Re: Fwd: [CF:1317] client 0.95 dies with "Got error on read", other probs

[Peter Mardahl <>]

> 
> Okay, I'll take a shot at it.  I admit I have some concerns about
> compiling...  alpha?  beta?  semi-finalized?  code, but if that's what
> it takes...

I've done a fair amout of playtesting of the current snapshot,
and I believe that the current CVS snapshot is much more stable
than our average release.

> So if the problems I have been seeing aren't specific to me, it sounds
> like SuSE (and other Linux) distributions are/have been shipping a
> Crossfire .rpm package that almost no-one will be able to use?  Ouch!
> This is too good a time-wast...  er, "entertainment package" to deserve
> that kind of fate/bad reputation.
> 
> I _do_ understand why, with a reported (for SuSE) 1500 packages on the 
> distribution CDs, SuSE _cannot_ do more than compile and create an RPM 
> file when they prepare a new release. It's a shame they picked up on a 
> buggy copy of the code.

I believe the blame lies with us developers more than with SuSE or the other
distributions.  We haven't been all *that* assiduous about removing bugs.

Jan "The Exterminator" Echternach has recently been killing off bugs at 
a furious pace:  due in large part to his efforts the current CVS snapshot
seems very much more stable than usual.

I've also killed about 3-4 crash-bugs in the relatively new Random Map
code I wrote, as well as adding a few enhancements.

> > I don't have anything useful to say about these, other than that the
> > curent version seems fine in both these regards.  However, I'm using
> > a 400MHz PII with 256M memory....
> 
> As a client, server, or both?

Both.

> I _tried_ to upgrade to a P5-200, but all I could find was P5-233MMXes,
> and that's unfortunately too current for my A.I.R.  430HX-with-SCSI
> motherboard. (;-)
> 
> The frustrating thing is that 0.93 (486DX4-100 server/client, P5-100 X
> server) was remarkably responsive over my 2-NICs-and-a-hunk-of-coax
> "LAN", and I don't know where to start addressing the 0.95 sluggishness.

You said you're using the new (better) graphics?  The better graphics
are unfortunately more expensive in both network and CPU.

> O...kay.  After hearing decades of "X Is The Standard" from various
> Sun/Ultrix/Linux vendors and users, this seems a bit surprising.  Was
> that done because of a licensing problem?  To support more platforms?
> Or something I'm currently clueless about?  (It happens (;-))

A while ago other crossfire hackers split crossfire into a client
and a server.  The server controls the game but does no graphics.
It instructs the client on what objects to display and animate.
The client now does all the graphics.

PeterM