Login
User Name:

Password:



Register
Forgot your password?
Vote for Us!
auth_update crash
Dec 23, 2017, 10:15 pm
By Remcon
check_tumble
Dec 18, 2017, 7:21 pm
By Remcon
parse description bug
Dec 15, 2017, 10:08 pm
By Remcon
Couple bugs
Dec 12, 2017, 5:42 pm
By Remcon
Bug in disarm( )
Nov 12, 2017, 6:54 pm
By GatewaySysop
LoP 1.46
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
LOP 1.45
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
LOP Heroes Edition
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Heroes sound extras
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons 4.3
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Users Online
CommonCrawl, Yandex, Bing, Majestic-12

Members: 0
Guests: 10
Stats
Files
Topics
Posts
Members
Newest Member
478
3,708
19,242
612
Jacki72H
Today's Birthdays
There are no member birthdays today.
Related Links
» SmaugMuds.org » General » User Lounge » Stuck in the stone age?
Forum Rules | Mark all | Recent Posts

Stuck in the stone age?
< Newer Topic :: Older Topic >

Pages:<< prev 1 next >>
Post is unread #1 Nov 22, 2006, 6:38 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

http://www.mudmagic.com/boards/misc/10/1422/1422
http://www.mudmagic.com/boards/bases/23/4573/4573

For those of you not banned, read that. For those who are, I'll just quote them here:
Oooo said:

Hello All,

I've been offering some modified codebases and I downloaded a stock copy of a base to sorta compare stock code to the new code when I noticed that it would appear that each codebase that has had the GCC4 updates done by Samson basicly inlcude the removal of all if def's and associated code that doesn't pertain to Linux.

#1.. This causes a problem because not everyone is or will be using GCC4. I use an older version of Cygwin.

#2.. The codebases are mostly aimed at those wanting to start new muds.. There are many patches like copyover and others that refer to parts of the code that has now been removed.

#3.. As stated in #2, half the patches here won't work anymore.

I think the stock versions of the bases should have been left alone and had the GCC4 versions offered seperately. Instead, all orig codebases have been replaced by this new GCC4 compatible version which now has caused various bugs in some of the bases that I've looked at as well as cause problems with and for some cygwin users.


Flugh said:

cross-posted in the talkback comments for Rom24b6 code, not sure how much traffic the comments get *

I read a comment left yesterday by OOoOo that I can't seem to find my way back to, but it was regarding some modified codebases uploaded by someone (I can't remember anything in my old age Wink ). So I grabbed the rom24.tar.gz and did a diff against a known unmodified archive downloaded from *gasp* ftp.kyndig.com back around 2003 (yeah, I never delete anything until just before I really need it). Nothing really big, except that passwords are now handled by MD5 instead of crypt, versioning in pfiles, and a few GCC hugs to make it happy.

My thinking on this though, as an old fart with a bit of a purist mindset, is that this isn't really Rom24b6 as it's labeled in the archive. Sure, compiler changes needed to be made, and the other additions aren't earth-shattering, but it's still not THE Rom24b6.

Maybe in this case it would be more appropriate to have a patch available rather than modifying the original codebase and leaving the original name. You could probably start a 'breaks Rom license' hairsplitting debate on this if you really wanted to.


Someone tell me. Why is it there are so many people who actively seek to keep community development stuck in the stone age? Both of these people seem to think nothing should ever change and are both using some pretty crappy reasoning to justify this. Oooo arguing that the changes are broken because his compiler can't handle them, or something, can't really follow his logic. Flugh trying to disguise it as a terribly weak licensing argument. Either way, it seems driven almost entirely by ignorance and a deliberate will to never improve upon what's been released in the past.

Why is this? What purpose does it serve? Why do these kind of people insist on trying to tear other people down when they try to advance the hobby? Don't they grasp that it discourages those of us who can do this sort of thing from ever wanting to again in the future? Do they understand that stagnation is death for software development? Are they so blind as to not see that in another 10 years there won't *BE* a hobby if this sort of thing is allowed to continue festering?

It's all enough to make myself and several others I know decide that it just isn't worth it anymore.
       
Post is unread #2 Nov 22, 2006, 9:55 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

pstone

GroupMembers
Posts32
JoinedNov 26, 2006

Although I am new to this forum, it does seem to me that you have more then a few followers who are happy with your continual development. Lord knows that muds have stanagted for way to many years, and I for one applaud you and your team and hope you just brush off the self serving thoughts of a few who can't take a step forward.
       
Post is unread #3 Nov 22, 2006, 12:31 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Conner
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts870
JoinedMay 8, 2005

I'll second pstone's comments here, Samson. We (several of us and an entire discussion thread on MudBytes) discussed this set of changes before you made them. The GCC4 fixes will still compile under GCC3 and there's really no valid reason for someone to be using an even older compiler than that. Snippets don't tend to get updated so when one downloads them, it really should be assumed that they simply may not fit perfectly as written, even if only because the codebase has updated over the years since that snippet was released or because you'd already added other snippets. (We won't bother to mention the fact that most snippets require tweaking to work properly either way...) As for the purists, there are unmodified versions of these code bases available out there if they really feel the need. And we all know that Kyndig has claimed to have modified all the code bases that you'd updated on his repository anyway, so any changes to them there are clearly his responsibility anyway. Personally, I'd have to just blow these two off as being more Kyndig followers still upset about the whole issue months ago who can't find it within themselves to just move on with their lives.
       
Post is unread #4 Dec 16, 2006, 7:19 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Lazerous

GroupMembers
Posts79
JoinedAug 10, 2005

Its just plain ignorence Samson, pay it no heed.
You are made of better and stronger stuff.
Just a couple of twits thats all, in one ear and out the other I'd say.
       
Pages:<< prev 1 next >>