AdiumX Compiled by Derf

Derf · Post by **Derf** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:17 am

Hello! Since AdiumX is an open source project, I've opened a website dedicated to the AdiumX builds compiled by me. AdiumX Compiled by Derf is the same AdiumX builds you get from the SVN nightlies, only there may be some differences here and there. I hope you enjoy "out of the ordinary"

The latest AdiumX Build was compiled today. Known bug list is found in the installer. Please post any bugs you may find in this topic, following this format:

(June 31st, 2006)
Reproducible? Always
(Describe Bug Report here)
How severe is this bug?

Thank you, and enjoy!

djmori · Post by **djmori** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:26 am

The site is very nice, congrats. Anyway I'm sorry to warn you that devs do not like this kind of stuff......

Derf · Post by **Derf** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:30 am

Isn't AdiumX open source, and it's license allows and states that anyone is free to 'fork' their own projects based on it, as long as the proper credit is given to the original developers, which it kindly is, you'll find, all over the application.

Post by **evands** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:37 am

" But don't worry, all of the builds are tested thoroughly before put available for download on the site, so you won't be downloading unstable and potentially harmful software (your mileage may vary.)"

But yet you're posting nightlies of 1.0svn...

Post by **evands** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:42 am

So here's the thing: Of course the license allows what you're doing. It'd fun and fine to post your own builds of releases, with whatever modifications you want (assuming you make your source available, of course, to continue to comply with the GPL).

However... We haven't released 1.0 because it isn't ready for public consumption. Do you expect us to end up having to support people who download random snapshots of Adium at points in its development without knowing they're working with a development copy? 'cause that's what I expect will happen. What a terrible mess.

I'm happy to see your excitement about Adium and your interest in making modifications. We'd really prefer if you would only release alongside our releases -- this is how the Metal Adium folks have agreed to do things, and we've been very encouraging.

Derf · Post by **Derf** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:57 am

Correction: I am posting following public releases. 1.0 is released in beta form, and I'm following that release for t he time being - once 1.0 is released in full form, I'll be releasing my own based on that code, too.

I also, to admit, plan on releasing nightlies like this long side the 1.0 release by me. I hope, and am sure, that people will realize that these builds are not generally accepted for public use, and made for the brave hearted. If they do not, I fail to see how that is your / my problem, as I do note that while I have had no problem with these builds, "your mileage may vary".

djmori · Post by **djmori** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:56 am

Derf you're not underrstanding evands point.

If you're compiling from svn you're using sections of code that devs are still working on. In a way, sections that are not yet part of adium itself, just that will be in the future.

People are free to use the code anyway they want to, but is recommended to use the stable part of the code (0.89.1), not the working one. We don't want people with really messy problems (deleted home folders for example) blaming adium for it.

As we always say, you should only use a svn compile, if you have done it yourself, if you're willing to activly report bugs, and willing to risk you're system.

Post by **Catfish_Man** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:26 am

If you can test builds quick enough to release nightlies with the guarantee you have on your site, we'd like to know how, 'cause we sure can't. Particularly testing all the protocols on all of 10.4 PPC, 10.4 Intel, and 10.3.9 PPC.

If you can't thoroughly test them, we'd appreciate if you remove this line: "But don't worry, all of the builds are tested thoroughly before put available for download on the site, so you won't be downloading unstable and potentially harmful software (your mileage may vary.)"

If stuff breaks, users WILL blame us, and they WILL ask us to fix it, and they WILL yell at us when we can't. They have in the past, and there's no reason your tiny "your mileage may vary" is going to change that. In addition, it would be nice if you added the note found on our beta page about backing up the adium app support folder. I added that because reverting from 1.0 to 0.89 will very probably mess things up, and keeping around a copy of the known-to-work-with-0.89 app support folder is a Good Idea®.

FredAkbar · Post by **FredAkbar** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:01 am

Yeah, I agree that you should take down the "Don't worry, these builds are tested [etc.]" note, especially because the "your mileage may vary" basically contradicts the rest of it.

Aside from that, nightly builds are not that rare of a thing. Popular open-source projects seem to have them a lot. And if the source won't compile, then he just won't post a build that night, I'm guessing.

Coolnat2004 · Post by **Coolnat2004** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:33 am

I really think you should have a huge warning near the download button stating that (a) it is a nightly build and is not thoroughly tested, so it could be unstable and/or damaging, and (b) the official Adium developers will not help those who have problems with the nightly builds. We don't want a bunch of tards running around.

SPeedY_B · Post by **SPeedY_B** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:45 am

Coolnat2004 wrote:I really think you should have a huge warning near the download button stating that (a) it is a nightly build and is not thoroughly tested, so it could be unstable and/or damaging, and (b) the official Adium developers will not help those who have problems with the nightly builds. We don't want a bunch of tards running around.

Well said.

Also it's not really a proper fork if you're still using the Adium name and icon/imagery... ?

Post by **Catfish_Man** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:49 am

SPeedY_B wrote: Also it's not really a proper fork if you're still using the Adium name and icon/imagery... ?

Eh, that part is fine. The icons are GPL too last I heard. A different icon would be neat though

Post by **bgannin** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:33 pm

I'd also remove your custom Universal Binary logo, as Apple requires a license for that, which Adium has, but you likely do not. In addition, you've altered the logo, which is expressly forbidden by the licensing agreement.

zerock · Post by **zerock** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:57 pm

i think this guy was bored..

Derf · Post by **Derf** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:14 pm

Coolnat2004 wrote:I really think you should have a huge warning near the download button stating that (a) it is a nightly build and is not thoroughly tested, so it could be unstable and/or damaging, and (b) the official Adium developers will not help those who have problems with the nightly builds. We don't want a bunch of tards running around.

Agreed. That part will do.

Sorry - I don't understand the whole "universal logo = bad" thing. I have seen other sites do the same thing as I - and I basically took it I didn't have permission to use the actual logo, due to the fact that it's not apple approved or whatever. *shrugs*. On the off chance that apple complains about that, I'll gladly take that down.

itsfknmikv · Post by **itsfknmikv** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:11 am

I'm sorry, I'm not a programmer, but doesn't it make sense to make this compiler change the name? If I am new to Adium and I come across this site and the build happens to be broken, in my mind it's going to cheapen the Adium brand.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the GPL doesn't stipulate that.

Post by **bgannin** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:18 am

All of these reasons are why we've discouraged nightly builds.

itsfknmikv · Post by **itsfknmikv** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:30 am

Also, his use of ads on the site implies he is trying to make money off software he didn't program?

I understand the open source philosophy, but I feel the dev's should be a little protective in this instance.

Post by **bgannin** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:46 am

itsfknmikv wrote:Also, his use of ads on the site implies he is trying to make money off software he didn't program?

There's a legitimate option for their presence - to offset the cost of bandwidth. At this point, though, it's premature.

Derf · Post by **Derf** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:11 am

itsfknmikv wrote:Also, his use of ads on the site implies he is trying to make money off software he didn't program?

I understand the open source philosophy, but I feel the dev's should be a little protective in this instance.

The ads are required by my server, unfortunately. I do not get any money from them at all.