13 |
IhrFussel |
Even if we don't talk about offloading...imagine a server relies HEAVILY on SSCM particles and now a client refuses to use that feature ... the server would need to execute the particles server side for that one client which is a rather absurd idea IMO |
| 18:14 |
sofar |
it's not going to happen |
| 18:14 |
Krock |
Peppy: it's the chicken and egg problem |
| 18:14 |
Peppy |
i'd rather like being more positive :/ |
| 18:14 |
sofar |
no server owner would agree to sending thousands of individual rain drops to each client |
| 18:14 |
Krock |
"who's going to switch first" |
| 18:15 |
sofar |
if the client refuses, oh well, he doesn't get the experience and his game play may be significantly hindered |
| 18:15 |
Krock |
I don't think Android allows a dual-installation or Minetest, right? |
| 18:15 |
sofar |
end of story |
| 18:15 |
Krock |
s/of/of |
| 18:15 |
Krock |
s/or/of/ |
| 18:16 |
garywhite |
Krock: Nope, Android would consider the second installation as an update to the first |
| 18:16 |
IhrFussel |
I'm sure there are things that cannot be simply dropped for "inferior experience" ... I said earlier MT is not a website where you can just disable optional JS and over 90% of them still work fine |
| 18:16 |
sofar |
just disconnect the player |
| 18:16 |
IhrFussel |
SSCM will be part of a game logic which requires every tid bit to run correctly |
| 18:17 |
sofar |
"client disconnected: no SSCM ping received in 30 seconds" |
| 18:17 |
sofar |
one CM mod, 5 lines of code |
| 18:17 |
sofar |
I'll write it for you, too |
| 18:18 |
Peppy |
being unable to install both Android versions of minetest sounds like a big concern to me |
| 18:18 |
IhrFussel |
Yes but what I really hope for is a flag that tells the server if all/some/none flags are enabled from the client...so that server owners can drop those right away |
| 18:18 |
Peppy |
some servers won't ever upgrade |
| 18:19 |
garywhite |
Peppy: I think the only way would be to change the package name, and even then idk if it'd work |
| 18:19 |
IhrFussel |
Or another idea -> local flags = player:get_client_flags() if flags.feature1 and flags.feature3 then --run end |
| 18:19 |
Peppy |
"minetest legacy" |
| 18:19 |
sofar |
IhrFussel: that's why I think it's bogus to begin with to add those 3 extra flags |
| 18:19 |
sofar |
imho we shouldn't ever do that. |
| 18:20 |
sofar |
the server owners will just change the code to mark everything required |
| 18:20 |
sofar |
or kick players who don't enable optional stuff |
| 18:20 |
sofar |
end result is that it's meaningless to even set those flags |
| 18:21 |
sofar |
it's like saying, we won't arrest people for X anymore. But we just wrote a new law banning X |
| 18:21 |
sofar |
don't do that :) |
| 18:22 |
sofar |
there's something to be said for warning players before they connect, of course, unless every server uses sscm, at that point it no longer matters |
| 18:23 |
IhrFussel |
I guess nerzhul doesn't plan to add a way to tell server owners that only "some" flags are enabled and to the server it just looks like "SSCM enabled" |
| 18:23 |
Peppy |
Survey : who will first be killed by upgrade , server owners or players ? :D |
| 18:24 |
sofar |
i think I've made my point, there's too many ways around it anyway |
| 18:24 |
sofar |
you could potentially sandbox all sscm on the client and let it not affect anything in your game |
| 18:25 |
sofar |
everything a stub |
| 18:25 |
sofar |
except for server-client comms |
| 18:25 |
IhrFussel |
Latest when the server expects the client to change some values or send something and gets no answer it will know that the feature is not enabled |
| 18:25 |
IhrFussel |
Unless you also add "dummy" code that lies to the servers |
| 18:28 |
sofar |
end result: flagging is mostly meaningless, don't even bother |
| 18:44 |
|
scr267 joined #minetest-hub |
| 19:23 |
Fixer |
Krock: how? |
| 19:23 |
Fixer |
Krock: how you know it was kilbith? Also, he is banned? |
| 19:23 |
Fixer |
Krock: or what was the problem? |
| 19:23 |
Krock |
Fixer: see GitHub link. They also left a while ago |
| 19:23 |
Krock |
returned now :D |
| 19:23 |
Fixer |
Krock: they? |
| 19:24 |
Krock |
he. |
| 19:24 |
Krock |
using "they" when I'm not sure |
| 19:33 |
|
pauloue joined #minetest-hub |
| 19:36 |
|
bobr joined #minetest-hub |
| 19:36 |
|
bobr joined #minetest-hub |
| 19:45 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-hub |
| 20:02 |
nerzhul |
IhrFussel i think the best idea is suggested by Ezhh: restriction levels client side, as a contract between client & server, like the DNT in firefox, i think it's a good idea, client set a restriction level, and mods sent from server can enable some parts only if restrictions are sufficiently opened |
| 20:02 |
nerzhul |
required, optional and maybe a 3rd level |
| 20:02 |
nerzhul |
and as i said i want to work on mod transfer on a 5.1 because it can be a long time story |
| 20:03 |
nerzhul |
because there is not only mod transport, but also verification, restrictions, verifications etcd... |
| 20:12 |
VanessaE |
nerzhul: only if you overengineer it.... |
| 20:50 |
|
DI3HARD139-m96 joined #minetest-hub |
| 20:55 |
rubenwardy |
what specific features would clients want to disable? |
| 20:55 |
rubenwardy |
particles seems to be more of a graphics thing to me |
| 21:00 |
|
DI3HARD139-m joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:01 |
|
DI3HARD139-m joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:03 |
|
DI3HARD139-m joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:05 |
|
DI3HARD139-m joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:06 |
nerzhul |
block chain ? :D |
| 21:09 |
Fixer |
blockchain is dead |
| 21:09 |
|
DI3HARD139-m joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:13 |
|
DI3HARD139-m joined #minetest-hub |
| 21:21 |
sofar |
nerzhul: there's no reason to not use the client media protocol to relay signed csms. Just before loading it in lua, you would validate the embedded signature. All that's needed is to modify e.g. https://github.com/minetest/minetest/blob/b298b0339c79db7f5b3873e73ff9ea0130f05a8a/src/server/mods.cpp#L106 to include "csm" and allow ".lua" as extensions |
| 21:22 |
sofar |
my bet is that the code really just needs a few tweaks and you could already start transmitting and caching csms sent in no time |
| 21:23 |
sofar |
retrieving from the cache and loading in lua is probably slightly more complex |
| 23:30 |
|
pauloue joined #minetest-hub |
