Hello,>If they indeed removed the spy function in the software, then>I cant see any reason why we as users should have to wait for>"god knows" how long until we can fly online with something>not developed for the use with FS98.Besides all aspects of "trust" and "good standing" (which IMHO is a major apart of a fruitful relationship) this software uses a server protocol which is not longer accepted for new software on the VATSIM network, and it doesn

>3) I am not sure that either network require open sources. To>my understanding, they do not make the source code available>to the public, so it is not really open source. There are>further legal technicalities to open source that I do not>remember, but I believe I know enough to say that neither>network require open source. Also, is it not really a problem>to protect the IP rights of the developer. I imagine that the>developer of, let's say, AVCTuner has all the IP rights>reserved.In my opinion the server code should be available to everyone. I don't believe in closed source network software for publicly available services. My latest server version is always available at ftp://ftp.hinttech.com/pub/fsd, but there haven't been any changes for years. I know that VATSIM and IVAO make changes of their own, but unfortunatly, I never get any updates. When the network started in 1997, no restrictions were placed on the server code, so I can't really ask any third party to make the code available. I can only give the version I have. As far as I know, it can used locally to test any client.

I think it was more to do with frustration of people pestering him when he was going to release it.He doesn't HAVE to release it, you know.

>I think it was more to do with frustration of people>pestering him when he was going to release it.>>He doesn't HAVE to release it, you know.I know he doesn't have to do it. Shouldn't such a serious and big organization as Vatsim look for other options perhaps? It's also frustrating for the users that the best network has the worst software.

May I respectfully ask WHO you are? You are talking about YOUR server, but you don

Yes, metamarty is one of the original FSD server developers.

Uh yeah, sorry about that, I don't like all those signatures. I started out with Joe Jurecka and Jason Grooms on the first SB/PC system. I wrote the server software. The software was later changed by both vatsim (satco at that time) and later ivao. Edit: My real name is Marty Bochane (vatsim24)

Here is SunTeams response: http://www.squawkwin.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40 It sounds like there is a lot of bad blood some where.

>>>>PS!! I have no doubt that SB3 will be absolutely stunning>when>>it

Hi Tom and all,They have published an official answer in a post on their french forum. I have translated it in english. I kept very close to the original formulation. If anyone want a clarification about parts of my translation, please feel free to ask.My only comment would be: guys, let's make sure they really did intentionnally hid some dreadfull weapons in their software before we kill them (uh! doesn't that sound similar to what happened in another part of the world?). Maybe it would be a good idea for VATSIM and IVAO to get in touch with those guys and judge by themselves if they are honest or not. And if not, then just don't approve their product.I am not a network simmer (maybe I should try it one day), so I cannot judge their program compared to the two other ones, but it would be too bad to kill a good initiative just on presumptions. Yes, it is clear that personal datas have been transferred. But was it really for ill purposes?Here comes the translation:TO VATSIM? IVAO, AVSIM, FRANCESIM and all their staff members.We never thought that SquawkWin would provoke such a turmoil. After the lasts events, we want to bring some clarification and would like to show you our good faith. We clearly never wanted to get to this situation. In fact, actually, it has caused us some prejudice and the trust that a certain number amongst you have put in the software has been harmed and maybe, has disappeared... It is clear that this has not been our goal.According to the message on AVSIM, it is being said that we transfer your datas on the SquawkWin servers. This is true but only partially because your passwords have never been known. We are not interested in this information and we never had bad intentions. We have transferred the datas plane/pilot/squawkwin/FS in order to study the evolution of the software in real time. We sWould have looked more closely to the consequences of such a function. It has been a strategic mistake and we admit it. Anyway, what benefit could we get from your personal IVAO and VATSIM datas? Absolutely none! It was a way to follow-up how popular our software was. And it was popular!On the other side, SquawkWin represents three months of full time work. Do you think we would have taken the risk to destroy such a work, containing innovative functions? We don't think so and we hope that you don't either.If for the moment we don't want to communicate our identity, there is a valid reason that everyone, we hope, will understand when time comes.We want to denounce the fierce and aggressive campaign against SquawkWin by VATSIM & IVAO. Of cause they have the right to have a close look on the software. But once more, we refuse to divulgate our source. Giving it away would mean the death of SquawkWin.But we want to make one of the networks responsible for what is happening, and that is IVAO. A first contact has been established with VATSIM. But after we had been accused of stealing the PID/Password, they ended the communication line. Now we are trying to re-contact them and show them our good will. We removed the connection between SquawkWin and our server in the last downloadable version. As for IVAO, it's another problem. They knew about the existence of SquawkWin. Had we contacted them through the normal channels before getting their approval, we would have waited during years, they would have slowed things down and we would never have received the autorisation to use SquawkWin. Why? Because they only want to have IvAp on their networks and nothing else. People say we are cow boys, but if we wouldn't have done what we did, we would never have been listened to... It's a pity, but it's reality.In short, maybe the life of SquawkWin will be very short. Maybe none of the two networks will accept to work with us. At least it will have had the merit of eliminating lots of taboos and to have revealed the hidden face of those managing these networks.As for now, SquawkWin can still be downloaded in a version that does not transmit your datas, except for the software version data that are meant for updates.We put at your disposal a way to test SquawkWin on a private server of the FSD type, without running the risk to be punished because you are obliged to choose between an obsolete software and a crippled one...In any case, they are strong for one thing: killing good initiatives and once more, we never wanted to harm anyone.Thank you for your attention.The SunTeamJJ StruyfBraine-L'AlleudBelgiumhttp://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Roland,3.1 is certainly on the list cuz I put it there BEFORE I sent you the email telling you it was approved. If you're not seeing it, please email me directly and tell me where you're looking. Sounds like there might be an out-of-date page some place.As for P2P technology for increasing multi-player refresh rate, that's a good idea only if it doesn't cause bigger firewall problems. And that's one of the large issues that whole sections of the world don't think about.cz

>I know he doesn't have to do it. Shouldn't such a serious and>big organization as Vatsim look for other options perhaps?>It's also frustrating for the users that the best network has>the worst software.I agree. I've read people responses at the VATSIM's news group and is amusing (to say the least) how much "anger" is involved in their words. Yes, this guys made a mistake in taking the passwords and IDs, but VATSIM did what they had to do, they let their members know that they were violating the rules if they were using this client, and VATSIM did their best to "test" the code of this software (with help of AVSIM)...then they found the flaw...VATSIM stated their opinion and that's it, case close...the software had "flaws". Now, wouldn't it be better if we now just move on and start working in a solution that can benefit us all, isn't that more convenient than waiting for SB3?...and after SB3 is completed, then is up to the user what software to use, if there is a better software then the user will decide.The positive side of all this should be that us, the users, have now an alternative while SB3 is out, and when that happens, we will have a choice to decide what software serves us better. It's now a matter of competition, beneficial for everybody, I believe.Carlos.

Hello Jeroen,the long wait may come (at least partially) from the fact that SB3 is a spart-time project being done by Joel in his free time besides his job. As you may know he

Well,they also posted the statement in english language in their forum. But the main concerns are still not resolved: They refuse to have their code reviewed, and they refuse to reveal their identity. Without this, any thinking about a VATSIM approval is nonsense IMHO.But even if they would, there would be need for major changes in the software before it could be approved: AVC would need to get intgrated, the software needs to make use of the new server protocol and perhaps there are adjustments needed in the user interface. After that, there needs to be a testing phase on the network (a similar process like it was with ASRC before it was released). Taking all this into account we are talking about several months here. I

I am with you. If they require third party sources for aproval, it would be fair that the server code was available to help contributors develop aditional software.If networks claim server modifications as own and dont let anybody see, they should understand also third party developers not giving away their sources.I also beleive that software can be tested without looking at the sources. At most taking a peek at the communication portion. I mean there most be a compromise and you cannot strip developers of all their private code if you dont have similar politics with your own software.All i can take from these is that we have moved from an open comunity to a closed one, where networks favour its own software development (the one that magically follows the right procedures, maybe because in house theres no problem passing around the soures and all is well and happy) and traps third party contributions (the ones that ironically dont). Yes, you can tell me a lot of software has beeen aproved following the right conducts, but nothing as important as a pilot client, just some minor utilities.I think your requiremnets for collaboration with third parties are a bit abusive. Of course, its your networks and you dictate the rules.If actions taken had the user benefit in mind, this software would be roughly tested, corrected where necessary and approved in a timely manner (instead of no, no sources, no chance, or no, theres no way we can trust you anymore). But also, FPI software would have made both networks too and didnt. When you want, you can, but when you dont want, it gets noticed.Right now, with the latest communication of the sunteam, i wish you workout your problems and see if you can perform a software test that meets all your requirements in the benefit of all the users. In this kind of situation we are going to see who wills to collaborate. And I think the sources requirement can be worked around no problem. In the mean while it would be interesting a FPI opinion about this. Maybe they are more open minded after all and test this software, and even before 2010.By no manner i am here trying to excuse the sun team, which clearly did things wrong.Jaime.