Questions for developers

SuperG35 · 08-21-2003, 02:39 PM

I have a couple of questions about ME:
1) Why is the resolution restricted to specific values. I have made a simple modification that allows for any resolution (including DPI changes) to be displayed.
I use 1280x768 with 160% DPI setting. It looks like 800x480.
2) I have noticed that changing volume in ME is changing either the master+wave or just wave volume (depending on settings). Why change the master or wave volume and not use the volume change in winamp?
I am running other programs in the background which should not be affected by the volume change of ME. I would like the NAV program (that is using is affected by the wave volume) to always be louder than winamp).
3) There are other things that I want to modify/change/enhance (like start working on XM control when I get the receiver).
Is the code in any revision control system? Where can I submit changes? Where can I checkout the latest stable/unstable code?

Ron.

hijinks21 · 08-21-2003, 07:43 PM

1) you can use any res you want in 2.0
2) not sure
3) what you do is make a stand alone app that will control an XM radio.. then send us the code and we will merge it in

SuperG35 · 08-21-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by hijinks21

3) what you do is make a stand alone app that will control an XM radio.. then send us the code and we will merge it in

So is the code not available anywhere? I thought it was open source...

hijinks21 · 08-22-2003, 05:52 AM

not anymore.. everyone was just leeching code and not giving back anything

Rob Withey · 08-22-2003, 06:05 AM

Someone might wanna change the project description here that says it's open source and feel free to download the code:

http://www.mp3car.com/software.php

phil.45 · 08-22-2003, 06:09 AM

Not having a dig here guys, but all the posts and adverts do state it is open source, I dont really see people "leeching" code as a good reason to withdraw it, thats half the reason stuff is open source in the first place, and maybe if it was frrely available those of us here who have the programming skills but not the time to work as developers could at least bug fix. And not to be rude or discount all the fantastic work done by carcomp and others as this is a great piece of software, but I have seen code in the ME source which I know is written by other people that they have released as open source!

hijinks21 · 08-22-2003, 06:53 AM

just cause you use open source in your project doesn't mean you have to in-term auto open source your own project.

What it came down to is phat_b, who is one of the big ME developers did A LOT of hard work on the database design in ME and he doesn't want people messing with his code and "stealing" his ideas. Plus ME doesn't really have a project manager so its tough if people want to change code and submit patches. If you are serious and want to help and have ideas talk to carcomp on the IRC channel

phil.45 · 08-22-2003, 07:02 AM

I didnt say you did have to automatically open-source something just becuse you use open source code, what i said was your adverts and website stuff says it IS open source, when it isnt. I have no issue with it not being open source, but you really shouldnt say it is if its not.

SuperG35 · 08-22-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by phil.45

I didnt say you did have to automatically open-source something just becuse you use open source code, what i said was your adverts and website stuff says it IS open source, when it isnt. I have no issue with it not being open source, but you really shouldnt say it is if its not.

Actually, most open source licenses state that if you want to "steal" their source for your own project you HAVE to open your source. You don't have to open source your entire project, just the pieces that you used/modified.
I understand that some of the project may not be open source but as others said, it is called an open source project. That is why I started to look at it in the first place. There are plenty of good closed source projects but it is not the same. The beauty of open source is that each person that knows how to write code can make changes for them selves and than (if they think their changes are good) submit them for review.
I have make deep changes to the Linux kernel networking stack. It works for what I needed it for. Some changes that I submitted (iptables stuff) were integrated, most of my changes to the device selection process (I needed thousands of interfaces) were not (very specific use...)

The point is that the open source system works. The code team gets new ideas from the "hobby" developers that test and change for their needs, integrate new ideas etc.

As far as managing the code, I agree that it cannot be a truly open source project without a project manager and CVS. That is what really confused me when I started looking at it. For the number of developers and even users of ME it is an easy job.

BTW, if the only reason to close the source is the DB design (I am sure it is really great) I for one would say that I don't need it. Release the code without it and make it optional. Things like that is what usually destroyed open source projects. But even if that is not an option the decent things to do would be to come out with an announcement, stating that starting with version 2.0 (or what ever), the project is no longer open source and release the last open source projects so ppl can fork it.

phat_bastard · 08-22-2003, 10:13 AM

Just wanted to chime in on this.

First off, I'd like to state that I'm going to discuss this situation with CarComp and the rest of the main contributors, and we may or may not revise the status of the project. For the record, although I have at times suggested we close the source up, it was never discussed amongst all the contributors, so as I see it we really shouldn't call it open source or closed source at this point in time. To be perfectly honest, M/E has never been truly open source because we've never distributed a license with it, and have never made the source truly available to everyone. Additionally, the overwhelming amount of time that's been put in by CarComp would in my eyes make a great deal of the source a work of his own. Making available the small pieces of code that have been gleaned from public sources and one-time contributors would give you about 20% of a workable program. Without the primary initiative he's taken, and the glue that he's added to the work I've contributed there would be no Media Engine. Nevertheless, we are constantly accosted by people who feel they have a right to demand the entire source without displaying a compelling reason, or even a remedial grasp of ettiquette. Furthermore, contrary to the babbling I've seen in IRC, if we discuss this issue and do decide to make M/E a freeware instead of open source project, that does not imply that at some point it will become commercial. Free is still free even if it isn't open source, and that's what most of the people who use M/E really care about (or so it seems IMO).

Second, you make a good point regarding the amount of other openly distributed / published code inside M/E. I am very hesitant to release my work to be stolen, bastardized or broken by the myriad of unexperienced VB kiddies out there that learned to code yesterday after they downloaded a copy of VB6 on Kazaa, or by some fly-by-night software company who could profit by obfuscating our hard work and packaging it as their own - knowing we could never afford to take them to task in court. Nevertheless, it is more than somewhat unfair to deny due credit and source accessibility to all those who've made direct or indirect contributions. This is an issue that I feel needs to be addressed, and I welcome you to the #mp3car channel to discuss this. I'm sorry if you don't like using IRC, but that's just how we communicate (which considering the state of things lends reason to question it's fitness).

Finally I would like to comment about your thoughts on managing the source, and the issues M/E has enjoyed or been plagued with because of it's open source status. As a major contributor and experienced vb programmer, I can tell you that the primary reason this subject even came to be discussed is because two people are doing 95% of the work, and a lot of that work involves fixing tons of code that was / has been contributed over the life of the project. We've at times seen people spend a sickening amount of time to add in a feature that someone else was already working on. Another thing that's caused problems is that there are no defined standards for syntax and variable / control naming, which causes even more problems which we the primary developers have to sort out. Sometimes people will go to great lengths to do something because they're completely inexperienced in coding (anything), and then we get that code to look at and merge and find that 90% of it was unecessary / inefficient / poorly implemented. Although there have been significant improvements added by one-time contributors, in looking back at how the project has evolved we've found that most of those additions have been (or need to be) completely re-written because the contributors were unwilling to adapt their code to differing standards or finish the fine details that have made this software what it is.

In closing I welcome your ideas on how to handle these issues, and I emplore you to get into the irc channel and discuss this with us in realtime. To not put too fine a point on it, if you think you're capable of handling all these issues while honoring the interests and efforts of the primary contributors, then you're more than welcome to do so.

phat_bastard · 08-22-2003, 11:46 AM

It has just occurred to me that in my haste to express my opinions on the state of the source code of Media Engine, I've overlooked giving due credit to the people who help maintain the website, regularly submit skins, beta test, and innumerable other things that people have done to make Media Engine possible. Also, mega props to abcd and Smilk for helping us and having the greater good of the mp3car community in mind.

We will be holding a meeting some time next week to discuss our plans for the status of the project. If you have contributed or otherwise feel you should be allowed to attend please reply to this thread with a working email addy and we will send you instructions.

qjones · 08-22-2003, 03:11 PM

I am sorry what exactly is "stealing".

bgoodman · 08-22-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by qjones

I am sorry what exactly is "stealing".

stealing

Steal \Steal\, v. t. [imp. Stole; p. p. Stolen; p. pr. & vb. n. Stealing.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries. stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW. stj["a]la, Dan. sti[ae]le, Goth. stilan.] 1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another.

Maugre thy heed, thou must for indigence Or steal, or borrow, thy dispense. --Chaucer.

The man who stole a goose and gave away the giblets in ?lms. --G. Eliot.

2. To withdraw or convey clandestinely (reflexive); hence, to creep furtively, or to insinuate.

They could insinuate and steal themselves under the same by their humble carriage and submission. --Spenser.

He will steal himself into a man's favor. --Shak.

3. To gain by insinuating arts or covert means.

So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. --2 Sam. xv. 6.

4. To get into one's power gradually and by imperceptible degrees; to take possession of by a gradual and imperceptible appropriation; -- with away.

Variety of objects has a tendency to steal away the mind from its steady pursuit of any subject. --I. Watts.

5. To accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner; to try to carry out secretly; as, to steal a look.

Always, when thou changest thine opinion or course, profess it plainly, . . . and do not think to steal it. --Bacon.

To steal a march, to march in a covert way; to gain an advantage unobserved; -- formerly followed by of, but now by on or upon, and sometimes by over; as, to steal a march upon one's political rivals.

She yesterday wanted to steal a march of poor Liddy. --Smollett.

Fifty thousand men can not easily steal a march over the sea. --Walpole.

Syn: To filch; pilfer; purloin; thieve.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

stealing

\Steal"ing\, n. 1. The act of taking feloniously the personal property of another without his consent and knowledge; theft; larceny.

2. That which is stolen; stolen property; -- chiefly used in the plural.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

stealing

n 1: the act of stealing; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" [syn: larceny, theft, thievery, thieving] 2: avoiding detection by moving carefully [syn: stealth]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

stealing

See THEFT.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

bgoodman · 08-22-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob Withey

Someone might wanna change the project description here that says it's open source and feel free to download the code:

http://www.mp3car.com/software.php

i'll get to that

SuperG35 · 08-22-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by bgoodman

the open/closed source status of media engine is not up to public opinion

The actual open/source status of ME is not up to public opinion true BUT the perception of weather it is open or closed source is. That is what I wanted to find out in the poll.