Freeciv for RISC OS
Jess
I have tried searching for Freeciv and only found dead links (my son
wants to try it). Does anyone have a link?
How well does it run on a normal strongarm RPC?
thanks
--
Jess Iyonix
Hotmail is my spam trap use this for reply:
mailto:nos...@jess.itworkshop-nexus.net or
http://jess.itworkshop-nexus.net
Rob Kendrick
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have tried searching for Freeciv and only found dead links (my son
> wants to try it). Does anyone have a link?
Try it on your Mac?
> How well does it run on a normal strongarm RPC?
Not well, I suspect. If you use the SDL port, it will be painfully
slow. Not quite real-time slow, but in the neighbourhood.
B.
Jess
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:04:56 +0100
> Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have tried searching for Freeciv and only found dead links (my son
>> wants to try it). Does anyone have a link?
>
> Try it on your Mac?
That'll be what happens if you guess below is correct. However someone
has made the effort to port it, so I'll make the effort to test it.
IF I can find it.
>> How well does it run on a normal strongarm RPC?
> Not well, I suspect. If you use the SDL port, it will be painfully
> slow. Not quite real-time slow, but in the neighbourhood.
grou...@googlemail.com
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have tried searching for Freeciv and only found dead links (my son
> wants to try it). Does anyone have a link?
>
> How well does it run on a normal strongarm RPC?
>
ISTR it being very unstable although if it's been updated might have
changed.
Andrew
--
Peter Naulls
> In a dim and distant universe <1b8d9ac...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> enlightened us thusly:
>> That'll be what happens if you guess below is correct. However someone
>> has made the effort to port it, so I'll make the effort to test it.
>
>> IF I can find it.
>
> should be available from
> http://www.riscos.info/packages/SectionIndex.html#games but it's not!
>
> You could try asking Peter if it's likely to re-appear, or I have a backup
> of version 1.14.1 which I could possibly upload somewhere - it's approx 8MB
> long, in three ZIP files.
>
Uh huh. No doubt Paul think he's being somehow heroic in maintaining
archaic versions of stuff. In practice, since he's not bothered to
make _any_ effort to cooperate in this matter (certainly didn't
contact me), all he's really doing is making things worse, as he did to
undermine the Firefox effort.
What he'd realize if he'd made any effort, is that it's 5 years old,
which means it's probably very unstable and might have dubious effects
on the rest of the system, which is why I withdrew it.
Despite this, and because of a polite request from Jess, I did take
a look at the latest version, which I have made some updates so it
actually builds ok. I will ask Alan if he wants to polish it up
and make a release.
Peter Naulls
> In a dim and distant universe <g877db$91f$1...@aioe.org>,
> Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> enlightened us thusly:
>> archaic versions of stuff. In practice, since he's not bothered to make
>> _any_ effort to cooperate in this matter (certainly didn't contact me),
>> all he's really doing is making things worse, as he did to undermine the
>> Firefox effort.
>
Actually, I make it my business to talk accurately. Your response
is of course, entirely predictable.
> and don't start talking to me in your usual tone of patronising.
You'd prefer your own short-sighted hyperbole, perhaps? Should
I pretend I know less about software than I do?
> I wrote my Firefox instructions purely because people could
> get the version on your site to work correctly. I got my version to work
> (so it didn't actually affect me personally), so I could have either left
> people to have problems and think Firefox didn't work properly,
It didn't, and it still didn't for a very long time after, because there
was no effort of cooperation on your part, not was there any motivation
to do otherwise. In other words, your discoordinated effort made the
end result in fact, much worse, for everyone.
> or write
> some brief instructions (which should have really been supplied with it!)
No, they should haven't been. Your instructions were an outright
hack and contained inaccuracies, which worked for a limited number of
people, and made it harder to actually address the problem. Hardly a
first for RISC OS, but certainly not responsible, more so because
again, you made _zero_ effort to coordinate with me.
I'm willing to bet without looking that you _still_ have the
instructions there, even though they are no longer relevant.
>> What he'd realize if he'd made any effort, is that it's 5 years old,
>> which means it's probably very unstable and might have dubious effects on
>> the rest of the system, which is why I withdrew it.
>
> And? If you read my original posting, you'd have seen that I suggested
> asking you first and if all else failed I have an old version here. I even
> provided the version number, so people were free to choose if they wanted
> to try it or not.
We're back to square one with you _thoroughly_ missing the point.
Helping people and really fixing problems is not throwing random
suggestions at people for reasons you don't understand. It involves
cooperation with those actually doing the work, and not undermining
them for some apparent short-term gain.
> I don't know why you have to get on your high horse at every opportunity!
Because of your short-sightedness, irresponsibility and hyperbole.
> At the end of the day, some of us are just trying to be helpful -
Yes, that's true enough. The big problem here, is that a great
deal of what you do isn't at all helpful, and some of it's just
plain dishonest. I'm hardly the only one to say that to you,
but you don't seem to either care, nor get it - to you
RISC OS is just a play ground where you can pretend
no issues exist, and you don't have to take responsibility
for what you do and say.
But the final question is; are you actually going to learn anything
from this? Or do you hold onto the myth of heroic efforts
by a single person being the way RISC OS development should be done?
Peter Naulls
> In a dim and distant universe <g87lu9$ab9$1...@aioe.org>,
>> course, entirely predictable.
>
No, I don't think so. You're expecting me to reply in a very specific
manner.
>> It didn't, and it still didn't for a very long time after, because there
>> was no effort of cooperation on your part, not was there any motivation
>> to do otherwise. In other words, your discoordinated effort made the end
>> result in fact, much worse, for everyone.
>
> Don't start blaming me.
I will, because you will not take responsibility for your actions,
I and it bring up again here because you are doing the same thing
again with Freeciv. Instead of trying _at all_ to reach any kind of
solution which would improve it for anyone - like I don't know,
*shock* actually putting out a new version - instead we hold onto
hacky solutions and old versions of software. RISC OS in a nutshell.
> I merely wrote some quick bodge
> instructions so that people could get it up and running and thus not be put
> off by problems.
Problems which you did not understand (and still do not) and were done
without bothering to coordinate efforts, and ultimately created
worse problems - such as not being updated at _all_.
> You could have easily added some instructions or additional notes to the
> Firefox !Help file, telling people what problems they may have and that
> there was a bodge of a workaround - which wasn't the correct procedure, but
> purely a temporarily work-around so that people could try the software.
> Then label it beta-quality or something
It was already.
> let people have problems and then they'd possibly be put off using Firefox -
> which wouldn't help anyone.
Many people still had problems, so this is not a very clever statement.
But it's astonishing that you still miss the point being made here.
As with Freeciv, and with much of RISC OS, we promote a hack since
we are so desperate, to do something, _anything_ instead of bothering
to understand the real problem, and put real effort so that _everyone_
would be helped.
> That's because you didn't respond to my two emails on the matter,
I don't believe you ever sent them. And had you, I would never agreed,
I would have insisted precisely upon a path which would help
everyone. To make matters worse, I had very little help in the matter
of development. A lot of people were being put off by your
fantasy of everything working flawlessly on RISC OS.
>
>> We're back to square one with you _thoroughly_ missing the point.
>
> Pot, kettle, black, methinks!
Please tell me which point I missed. But thanks for agreeing you have.
>
>> But the final question is; are you actually going to learn anything from
>> this? Or do you hold onto the myth of heroic efforts by a single person
>> being the way RISC OS development should be done?
>
> That's a somewhat ironic statement coming from you. You're the first person
> to complain if someone doesn't do things in the way you personally expect
> them to.
Ah yes, here we go. No, my view would be shared by any experienced
software developer. Firefox development, as far as I could make it,
was a team effort (much of the underlying stuff was in any case),
so this statement is not very accurate.
> And guess what, everyone is different. Everyone has their own
> right and wrong ways of doing things and you shouldn't jump in at every
> opportunity, stating that your way is right and everyone else is wrong.
>
> I never say that my way is the correct way of doing something and most of
> my comments are /a/ way of doing something, which may work for some people
> and may not. It's designed to help in specific cases where I'm asked for
> help. I may be wrong on occasions, but at least I'm trying to help out and
> I endeavour to solve problems where possible.
All in all, an excuse for you to not take responsibility for your
actions, excuse yourself for not working as a team, and trying to
ignore the overall negative effect your actions have.
> You, on the other hand, always assume that YOUR way of doing things is
> correct and that people must conform to it, which is no wonder you end up
> getting into so many pointless arguments on these newsgroups.
I'm sure that's a convenient line to try and dismiss me, but it's
so full of sweeping statements, that it can't possibly be true.
Thing is, I _do_ have a hell of a lot of software engineering
experience (I'm certainly not the only one here, but there's
sadly too few of us), and I do know what the hell I'm talking
about. You can make childish arguments about it being "my way",
but there are always several ways to solve a problem, some of
which I won't have thought of. But there are most definitely
_wrong_ ways to do things, which RISC OS is full of, no
little thanks to promotion of short term and short sighted
fixes from yourself.
> This will be my final word, as it's a waste of time getting into yet
> another pointless argument when we're all grown up enough to agree to
> differ on some things.
Good, then do you agree that when it comes to the work relating
to riscos.info, you'll do the grown up thing and either
(a) Shut up
or
(b) Learn to work in a collaborative environment, which has worked
pretty damned well to date. The only problem with this is that
you'll be held accountable for your views and contributions,
which you may not find very convenient.
Alex Macfarlane Smith
Hmm, I'm sure I remember playing it on my Risc PC and it was reasonably
playable.
Alex.
someone
Paul Vigay <invalid-em...@invalid-domain.co.uk> wrote:
> This will be my final word, as it's a waste of time getting into
> yet another pointless argument when we're all grown up enough to
> agree to differ on some things.
Just read this .... grin!!
--
One of the de Cordova family
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.