Talk:ZDoom

Based off Strife?
Did ZDoom use Strife assembly code at all? GhostlyDeath 01:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Randy and Graf did some reverse-engineering work. See this for example. --Gez 10:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Backwards Compatibility
Although I think Gez settled things, I feel like I should point out a few reasons why the "ZDoom doesn't do backwards compatibility" thing is false. While I probably used the wrong word in my change by saying "strive" since I'm sure there are a few cases where we would opt not to fix something in the name of compatibility, but these are the exception rather than the rule. I can't even think of one of these exceptions off the top of my head. Unless you count demo compatiblity, but that doesn't stop a mod from being playable.
 * First of all we have an automatic compatibility lump. If we didn't care about compatibility we obviously wouldn't go through the effort to have this.
 * There are quite a few cases where we would have set some behavior as default but due to utilization of an old bug move the feature into a flag instead. A_CustomMissile comes to mind.
 * Tons of things have gotten rewritten and yet the old method is still valid even if we don't update them with features. If backwards compatibility was a non-issue we could probably remove a few thousand lines of code.

The point is, if a mod doesn't work in the latest ZDoom it should reported as a bug. In my opinion a port that isn't compatible with at least 99.9% its own mods is not a very good one. Blzut3 21:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't revert, but I too have seen the forum threads Vermil mentions. It also seems like whenever I look up a ZDoom mod in idgames, there are review posts saying it doesn't work, followed by another post listing the compatible version(s).  There was no implication of developer laziness or that the port is bad &mdash; how many other programs in the world have been so widely used for 10+ years running? &mdash; but a certain amount of inconsistency is understandable given the complexity of the codebase and the fact that you all have lives and jobs to maintain as well.    Ryan W 22:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The latest version is incorrect.
It's 2.7.1, not 2.7.0. Undead003 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Licence
It's probably worth expanding on the licence history and events. -- Jmtd (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2015 (CDT)
 * If you like opening the biggest can of worms in community history ;) --Quasar (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2015 (CDT)


 * Well, I wouldn't say *like*... but it's one hell of an elephant in the room if we don't mention it on the wiki :) -- Jdowland (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2015 (CDT)


 * What events? --Gez (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2015 (CDT)


 * Events best left on the smouldering notgod server, if I must guess. Most of the Licensing issues of ZDoom were the result of a lack of forward thinking, but most of us were in our teens and twenties, hindsight is 20/20, and Monday-morning quarterbacking isn't helpful at this point. I do remember the original "outburst" posts over licensing, but they were chock full of drama along with internet lawyering from those who graduated from Google Law School. There is no evidence of said drama on zdoom.org because the drama was deleted with extreme prejudice (plus the convenience of topics being deleted after they spilled over from age to a theoretical 11th page), and probably for the best, but those who have been around long enough remember. The only way to verify is to find oldbies that can verify events - specifically older ZDoom ones, because ZDoom's licensing issues in the past were intertwined with personal beefs so large it'd put out of business. The last thing we need is another GZDoom incident, which I feel personally responsible for. ConSiGno (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2015 (CDT)


 * Erm, well I guess I'm not interested in documenting quartbacks or forum flames. I'd like to start with describing the situation as it presently stands, but *some* historic context would be good, too. Not a he-said-she-said though. It would be hard to explain why GLOOME exists without some of this. Or do you think any poking of the hive is a problem? -- Jdowland (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2015 (CDT)


 * GLOOME exists because ZDoom's license terms do not allow commercial redistribution. It doesn't exist because there was some unspecified forum drama fifteen years ago. --Gez (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (CDT)


 * I would say it's worth it. It shouldn't be that hard to present the facts as they are without calling out names, nor picking sides. Jon, you're not one known for creating drama, you're one of the few well-suited to writing such pieces (though maybe you need research first). --Chungy (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (CDT)