For those of you not banned, read that. For those who are, I'll just quote them here:
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 Instead, all orig codebases have been replaced by this new GCC4 compatible version which now has caused various bugs in some of the bases that I've looked at as well as cause problems with and for some cygwin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.
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.