An nice intro article on the state of privately flown drones and multirotors.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/ff_drones
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/ff_drones
Wired Magazine cover and article about drones
- Thread starter brookdain
- Start date
Errmm... no - not a "nice" article at all. An ego-laden, self-promotional distortion of reality - yes. See the topmost comment after the article - "Jeremy Esland" - that's me ;-)
That man is one of the most unpleasant characters in this "business". DIY Drones steals open source work from anywhere and everywhere, without any credit, then cashes in by flogging the hardware. Good thing we don't live in the same city, 'cos if I saw him in the street he'd get a slap from me!
That man is one of the most unpleasant characters in this "business". DIY Drones steals open source work from anywhere and everywhere, without any credit, then cashes in by flogging the hardware. Good thing we don't live in the same city, 'cos if I saw him in the street he'd get a slap from me!
Last edited by a moderator:
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Jes, how exactly do you "steal" Open Source work? Do you have any examples? Our source is open, so it should be easy to find. (yes, I am a developer, but never a fanboy). Don't want to turn this into a pissing contest and I won't comment on the article. I wasn't around back in 2007 to know the history in any case. But I'm just curious about these specific allegations about the code.
I
You steal Open Source work by using it without complying with the terms under which it is offered. Common examples would be "Full Attribution" and "Share-alike". Chris Anderson is all about self-promotion and personal profit. He thinks he invented the word "free" and is therefore entitled to interpret its meaning in relation to anybody else's work.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Ok, so can you show examples where code was used and not give full-attribution? You seem to be very convinced of these facts, so you must have concrete examples?
As for the second claim of share-alike, that would be even more difficult to show. Our source is completely open. Anybody could (and does) take it at any time. Some of our key contributors (Bill Premerlani, etc.) publish white papers thoroughly describing techniques, which goes way beyond simply leaving the code open to viewing, as anybody who has ever tried to reverse engineer code can attest.
As for the second claim of share-alike, that would be even more difficult to show. Our source is completely open. Anybody could (and does) take it at any time. Some of our key contributors (Bill Premerlani, etc.) publish white papers thoroughly describing techniques, which goes way beyond simply leaving the code open to viewing, as anybody who has ever tried to reverse engineer code can attest.
I'm not going to quote examples - but if I understand correctly and you're a developer within the DIYD "community" then you must have your head buried in the sand ;-) If you're unaware of the unrest with the ranks of Chris Anderson's "unpaid programming department" then ask around. Or ask some of the other open source FC projects what they think of him.
As you said - don't want to get into a pissing match. But I couldn't leave the OP uncommented - Chris Anderson is a smart cookie and will have known that he could put that re-written version of history out and get away it. His employers may slap his wrist and it obviously attracted a plethora of negative comments - but he knows that article will survive for ever more in the interweb's archives and be googled up again and again. Other (lazy) journalists will pick it up and regurgitate it over and over. Thus, over time, it will become "the truth". If you can't identify the insidious technique being used, trying reading up on Hitler and the Nazi movement. Who benefits? "Chris Anderson Inc."
P.S. If you'd rather apply your skills to a more honest and friendly project, check out OpenPilot.
As you said - don't want to get into a pissing match. But I couldn't leave the OP uncommented - Chris Anderson is a smart cookie and will have known that he could put that re-written version of history out and get away it. His employers may slap his wrist and it obviously attracted a plethora of negative comments - but he knows that article will survive for ever more in the interweb's archives and be googled up again and again. Other (lazy) journalists will pick it up and regurgitate it over and over. Thus, over time, it will become "the truth". If you can't identify the insidious technique being used, trying reading up on Hitler and the Nazi movement. Who benefits? "Chris Anderson Inc."
P.S. If you'd rather apply your skills to a more honest and friendly project, check out OpenPilot.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
As I said, I'm not going to get into a debate about Chris Anderson, or the article. I will say that I personally at first had feelings similar to you, until I got to know him better, and realized that my perception was based on my own social stereotypes, and were not reality. If you go on a witch-hunt, you're probably going to find witches everywhere you look.
And don't you think that "his employer" and he had a pretty good discussion about the ethics/legality/etc of running that article before it was ever published? You know, really other than the "sexy" title, what in the body of the article is untrue. He tells his story of how and why he started DIYDrones.com. Nowhere does it say that he really started it ALL. And he even lists some of the other players in the market, without saying anything about who came first.
As for the developer community, sure people have differences of opinion, as occurs in any organization. Things are complicated even more by the fact that there is no rigid structure, no "boss". But that is true of all open-source projects, and that is something that YOU should know. That being said, it's a far, FAR more professional and mature group of people than I've ever had the priveledge to being a part of on the internet. Some people can't deal with how things work, and just leave of their own accord. And that's fine. It's a free world.
Now, to revisit the allegation that Chris/we are "stealing" code, that's a pretty serious claim, and you haven't attempted to back it up. Frankly you should keep in mind that some people could consider that libellous. This is not a threat, but obviously you have a pretty strong opinion, and have stated as fact, without any proof. I don't really consider that very forthright. I've been pretty deeply involved for about 8 months now, and have never seen anybody take code from any of the other program.
As to OpenPilot, I actually looked at getting it before I even heard of Arducopter. But then I found out I couldn't even buy one if I wanted, so what good is that?
And don't you think that "his employer" and he had a pretty good discussion about the ethics/legality/etc of running that article before it was ever published? You know, really other than the "sexy" title, what in the body of the article is untrue. He tells his story of how and why he started DIYDrones.com. Nowhere does it say that he really started it ALL. And he even lists some of the other players in the market, without saying anything about who came first.
As for the developer community, sure people have differences of opinion, as occurs in any organization. Things are complicated even more by the fact that there is no rigid structure, no "boss". But that is true of all open-source projects, and that is something that YOU should know. That being said, it's a far, FAR more professional and mature group of people than I've ever had the priveledge to being a part of on the internet. Some people can't deal with how things work, and just leave of their own accord. And that's fine. It's a free world.
Now, to revisit the allegation that Chris/we are "stealing" code, that's a pretty serious claim, and you haven't attempted to back it up. Frankly you should keep in mind that some people could consider that libellous. This is not a threat, but obviously you have a pretty strong opinion, and have stated as fact, without any proof. I don't really consider that very forthright. I've been pretty deeply involved for about 8 months now, and have never seen anybody take code from any of the other program.
As to OpenPilot, I actually looked at getting it before I even heard of Arducopter. But then I found out I couldn't even buy one if I wanted, so what good is that?
Last edited by a moderator:
And then find yourself being insulted by that raving lunatic "wankers".Without the unpaid input from James where would that project be right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Yes, you've said what you said, but never backed any of it up. And the comparisons to Hitler... frankly it's pathetic. That type of talk should discredit your opinion in any reasonable person's eyes.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Actually, I do intend to go through that link, but I haven't had time to read all 7 pages yet. I simply put a quick post in here while eating breakfast. Also, you may or may not be able to see (but moderators can confirm) that I actually registered 2 weeks ago, before this was even posted. I came here to research multicopters, as up to now I've been concentrating on Helicopters. I've got a 600 and a 450 I've been using to develop the code, but crashing them is costing me a fortune so I decided to try a quad, which is now going really really well. I actually got into this whole thing to try and get into Aerial Photography, based on a helicopter, but I'm now probably going to put those on the backburner and build an Octo until I can get the Helis more reliable.
I'm acutely aware of my position here, and did not come here to stir up trouble, spam the boards, or anything like that. But of course I'm going to be interested in this thread. And I have to admit that I take personal offence at some of the comments. I know that all the code I have worked on has been "clean sheet". And nothing I've seen anybody else come up with has been copied either. Have some things been inspired by ideas from other projects? Sure. But it goes both ways. I know that other projects have used some of our ideas.
That is the essence of what open source is.
I'm acutely aware of my position here, and did not come here to stir up trouble, spam the boards, or anything like that. But of course I'm going to be interested in this thread. And I have to admit that I take personal offence at some of the comments. I know that all the code I have worked on has been "clean sheet". And nothing I've seen anybody else come up with has been copied either. Have some things been inspired by ideas from other projects? Sure. But it goes both ways. I know that other projects have used some of our ideas.
That is the essence of what open source is.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Ok, back from reading the OP thread, and the link to the 7 page thread on DIYD where they chose which code to "adopt". I really can't see the issue. It appears to me like the AeroQuad people *welcomed* Chris Anderson to adopt their code. Is there some hidden stuff I've missed? Besides which, I can tell you that I doubt there is very much of the original code left anyway. Since I've been involved, I've seen just about every part of the code rewritten to improve performance.
So, did Arducopter start with Aeroquad code? Sure. Was it welcomed by those developers? Yup. Bill Nesbitt still posts on DIYD. He actually recently opened up his latest code base so we could see it. Have we copied anything? Nope. Do you think Bill would do that if there were any hard feelings?
There's mention somewhere in this mix about how the UAV Devboard was out before DIYDrones. Sure. But if Bill Premerlani had any problem with what's going on, why does he have a dedicated forum on DIYD? Bill P regularly posts on DIYD, and helps us adopt his ideas into our code.
Is 3DR/Arducopter run like a business? Yes. But maybe if OP did as well, they'd have enough money to do what is necessary to meet demands for their board, and you wouldn't have people selling them on the black market for twice the price.
I really don't see how operating OP the way it is, such that they can't actually supply the things is meritorious.
I tend to judge people on the way they act, the things they say, and maybe most importantly, the quality of the people they attract around them. When I consider academic discourse that goes on at DIYD, and compare that to for example the OP thread, which is really just a bunch of hateful people spewing. And then look at the brilliant minds collaborating on the Arducopter project.... Well I'm glad I hitched my wagon where I did.
So, did Arducopter start with Aeroquad code? Sure. Was it welcomed by those developers? Yup. Bill Nesbitt still posts on DIYD. He actually recently opened up his latest code base so we could see it. Have we copied anything? Nope. Do you think Bill would do that if there were any hard feelings?
There's mention somewhere in this mix about how the UAV Devboard was out before DIYDrones. Sure. But if Bill Premerlani had any problem with what's going on, why does he have a dedicated forum on DIYD? Bill P regularly posts on DIYD, and helps us adopt his ideas into our code.
Is 3DR/Arducopter run like a business? Yes. But maybe if OP did as well, they'd have enough money to do what is necessary to meet demands for their board, and you wouldn't have people selling them on the black market for twice the price.
I really don't see how operating OP the way it is, such that they can't actually supply the things is meritorious. I tend to judge people on the way they act, the things they say, and maybe most importantly, the quality of the people they attract around them. When I consider academic discourse that goes on at DIYD, and compare that to for example the OP thread, which is really just a bunch of hateful people spewing. And then look at the brilliant minds collaborating on the Arducopter project.... Well I'm glad I hitched my wagon where I did.
DIYDroneSafety
Member
I'm really trying to hold back my sharp toothed tongue here. It is violently lashing about inside my mouth right now. I think there is one good place to start however, and that is with your last quote. I'll say ahead of time I am sorry if anyone finds this offensive, I just hate to see other people fall prey to this excellent marketing engine. I've spent several $1000's of dollars on this gear. (I own 6 APM1's and 3 APM2's to give you an idea. I've been a customer since the first revision of APM1.0. I was literally only a few days short of the first batch of orders).
R_Lefebvre do you care to address all these "brilliant minds" on the Arducopter project with regard to the following issues?
1. DIYD Moderators are known to delete and censor posts without explanation.
2. DIYD Moderators are known to gang up on users that voice complaints and threaten them with bans and suspensions.
3. DIYD Moderators are known to use defamatory language, "bad words", and "libel" as you put it all the while chastising other users for doing the same.
4. DIYD Developers are known to ignore serious / important safety issues
5. DIYD Developers choose to work on bells and whistles rather than focus on known problems that cause lost / broken hardware.
6. DIYD Developers and staff (like Chris) force users with safety concerns to "convince the developers it is a problem" before addressing an issue.
7. DIYD Developers and staff force users with safety concerns to "convince the community it is a problem" BEFORE attempting to convince the developers of an issue.
8. DIYD Developers get bent out of shape when you present solid technical information outlining a safety issue (or any other issue) if you present it with improper "tone".
9. Chris Anderson complains about "clones" yet he "cloned" the Paparazzi PPM encoder for use with the ArduPilotMega all the while *barely* giving Hendrix credit.
10. Chris Anderson claims that "Documentation and the "out of the box" experience cannot be an afterthought, or of secondary priority." Yet he allows it to be a problem on his ship. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14162621&postcount=2396
11. Chris Anderson was once an end user with valid complaints, yet he ignores his own users complaints about the same issues. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14115820&postcount=2359
12. Chris Anderson uses Open Source as a crutch for plausible deniability. Oracle and Apache are wonderful examples of Open Source projects that are polar opposites of Ardu* projects.
13. Several issues often fester for over a year, and or get marked *invalid* if the developers don't feel like fixing or addressing them. http://code.google.com/p/arducopter/issues/detail?id=237&q=throttle or http://code.google.com/p/ardupilot-mega/issues/detail?id=424 are great examples.
14. Chris Anderson makes no effort at regression testing or creating a general development lifecycle.
15. 3Drobotics has began to selectively refuse certain repairs all the while soliciting for users to send boards in for fixes, even after blatantly stating they don't repair them.
The pompous attitude of Chris and several others such as yourself is exactly why I created the DIY Drone Safety community and kicked off by giving Chris an award:http://tinyurl.com/6vjhk3y
Take care folks...seriously be careful of what you buy into.
Last edited by a moderator:
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Kevin Finisterre, I'm not at all interested in having this out with you. I will give you credit for at least coming up with clear examples of the allegations you are making. However, my experience with most of the things you say are completely different. I would hope any people actually interested in the system simply visit the site and make up their own mind based on what they see.
DIYDroneSafety
Member
Yes this is indeed Kevin Finisterre Banned DIYDrones user / Ex DIYDrones WikiNinja. http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/housekeeping-note-kevin-finisterre This isn't about me... nice deflection attempt though. Pretend it wasn't *ME* asking the questions and just address them as best you can. I'll make a pact with to not say a single word about your response. I'll let the rest of the group judge for themselves.
Did I say anything incorrect with my 15 numbered items? Feel free to let everyone know which of my claims are absurd.
BTW... hoping people make up their mind based on what they "see" is exactly what the marketing is all about bro. It is what they aren't seeing that is the issue.
*Radio Silence*
Did I say anything incorrect with my 15 numbered items? Feel free to let everyone know which of my claims are absurd.
BTW... hoping people make up their mind based on what they "see" is exactly what the marketing is all about bro. It is what they aren't seeing that is the issue.
*Radio Silence*
Last edited by a moderator:
So you are part of the project and I know more than you and I don't even follow it. How can you kickstart something when you "adopt" it from elsewhere? To kickstart something surely that does not mean to take a complete code base of another project?
Here they are in 2010 trying to decide which project to take: http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/which-quadcopter-should-we
So kickstarted eh? Really. Deflecting about open source won't work, what I am specifically bothered about is someone making claims they did something when they did not. Most disgustingly this takes away credit from the good people that really did that work and a blatant attempt to rewrite history for personal ego gratification. This intellectual dishonesty is simply repulsive, it staggers me that Anderson knew that was not true but wrote that anyway.
Sure the leader of AeroQuad welcomed it as they paid him to port it to their platform. You are simply not getting it, it matters not if there is any code left, how can you claim to kickstart something when you take it from elsewhere? So, knowing this, it's simply not true right?
Good, thank you for admitting the premise of the article you posted was false, well done for being honest at last.
Sure he does, it's a great place to market his board especially one that out flies arducopter 1000 times over, people unhappy with ArduCopter's performance will jump on it as they will see it on the same site, it's a very smart move from Bill, bravo. We all know Chris will be gnashing his teeth with every autoquad post which makes it even funnier.
Nope, he opened the code up to the whole community as he wanted to, certainly not just for DIYDrones and he selected to not go with DIYD for hardware manufacture either. I think he also knew it would unlikely be useful to you as there is not much from an advanced F4 code base that will be helpful on an 8 bit ATMega.
I don't you are using that word correctly, it means deserving reward of praise which from your earlier the tone might not fit, perhaps you mean mysterious? In actual fact people do praise that we value quality over just a pump and dump scam. As Chris Anderson states clearly here: http://blog.ponoko.com/2010/11/16/ten-rules-for-maker-businesses-by-wireds-chris-anderson-—-rule-1/ their number 1 rule, is to make a profit, ours is not. You guys carry out your rule number 1 well, very often at the expense of your users.
Good, here you go:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14792486&postcount=242
Nice, basically the same deal as you are doing here, going to other forums and spamming links trying to market your own stuff, despite it not being true.
But something more recent, how about trying to take credit for kickstarting drones when someone knows they did not? Is that the moral behaviour we should all look towards?
Your new there aren't you? There was once a thread there where I was personally attacked really nastily, I have seen other projects drag through the mud both OSS and commercial, I have been sent private emails from developers revealing stuff that was just pathetic. I've seen users vilified and censored, people banned for actually speaking out when things were poor and software issues buried when they were dangerous.
Sad you think it is "hateful" to try and correct a wrong. What is hateful is taking work other people have done and trying to pass it off as your own, denying them credit and assigning it to yourself. I will tell you now, I know you don't think Chris Anderson had any part in kickstarting drones, we all know it yet you use any method you can to deflect from this truth.
I realize you have well and truly drunk the coolaid, the dev team there is cultish and Anderson sets it up to be you guys against the world, I know I've seen the mails. What you might soon realise is it is you guys against the world because you like to out projects like Paparazzi for not being open enough, you like to drag down people like Dean Goode for his prices despite he was trying to earn a living, or claiming to be the first to do things you were not.
So, this is pointless but I wanted to call you to task anyway, you're like one of those Mac Vs PC or Xbox Vs PS3 type guys. I am also very glad you hitched your cart there after what I have just heard about you deleting posts and bullying users you have found the right place.
Here they are in 2010 trying to decide which project to take: http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/which-quadcopter-should-we
So kickstarted eh? Really. Deflecting about open source won't work, what I am specifically bothered about is someone making claims they did something when they did not. Most disgustingly this takes away credit from the good people that really did that work and a blatant attempt to rewrite history for personal ego gratification. This intellectual dishonesty is simply repulsive, it staggers me that Anderson knew that was not true but wrote that anyway.
Sure the leader of AeroQuad welcomed it as they paid him to port it to their platform. You are simply not getting it, it matters not if there is any code left, how can you claim to kickstart something when you take it from elsewhere? So, knowing this, it's simply not true right?
Good, thank you for admitting the premise of the article you posted was false, well done for being honest at last.
Sure he does, it's a great place to market his board especially one that out flies arducopter 1000 times over, people unhappy with ArduCopter's performance will jump on it as they will see it on the same site, it's a very smart move from Bill, bravo. We all know Chris will be gnashing his teeth with every autoquad post which makes it even funnier.
Nope, he opened the code up to the whole community as he wanted to, certainly not just for DIYDrones and he selected to not go with DIYD for hardware manufacture either. I think he also knew it would unlikely be useful to you as there is not much from an advanced F4 code base that will be helpful on an 8 bit ATMega.
Is 3DR/Arducopter run like a business? Yes. But maybe if OP did as well, they'd have enough money to do what is necessary to meet demands for their board, and you wouldn't have people selling them on the black market for twice the price.
I don't you are using that word correctly, it means deserving reward of praise which from your earlier the tone might not fit, perhaps you mean mysterious? In actual fact people do praise that we value quality over just a pump and dump scam. As Chris Anderson states clearly here: http://blog.ponoko.com/2010/11/16/ten-rules-for-maker-businesses-by-wireds-chris-anderson-—-rule-1/ their number 1 rule, is to make a profit, ours is not. You guys carry out your rule number 1 well, very often at the expense of your users.
Good, here you go:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14792486&postcount=242
Nice, basically the same deal as you are doing here, going to other forums and spamming links trying to market your own stuff, despite it not being true.
But something more recent, how about trying to take credit for kickstarting drones when someone knows they did not? Is that the moral behaviour we should all look towards?
Your new there aren't you? There was once a thread there where I was personally attacked really nastily, I have seen other projects drag through the mud both OSS and commercial, I have been sent private emails from developers revealing stuff that was just pathetic. I've seen users vilified and censored, people banned for actually speaking out when things were poor and software issues buried when they were dangerous.
Sad you think it is "hateful" to try and correct a wrong. What is hateful is taking work other people have done and trying to pass it off as your own, denying them credit and assigning it to yourself. I will tell you now, I know you don't think Chris Anderson had any part in kickstarting drones, we all know it yet you use any method you can to deflect from this truth.
I realize you have well and truly drunk the coolaid, the dev team there is cultish and Anderson sets it up to be you guys against the world, I know I've seen the mails. What you might soon realise is it is you guys against the world because you like to out projects like Paparazzi for not being open enough, you like to drag down people like Dean Goode for his prices despite he was trying to earn a living, or claiming to be the first to do things you were not.
So, this is pointless but I wanted to call you to task anyway, you're like one of those Mac Vs PC or Xbox Vs PS3 type guys. I am also very glad you hitched your cart there after what I have just heard about you deleting posts and bullying users you have found the right place.