So is NH still being developed?
Leo
before and I'm not actually asking for a new version...I just wanna know
if the Devteam still exists and so on?
Are they still planning to update Nethack or anything? I've finished
3.43 more than a dozen times now. I know some of you have finished it
more than a hundred times. But still..I was just hoping for some small
additions to NH :)
Janis Papanagnou
> Yes I know this is a rude question in rgrn, but I've never asked it
> before and I'm not actually asking for a new version...I just wanna know
> if the Devteam still exists and so on?
Yes, the Devteam exists. But don't count on a new release anytime soon.
> Are they still planning to update Nethack or anything?
I suppose so. But... (see above)
> I've finished
> 3.43 more than a dozen times now. I know some of you have finished it
> more than a hundred times. But still..I was just hoping for some small
> additions to NH :)
I suggest to switch to a variant. Some variants are to a large degree
still very close to Nethack while adding some features or fixing some
issues. Patric has very recently published UnNetHack that you may want
to try. Or have a look at SporkHack. SlashEM is fun as well.
Janis
Corey
Re: Re: So is NH still being developed?
By: Janis Papanagnou to rec.games.roguelike.nethack on Sun Jun 14 2009 06:38 pm
will other varients map levels work with 3.4.3?
hept...@gmail.com
> Yes I know this is a rude question in rgrn, but I've never asked it
> before and I'm not actually asking for a new version...I just wanna know
> if the Devteam still exists and so on?
It's not rude, just tiresome. At least there will be another version
of NetHack unlike DNF. I do maintain that every time the DevTeam sees
a post like this they forestall the next version of NetHack by six
months. If you check out the bugs list on nethack.org you'll see there
are lots of things which are fixed and Fixed and I've seen some recent
bugs addressed and corrected there too.
> Are they still planning to update Nethack or anything? I've finished
> 3.43 more than a dozen times now. I know some of you have finished it
> more than a hundred times. But still..I was just hoping for some small
> additions to NH :)
I've ascended only once. Samurai. October 2005, I think. Just stopped
playing because Team Fortress 2 is a lot more entertaining but I
reckon I'll get sick of that and begin playing my patched version of
NetHack once again and try to figure out why some of my patches don't
work as intended and submit them.
Been working on a zombie patch for more than a year and it can be
rough for someone who is casual about programming and doesn't remember
much other than 1985 BASIC high school programming.
So which small additions were you thinking about for NetHack?
Hopefully it has nothing to do with marilith rings, ettin helmets or
empty bottles.
Jill Barbaro
evidence of the eventual Return of NetHack and the subsequent Rapture of
RGRN, while others question the very historicity of the so-called
"DevTeam" itself. Most rational people fall somewhere in-between.
Personally, I do think NetHack seems too complex to have come into
existence without a "DevTeam," but if it does in fact exist I'm not
convinced it bothers to interact with the universe it created. I remain
agnostic on the issue.
Rachel Elizabeth Dillon
You win.
-r.
Simon
Difficult to say, but there are subtle signs of life:
The copyright notices on the bottom of the website have been updated,
so it's now copyright 1999-2009.
The bug list gets updated every month or so.
The page www.nethack.org/2008-04-01.html has a little note at the
bottom confirming that that they were still working on the next
release in April 2008. But can you trust anything in an April Fool
post? And it's over a year old now...
Tantalising hints about new features have been dropped on usenet at
various times over the past several years:
- a #tip command to allow you to tip items out of e.g. cursed bags of
holding
- broken save file compatability, perhaps indicating a new race
(hobbit?)
- the inclusion of deafness
As you can tell I've been lurking for years, and still check back
pretty regularly to find out what's new. But I'm not expecting
anything soon, and while I wait I'm really enjoying UnNetHack.
S
ha...@eyry.org
Jill Barbaro <jillb...@censoredmail.com> wrote:
>Personally, I do think NetHack seems too complex to have come into
>existence without a "DevTeam," but if it does in fact exist I'm not
>convinced it bothers to interact with the universe it created. I remain
>agnostic on the issue.
nethack is proof of "sadistic design" . . .
hawk
AliveAndHuman
left in their place? To make stores more realistic, some penalty
should be added to mattocking the corridor to the door -you have to
pay XXX zorkmids in damages (yn)- though only after surprise made one
or two chirps to manage robbing pets... or servants. Have you noticed
how you can go back to the store and expose, even resell, his UNIQUE
wares right away and the store owner has to swallow the shoplifter
(metaphorically) without calling the Kops at all...? I wonder... (was
the devteam involved or they only pointed at?)
One thread accusing nethack, is it babblers of the message did not
reach this city?
Danilo J Bonsignore
Natso
"yes", it is still being developed.
It's like... Blizzard and Starcraft 2. Except, the devteam doesn't
lead us on every year.
Jonathan Ellis
"Natso" <Nat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f2f3e4d-3d19-46cf...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 11:30 am, Leo <t...@man.com> wrote:
>"yes", it is still being developed.
Show us signs of progress then. Like even a bugfixed version for the (few)
bugs in 3.4.3.
-- Jonathan.
VioletaPachydermata
wrote:
Are you sure that you are old enough to piss and moan this way yet?
Jonathan Ellis
"VioletaPachydermata" <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
in message news:k87c7590oikgthv8e...@4ax.com...
Since I am 33 years old, and have been playing roguelikes since I was 13,
and even WRITTEN content for some (well, specifically for Angband, rather
than Nethack)... Yes, I am old enough.
Unlike, it seems, yourself, a pathetic "Dev Team Is Always Here, Dev Team Is
Always Right" yes-man who can do nothing but parrot a belief in what is
evidently not happening, and whose only response to the solid sound evidence
of a LACK of development is to attempt, pathetically, to belittle the poster
of said evidence, because you have no counter-evidence of your own to show
that there *is* any development going on.
Jonathan.
Derek Ray
> "VioletaPachydermata" <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
> in message news:k87c7590oikgthv8e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:30:35 +0100, "Jonathan Ellis" <jle3...@gmail.com>
>>>news:1f2f3e4d-3d19-46cf...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jun 14, 11:30 am, Leo <t...@man.com> wrote:
>>>>"yes", it is still being developed.
>>>Show us signs of progress then. Like even a bugfixed version for the (few)
>>>bugs in 3.4.3.
>>>
>
> Since I am 33 years old, and have been playing roguelikes since I was 13,
> and even WRITTEN content for some (well, specifically for Angband, rather
> than Nethack)... Yes, I am old enough.
Well, you aren't acting it.
> Unlike, it seems, yourself, a pathetic "Dev Team Is Always Here, Dev Team Is
> Always Right" yes-man who can do nothing but parrot a belief in what is
> evidently not happening, and whose only response to the solid sound evidence
> of a LACK of development
Really? What evidence can you provide that development is "not happening"?
This ought to be good.
> is to attempt, pathetically, to belittle the poster of said evidence,
I seem to have missed that evidence. Could you repost it? It needs to
be something concrete, by the way. Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.
> because you have no counter-evidence of your own to show
> that there *is* any development going on.
If you've really been playing roguelikes since you were 13, you should
certainly know the following:
a) The Dev Team is comprised of a known set of people, reasonably
trivial to identify at any given time.
b) The Dev Team's policy is not to discuss future releases. Ever.
c) The person who responded to you is not part of the Dev Team.
If you knew the previous, then you ALSO knew that your following demand:
>>>Show us signs of progress then. Like even a bugfixed version for the (few)
>>>bugs in 3.4.3.
...is asking for something you know the poster cannot provide, and hence
is a meaningless demand. In fact, as it turns out, you can't provide
any more information than he can one way or the other... because you
also aren't part of the Dev Team.
If you had asked a more intelligent question in the first place, mind
you... such as "can we expect a new version of Nethack anytime soon?",
you would likely have gotten the answer you're looking for, which is
"Highly doubtful."
Even that doesn't mean development isn't happening, of course.
--
Derek
Game info and change log: http://sporkhack.com
Beta Server: telnet://sporkhack.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net, #sporkhack
Kent Paul Dolan
> Unlike, it seems, yourself, a pathetic "Dev Team
> Is Always Here, Dev Team Is Always Right" yes-man
> who can do nothing but parrot a belief in what is
> evidently not happening, and whose only response
> to the solid sound evidence of a LACK of
> development is to attempt, pathetically, to
> belittle the poster of said evidence, because you
> have no counter-evidence of your own to show that
> there *is* any development going on.
Aren't you the same whiner who comes back with this
same song and dance every few months? Take a hike.
xanthian.
Jonathan Ellis
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:h579a5$sic$1...@news.albasani.net...
Keep saying that. Keep saying that for nearly six entire years... the last
release was in 2003. It is now 2009.
I mean, there's nothing *wrong* with the fact that Nethack is not being
developed further. But, well, it isn't. Six years makes it patently obvious.
Similarly, development on Angband died for several years before being
restarted again (and even under its new maintainer, has been at best in fits
and starts). And again, there's nothing "wrong" with the fact that it did.
Nethack itself is clearly still "alive" and popular despite the lack of
development, it certainly isn't dead.
But it's silly to pretend that development is active when it clearly isn't.
Six years says "no development". And, true, there were three years betwee,
3.3 (1999) and 3.4 (2002)... not to mention, three years between 3.2.2
(1996) and 3.3 (1999)... again I'd state that during most of that time,
development wasn't "active" so much as it was "something that they picked up
again after a break". So, unless you're on the dev team yourself, saying
"there is development" while not actually providing evidence that there is,
is just irrelevant.
There have been just four pieces of official activity on "Nethack News"
since the release of 3.4.3. The first two of those were people porting it to
the Mac in 2004. On the bugs page, I have failed to detect so much as a
single bug changing from "open" to "fixed" (or even alternatively to
"superseded" or "not a bug") since then.
Since 1999, there have been more different versions of Windows (major
version changes) than there have of Nethack (minor version numbers).
Admittedly, Windows is a lot buggier and a lot more bloated than Nethack
ever will be, as is its development team :-)
So, unless there is a new dev team with a new official site... there is no
evidence of continuing development to the main game. (You might say, lack of
evidence doesn't mean lack of development. And I might reply, SIX YEARS.)
And, again, thanks for providing further confirmation and proof of my
previous post, arguing by ad hominem belittlement and insult, instead of
actually attempting to prove your point and refute mine by showing genuine
evidence of recent and on-going progress.
Go on. I'll settle for evidence that changes have been made to the source,
let's make it a nice wide margin for error here, "any time during 2009". Or
failing that, even "any time during 2008"...
Nathan
> There have been just four pieces of official activity on "Nethack News"
> since the release of 3.4.3. The first two of those were people porting it to
> the Mac in 2004. On the bugs page, I have failed to detect so much as a
> single bug changing from "open" to "fixed" (or even alternatively to
> "superseded" or "not a bug") since then.
How about just new bugs showing up on the page? There have been many
of those in the time period you discuss, and I suspect most of them
get
added with "fixed" status to begin with. I reported C343-213 in
November 2005 and got an e-mail within a few days saying they had
fixed
the bug based on my report, and then it shortly showed up on the bugs
page
with "fixed" status. So all the bugs with higher numbers were added to
the
list after that date. I'm not feeling like doing detailed research on
the question,
but the most recent version of the page showing at the Internet
Archive, dated
February 15, 2008, shows bugs only through C343-348, whereas the
current
page goes to C343-391. Looks like quite a bit of DevTeam activity to
me.
VioletaPachydermata
wrote:
>
>"VioletaPachydermata" <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
>in message news:k87c7590oikgthv8e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:30:35 +0100, "Jonathan Ellis" <jle3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Natso" <Nat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1f2f3e4d-3d19-46cf...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jun 14, 11:30 am, Leo <t...@man.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"yes", it is still being developed.
>>>
>>>Show us signs of progress then. Like even a bugfixed version for the (few)
>>>bugs in 3.4.3.
>>>
>>>-- Jonathan.
>>>
>> Are you sure that you are old enough to piss and moan this way yet?
>
>Since I am 33 years old, and have been playing roguelikes since I was 13,
>and even WRITTEN content for some (well, specifically for Angband, rather
>than Nethack)... Yes, I am old enough.
>
>Unlike, it seems, yourself, a pathetic "Dev Team Is Always Here, Dev Team Is
>Always Right" yes-man
Can you cite the post I made where I was acting as you state?
> who can do nothing but parrot a belief in what is
>evidently not happening,
Can you cite a post I made where I make this claim?
> and whose only response to the solid sound evidence
>of a LACK of development is to attempt, pathetically, to belittle the poster
>of said evidence,
You claim to have posted evidence. I saw nothing of the sort. Hard to
claim something is "solid" when I haven't even seen it.
Also, I made no attempt to belittle you. You are doing a fine job of
that, all by yourself. I can accommodate, however...
> because you have no counter-evidence of your own to show
>that there *is* any development going on.
Do you even know what a bug list is, you retarded twit? Do you know
how the bugs on that list get whittled away at? It is kind of like how
the termites whittle away at your brain.
Are you sure that your trolldom was not coded into your pathetic
existence when you were allowed to inhabit yet another body?
I mean... it appears that you are paying a debt by the way you act.
That, or you will be paying one at the onset of your next chance at
life. You sure did a sad job with the one you were given this time.
VioletaPachydermata
wrote:
>
>Go on. I'll settle for evidence
You will more than likely "settle" for most of the members of the group
filtering your utter stupidity out.
Give it a rest, dipshit.
We ALL know when the last release was. We do not need a looney
dumbfuck like you bopping in with your stupid mouth lollygagging the
same, sad, pathetic, tired horseshit.
RjY
>Keep saying that. Keep saying that for nearly six entire years... the last
>release was in 2003. It is now 2009.
>
>I mean, there's nothing *wrong* with the fact that Nethack is not being
>developed further.
Indeed not. I think the most likely outcome is that eventually some
variant will take over, as has happened with Crawl and Stone Soup.
However, one barrier to this transition is that when you search the
internet for nethack, it doesn't turn up any of the active variants.
(At least Google doesn't and sadly very few people use anything else.)
Derek Ray
> Indeed not. I think the most likely outcome is that eventually some
> variant will take over, as has happened with Crawl and Stone Soup.
> However, one barrier to this transition is that when you search the
> internet for nethack, it doesn't turn up any of the active variants.
> (At least Google doesn't and sadly very few people use anything else.)
As far as I know, neither active variant wishes to be $NEXTVERSION. (I
can only speak positively about this for myself, but I'm sure Patric
will be along shortly to enlighten us all on UnNethack.)
This will probably be a bigger barrier than the Google thing, to be
honest. (Of course, if an active variant _did_ wish to be $NEXTVERSION,
the first thing it should do is reappropriate the Holy Name in some
fashion, call itself Nethack 4.0, and thereby force the Dev Team into
a confrontation where they could either yield or disclose their plans.
The second thing it should do is go through the buglist and fix all the
bugs it could, and immediately release; this would drag onboard everyone
who's been waiting for vanilla.)
Not that I've ever thought about it in the past or anything. (And no,
this doesn't change what I said above. The reason I haven't done such a
thing isn't because I'm waiting for public approval, it's because I
_don't want to_.)
RjY
>How about just new bugs showing up on the page? [...] Looks like quite
>a bit of DevTeam activity to me.
One thing I do wonder is if the maintainers of variants are ever
irritated by seeing bug fixes going up on the site, but not having
access to the patches, and thus having to duplicate work.
VioletaPachydermata
Is there a way to make a runtime engine for nethack that allows one to
set a pointer to a directory with the un-compiled source for a given
release, and "run" it un-compiled? Or could we compile certain segments
and do this?
If that encapsulation could be done, then someone could run any version
or variant from the same front end. Kind of like how MAME works.
That would be the right direction to go in. Kind of like doom and quake
did by allowing user created "mods". It made for some cool game servers!
We could make the engine, and then create a multi version server
manager for it too!
Instead of merely choosing a tileset or the like, the user chooses far
more!
OR, if running from source like that is not possible, perhaps someone
could make the code a bit modular so that it could be ran that way. Then,
one could even run the original, if desired.
I know this all would work under an emulator, running each compiled
version individually, I just thought that this might save space.
The direction to morph in is with this 'front end' idea, then get back
to doing things with the deeper game workings later, or just let everyone
dev their own variants once the play engine has been hashed out.
So... Make me a whopper!
(poof! You're a whopper!) (Bugs Bunny joke)
Derek Ray
...What do you mean, duplicate work? :)
(I specifically stated in my design-concept page when I started Spork
that I wasn't going to spend much, if any, time fixing vanilla bugs. I
did end up fixing a few like the Call bug and other obvious outright
exploits, but the intent was to make sure that I _wasn't_ duplicating
work, just in case the Dev Team released at some point.
Besides. Some of those bugs are ridiculously corner-case, and I have
better stuff to do with my time -- "not my bug, not my problem." :)
Derek Ray
> Is there a way to make a runtime engine for nethack that allows one to
> set a pointer to a directory with the un-compiled source for a given
> release, and "run" it un-compiled? Or could we compile certain segments
> and do this?
In short: no.
In slightly less short: oh, sure, someone _could_, but that's the kind
of coding nightmare best taken on by people who are too drunk to know
better, and too stubborn to abandon it the next day.
Patric Mueller
>
> One thing I do wonder is if the maintainers of variants are ever
> irritated by seeing bug fixes going up on the site, but not having
> access to the patches, and thus having to duplicate work.
Yes.
Bye
Patric
--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sf.net/
NetHack for AROS: http://sf.net/projects/nethack-aros/
UnNetHack: http://apps.sf.net/trac/unnethack/
Patric Mueller
> Jonathan Ellis posted:
>>Keep saying that. Keep saying that for nearly six entire years... the last
>>release was in 2003. It is now 2009.
>>
>>I mean, there's nothing *wrong* with the fact that Nethack is not being
>>developed further.
>
> Indeed not. I think the most likely outcome is that eventually some
> variant will take over, as has happened with Crawl and Stone Soup.
It might have been an advantage that Crawl didn't have a cabal aka
DevTeam.
> However, one barrier to this transition is that when you search the
> internet for nethack, it doesn't turn up any of the active variants.
> (At least Google doesn't and sadly very few people use anything else.)
How could it be any other way? A search for NetHack turns up half a
million hits, for Spork 3,460 and for UnNetHack 1,550.
Patric Mueller
> On 2009-08-03, RjY <R...@sp.am> wrote:
>> Indeed not. I think the most likely outcome is that eventually some
>> variant will take over, as has happened with Crawl and Stone Soup.
>> However, one barrier to this transition is that when you search the
>> internet for nethack, it doesn't turn up any of the active variants.
>> (At least Google doesn't and sadly very few people use anything else.)
>
> As far as I know, neither active variant wishes to be $NEXTVERSION. (I
> can only speak positively about this for myself, but I'm sure Patric
> will be along shortly to enlighten us all on UnNethack.)
I surely don't consider UnNetHack to be the $NEXTVERSION.
Even if I would want it to be the $NEXTVERSION I wouldn't know what to
do to let it be the $NEXTVERSION (besides fixing most of the bugs).
> This will probably be a bigger barrier than the Google thing, to be
> honest. (Of course, if an active variant _did_ wish to be $NEXTVERSION,
> the first thing it should do is reappropriate the Holy Name in some
> fashion, call itself Nethack 4.0, and thereby force the Dev Team into
> a confrontation where they could either yield or disclose their plans.
I don't know if this behavior would be endorsed by the NetHack
community. It certainly isn't nice although completely within the
legal constraints of the license.
Vanilla NetHack is currently in a vegetative state. There still is a
heart beat and some parts are reacting to specific stimuli but the
chance of full recovery is dwindling with every day gone by.
I don't know if shock therapy is the way to go. :-)
> The second thing it should do is go through the buglist and fix all the
> bugs it could, and immediately release; this would drag onboard everyone
> who's been waiting for vanilla.)
Let me quote Bill Gates: "The reason we come up with new versions is
not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy[*]
a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of
new things that people are asking for."
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.44.html#subj11
[*] for NetHack this obviously should read "play"
Now, I don't quite agree with him - at least the bugs that cause
crashes or are exploitable should be fixed - but did he or I got
millions of people to use his software? There is certainly something
to be learned from his success. ;-)
Do you really think players would be impressed by a bugfix-only
release? Maybe programmers, but the players would only rejoice if it
were done by the DevTeam as this would be a life sign long waited for.
BTW in UnNetHack I don't put features in that people are asking for
but mostly features I am asking for. :-)
In the end the players decide what they want to play.
Derek Ray
> Derek Ray <de...@moot.its.only.a.spamtrap.org> wrote:
>> As far as I know, neither active variant wishes to be $NEXTVERSION. (I
>> can only speak positively about this for myself, but I'm sure Patric
>> will be along shortly to enlighten us all on UnNethack.)
> I surely don't consider UnNetHack to be the $NEXTVERSION.
>
> Even if I would want it to be the $NEXTVERSION I wouldn't know what to
> do to let it be the $NEXTVERSION (besides fixing most of the bugs).
...Well, this is another part of the reason I don't want to be
$NEXTVERSION, frankly. :D
>> This will probably be a bigger barrier than the Google thing, to be
>> honest. (Of course, if an active variant _did_ wish to be $NEXTVERSION,
>> the first thing it should do is reappropriate the Holy Name in some
>> fashion, call itself Nethack 4.0, and thereby force the Dev Team into
>> a confrontation where they could either yield or disclose their plans.
> I don't know if this behavior would be endorsed by the NetHack
> community. It certainly isn't nice although completely within the
> legal constraints of the license.
Oh, the usual suspects on RGRN would all whine, but realistically, there
hasn't been a release for 6 years, and RGRN is a huge minority. After
six months of being "Nethack 4.0", it will be de facto accomplished.
And nice? No, it's definitely not nice. But the subset of behavior
labelled "nice" doesn't always intersect with the subset labelled
"effective". :)
>> The second thing it should do is go through the buglist and fix all the
>> bugs it could, and immediately release; this would drag onboard everyone
>> who's been waiting for vanilla.)
> Let me quote Bill Gates: "The reason we come up with new versions is
> not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy[*]
> a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of
> new things that people are asking for."
> ...
> Now, I don't quite agree with him - at least the bugs that cause
> crashes or are exploitable should be fixed - but did he or I got
> millions of people to use his software? There is certainly something
> to be learned from his success. ;-)
The biggest difference here is: people have to pay money for his software.
When people pay money, they want something new and shiny, not just
bugfixes. And I agree with that completely.
Also, I should clarify: Bill's not saying that new versions shouldn't fix
bugs, but that the _primary_ purpose of creating a new version should be
to add new features, and fixing bugs should be secondary. He's not very
clear in the actual quote about that.
> Do you really think players would be impressed by a bugfix-only
> release? Maybe programmers, but the players would only rejoice if it
> were done by the DevTeam as this would be a life sign long waited for.
That release wouldn't be the one to _impress_ people -- that would be
the release to show everyone we were serious about becoming
$NEXTVERSION. Because to be $NEXTVERSION, you have to fix all the bugs,
and everyone knows that's the least fun job.
It helps that there are some fairly significant gameplay bugs out there,
of course. If it were all typographical crud, nobody would care.
> In the end the players decide what they want to play.
Of course. Which is why you make the decision as easy as possible.
"This is vanilla, but with all the bugs fixed. Why not play my
version if you like vanilla?" Very few people will say 'no' to that,
especially with vanilla's next release rapidly approaching 'never'.
Then, you start adding features, and people only have to upgrade your
version, which is a lot less 'mental' cost...
David Damerell
>"VioletaPachydermata" <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
>in message news:k87c7590oikgthv8e...@4ax.com...
>Since I am 33 years old, and have been playing roguelikes since I was 13,
>and even WRITTEN content for some (well, specifically for Angband, rather
>than Nethack)... Yes, I am old enough.
In that case please use your age and experience to recognise that there is
no point in wrestling this particular nym-morphing oaf.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Yesterday was Wednesday, July.
Today is Thursday, July.
Tomorrow will be Friday, July.
BigBalls
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Jonathan Ellis <jle3...@gmail.com>:
>>"VioletaPachydermata" <PurpleE...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
>>in message news:k87c7590oikgthv8e...@4ax.com...
>>>Are you sure that you are old enough to piss and moan this way yet?
>>Since I am 33 years old, and have been playing roguelikes since I was 13,
>>and even WRITTEN content for some (well, specifically for Angband, rather
>>than Nethack)... Yes, I am old enough.
>
>In that case please use your age and experience to recognise that there is
>no point in wrestling this particular nym-morphing oaf.
Oaf? That would make you a total and utter retard, by comparison,
jack-off.
You actually think that fucking retard was wrestling with anyone? NO.
HE is the fucking troll.
You, on the other hand are nothing more than a Usenet pussy boy that
pisses and moans about something as petty as a nym.
My IP addy is in EVERY post. If you are too stupid to know how to
filter on that, then you are too stupid to be in Usenet, pissing and
moaning about nyms.
TheJoker
Bwuahahahahahahaahahahahaaha!
David Damerell
><BiggestB...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
You know, even as sock puppetry goes, replying to your own drivel with a
one-line followup is _pretty_ pathetic.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Yesterday was Thursday, July.
Today is Friday, July.
Tomorrow will be Saturday, July - a weekend.
TheJoker
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting TheJoker <Leonardo of the Larcenous Laugh>:
>><BiggestB...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>You know, even as sock puppetry goes, replying to your own drivel with a
>one-line followup is _pretty_ pathetic.
Far more pathetic are the dopes that notice. You are one such dope.
pdpi
<LeonardooftheLarcenousLa...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2009 02:28:37 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
>
>
> >You know, even as sock puppetry goes, replying to your own drivel with a
> >one-line followup is _pretty_ pathetic.
>
> Far more pathetic are the dopes that notice. You are one such dope.
Nah, a dope is a guy who thinks that non-existent, very long winded
domains aren't telltale to anyone with a clue. Now, go away, or I
shall taunt you a second time.
BigBalls
wrote:
Any retard with half a clue knows that capital letters in the email
makes it an invalid address.
You are all dopey twits if you ask me.
pdpi
<BiggestBallsOf...@thebigbarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:14:54 -0700 (PDT), pdpi <pdpinhe...@gmail.com>
--- QUOTE ---
The local-part of the e-mail address may use any of these ASCII
characters:
Uppercase and lowercase English letters (a-z, A-Z)
Digits 0 through 9
Characters ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~
Character . (dot, period, full stop) provided that it is not the first
or last character, and provided also that it does not appear two or
more times consecutively.
--- ENDQUOTE ---
You, sir, fail at trolling.
Janis Papanagnou
> On 2009-08-04, Patric Mueller <bh...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Derek Ray <de...@moot.its.only.a.spamtrap.org> wrote:
>
>>> The second thing it should do is go through the buglist and fix all the
>>> bugs it could, and immediately release; this would drag onboard everyone
>>> who's been waiting for vanilla.)
>> Let me quote Bill Gates: "The reason we come up with new versions is
>> not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy[*]
>> a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of
>> new things that people are asking for."
>> ...
>> Now, I don't quite agree with him - at least the bugs that cause
>> crashes or are exploitable should be fixed - but did he or I got
>> millions of people to use his software? There is certainly something
>> to be learned from his success. ;-)
>
> The biggest difference here is: people have to pay money for his software.
> When people pay money, they want something new and shiny, not just
> bugfixes. And I agree with that completely.
Interesting. When I pay money I want a *reliable* system, bugfree as far as
possible, and I want an ergonomic well designed product. The latter may be
declared as "shiny feature" - as opposed to: "Why did that guy not designed
it appropriately in the first place?!". That's true for commercial products
as well as for free software like Nethack. If the existing Nethack bugs were
severe and would occur on a regular basis nobody would play it, I suppose;
I wouldn't, at least.
> Also, I should clarify: Bill's not saying that new versions shouldn't fix
> bugs, but that the _primary_ purpose of creating a new version should be
> to add new features, and fixing bugs should be secondary. He's not very
> clear in the actual quote about that.
Being not clear on that topic is certainly a deliberate move of him.
>> Do you really think players would be impressed by a bugfix-only
>> release? Maybe programmers, but the players would only rejoice if it
>> were done by the DevTeam as this would be a life sign long waited for.
>
> That release wouldn't be the one to _impress_ people [...]
Right.
Janis
Patric Mueller
> Derek Ray wrote:
>>
>> The biggest difference here is: people have to pay money for his software.
>> When people pay money, they want something new and shiny, not just
>> bugfixes. And I agree with that completely.
>
> Interesting. When I pay money I want a *reliable* system,
You are a minority.
> bugfree as far as possible,
Microsoft has educated most users to EXPECT software to be buggy and
accepting that the next update might fix it.
> and I want an ergonomic well designed product. The latter may be
> declared as "shiny feature" - as opposed to: "Why did that guy not designed
> it appropriately in the first place?!". That's true for commercial products
> as well as for free software like Nethack. If the existing Nethack bugs were
> severe and would occur on a regular basis nobody would play it, I suppose;
> I wouldn't, at least.
Are you playing an unpatched vanilla NetHack or are you playing on a
server?
If you're playing on a server you probably aren't even seeing the most
severe bugs of NetHack.
I know that on NAO the crash bug concerning wielded items that somehow
disappear (e.g. lit candle, cream pie) is fixed.
I don't know about the two crash bugs that I consider the most
annoying and most severe ones.
The acid-in-water-bug (be it dipped by the player, acid in inventory
that gets water contact by a falling player or monster) and the
cutting-a-long-worm-in-half-bug.
But are those bad enough to not play? No, of course not. There are
commercial games that are riddled with bugs nevertheless the get
played.
If a crash bugs occurs the normal player asks the server administrator
to recover his game or uses a backup save game.
People don't want reliable software. They just want something that
works. An easy workaround makes software "working"
>> Also, I should clarify: Bill's not saying that new versions shouldn't fix
>> bugs, but that the _primary_ purpose of creating a new version should be
>> to add new features, and fixing bugs should be secondary. He's not very
>> clear in the actual quote about that.
>
> Being not clear on that topic is certainly a deliberate move of him.
He was clearer on the topic than some people in the USA could believe.
Some claimed that this interview (which appeared in a German magazine) must
be a fake. Because if it were true this would have been all over the
news and Microsoft's customer would have been rioting. :-)
Janis Papanagnou
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_pa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Derek Ray wrote:
>>> The biggest difference here is: people have to pay money for his software.
>>> When people pay money, they want something new and shiny, not just
>>> bugfixes. And I agree with that completely.
>> Interesting. When I pay money I want a *reliable* system,
>
> You are a minority.
Not quite; I'm rather a singularity. ;-)
And I don't especially think that I am a minority. All folks I have to
do with, if they can choose from a stable system that fulfills their
requirements and a less stable system that fulfills their requirements
choose the former one. It certainly depends if available features differ
significantly those systems. But why would one choose a system where
even the basic features are not working correctly, or are just a PITA.
>> bugfree as far as possible,
>
> Microsoft has educated most users to EXPECT software to be buggy and
> accepting that the next update might fix it.
Certainly they want users to accept that.
>> and I want an ergonomic well designed product. The latter may be
>> declared as "shiny feature" - as opposed to: "Why did that guy not designed
>> it appropriately in the first place?!". That's true for commercial products
>> as well as for free software like Nethack. If the existing Nethack bugs were
>> severe and would occur on a regular basis nobody would play it, I suppose;
>> I wouldn't, at least.
>
> Are you playing an unpatched vanilla NetHack or are you playing on a
> server?
I have been playing unpatched vanilla since 3.0.9, the last years I was
playing (quite exclusively) on NAO.
> If you're playing on a server you probably aren't even seeing the most
> severe bugs of NetHack.
Certainly. But I have a longer history before my NAO times.
> I know that on NAO the crash bug concerning wielded items that somehow
> disappear (e.g. lit candle, cream pie) is fixed.
Just to make it clear; I don't say that Nethack is bugfree. But I can
assert you that I have to use so called operating systems where I count
reliability in "{reboots|aborts|errors|annoyances|surprises...} per hour".
> [...]
>
> People don't want reliable software. They just want something that
> works. An easy workaround makes software "working"
Being distracted from your work because of a buggy software, or have data
lost because of an unreliable system is nothing a sane person should accept,
as long as there are options to choose from! People certainly want reliable
software; they want there job done and their precious time not wasted.
Janis
Kent Paul Dolan
> pdpi <pdpin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> TheJoker wrote:
>>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>> You know, even as sock puppetry goes, replying
>>>> to your own drivel with a one-line followup is
>>>> _pretty_ pathetic.
>>> Far more pathetic are the dopes that notice.
>>> You are one such dope.
>> Nah, a dope is a guy who thinks that
>> non-existent, very long winded domains aren't
>> telltale to anyone with a clue. Now, go away, or
>> I shall taunt you a second time.
> Any retard with half a clue knows that capital
> letters in the email makes it an invalid address.
Yet one more thing you think you know that isn't so.
Email and domain addresses are downshifted by the
software that handles them before they are used,
so capital letters have no effect for good or ill,
they're just decorative. File and folder names
subordinate to a domain name, as in a URL, on the
other hand, _are_ case sensitive, at least to a
domain that itself supports case sensitive file
names, they are.
Trying to impress people much better informed than
you are with your arcane "knowledge" is a fool's
errand.
> You are all dopey twits if you ask me.
We didn't ask you, we just asked you to take your
low IQ muttering to somewhere that the intellectual
level matches your own.
Surely there is an alt.morons.idiots.and.imbeciles
somewhere for you to frequent?
If not, it is easy enough for you to create a new
alt,* newsgroup, all your own.
I have mine, two of them in fact, why shouldn't you
be equally well equipped?
Well, except aboue the ears.
It's far too late in your life to do anything about
that little glaringly obvious problem.
xanthian.
Oh, and lest you waste your time increasing your
idiot quotient here by continuing arguing against
the obviousness of your cluelessness and lack of
human worth:
Terry_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Terry Palfrey):
>> I stated that you might learn something by
>> stitching the whole thread together again and
>> re-reading it. No one said you were wrong,
>> just using the wrong perspective, you argued
>> with Kent like he was your peer or something,
he's not.
kar...@nox.nyx.net (Karl Thomas):
> Let's try this again.
> You seem to have the same problem that he had.
> Care to come up with something more technical
> than he was able to muster?
> Or do you just idolize Kent so much if he said
> the world was flat you would believe him?
Uh, let me put this to you gently,
if the world was really flat
he would be one of the people who knew.
Do you have a problem being instructed
by someone much smarter and
a hell of a lot more experienced than you?
-- Terry_...@mindlink.bc.ca
(Terry Palfrey)
Jonathan Ellis
"Nathan" <nts...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:7c539b07-6a61-478d...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Ah, my apologies. I misunderstood what all this meant, since the bug reports
and fixes are undated. I assumed most of them would have been fixed fairly
early on.
That being said, if they HAVE been fixed, and there's that many of them,
then wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to at least release a 3.4.4 (or
3.4.3b) which is basically "up to date"?
Here's hoping...
Jonathan.
Jonathan Ellis
news:h5f1qs$ge9$1...@aioe.org...
And, apologies for the double post (but I'd already sent before I thought of
this):
Is Nethack still being *fixed*? Possibly, there's evidence that bugs are
being found, reported and fixed, although we haven't even had a "bugfixed
version" out for six years. There tend to be a couple, fairly quickly
following each "minor version number" change, and then nothing for a while.
Is it still being *developed*, as in gameplay changes or new features added?
There's less evidence of this, so far. There have been a couple of
three-year hiatuses between each of the last few minor version number
changes, but six years is getting on for a hell of a long time without
evidence of further actual development...
Jonathan.
Kent Paul Dolan
Not in the sense that anyone outside the development
team still has any particular expectations of ever
seeing a new release of the vanilla version, no.
Evidence exists that work is still being done, at
least to fix bugs, on a fairly regular basis.
However, it is long past any reasonable time that
those bug fixes should have been shared by the
DevTeam with the NetHack community.
Waiting until "the last bug is fixed" is silly.
Bug removal from a suite of software that large
doesn't cater for the concept of "last bug".
Bugs are discovered, located, and removed in a
stochastic process.
One is left to expect that either the DevTeam has
lost its steam and gone on with other parts of their
lives, or else has gotten bug fixes so entwined with
new development that a clean bug fix release is no
longer possible.
What with programming in the C language having been
mostly superseded since NetHack began, by use of
more modern programming languages, even recruiting
new blood to the DevTeam wouldn't be exactly "easy".
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Being distracted from your work because of a buggy
> software, or have data lost because of an
> unreliable system is nothing a sane person should
> accept, as long as there are options to choose
> from! People certainly want reliable software;
> they want their job done and their precious time
> not wasted.
Indeed.
Bill Gate's attitude toward the importance of bug
fixes is all that keeps other software developers in
business -- creating software with fewer frequently
encountered, glaringly obvious fatal bugs than
Microsoft software has.
=====
A frequently retold story:
My former wife worked in accounts payable, part of a
staff of several, all using lots of Microsoft tools,
for several years.
It was a _normal_ _expected_ part of their work day,
well understood by management, that they'd lose on
average 40% of their work product to crashes caused
by Microsoft software bugs, crashes requiring a
specialist to recover the system and restore the
workability of the particular crashing software,
while the accounting clerks were denied use of their
computers.
Fatal crashes, by preventing disk buffer caches from
being written to disk, also eventually would corrupt
the software, data, or sector threading on the hard
drives to the point that the entire system required
a disk reformat and software/data reloading from
backup copies.
=====
Going back on topic here, yes, I'd much prefer that
there be several bug fix releases between feature
adding releases for NetHack, much more along the
open source software model, where _daily_ bug fix
releases are not uncommon, via public access
configuration management software trees.
[Mozilla, e.g., releases a new build of their
SeaMonkey browser every night, and refers to the
build by its date.]
This sometimes goes along with using at least triple
digit "most minor release level" numbers.
xanthian.
Patric Mueller
> "Jonathan Ellis" <jle3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h5f1qs$ge9$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> then wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to at least release a 3.4.4
>> (or 3.4.3b) which is basically "up to date"?
That "someone" could only be one of the DevTeam as the source code
repository isn't freely available.
>> Here's hoping...
Not really. This isn't a change of the behavior of the DevTeam. The
web page and bug list have always been updated from time to time.
> following each "minor version number" change, and then nothing for a while.
> Is it still being *developed*, as in gameplay changes or new features added?
Yes, members of the DevTeam might tell you about features in the
development version when you report a bug.
I guess, their reply usually starts with "Oh, we already fixed that
looooong time ago." or "I can't reproduce this in our advanced
development version." :-)
> There's less evidence of this, so far. There have been a couple of
> three-year hiatuses between each of the last few minor version number
> changes, but six years is getting on for a hell of a long time without
> evidence of further actual development...
Well, yes, it is. But OTOH I don't have reason to believe that they
are lying.
I don't know - *nobody* who's not on the DevTeam knows - why they are
taking so long. Speculations about technical or political reasons are
completely moot as we don't have any clue for the reason.
David Damerell
>And, apologies for the double post (but I'd already sent before I thought of
>this):
It would be better if you'd trimmed the quoted text. (Also, consider
removing misc.misc pollution from the Newsgroups: line).
>Is it still being *developed*, as in gameplay changes or new features added?
>There's less evidence of this, so far.
Especially if you don't actually read Pat's posts to rgrn.
David Damerell
>That being said, if they HAVE been fixed, and there's that many of them,
>then wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to at least release a 3.4.4 (or
>3.4.3b) which is basically "up to date"?
Why are you asking _us_ this? For the mere joy of rehashing a question you
have rehashed several times already? (I suppose at least you aren't
starting like the usual guy and proclaiming how the Dev Team must release
the name to you immediately, etc.)
Patric Mueller
> Patric Mueller wrote:
>
>> You are a minority.
>
> Not quite; I'm rather a singularity. ;-)
>
> And I don't especially think that I am a minority. All folks I have to
> do with, if they can choose from a stable system that fulfills their
> requirements and a less stable system that fulfills their requirements
> choose the former one. It certainly depends if available features differ
> significantly those systems. But why would one choose a system where
> even the basic features are not working correctly, or are just a PITA.
IF you can choose.
Sometimes people don't even know they have a choice. Don't you know
anybody who calls the big blue 'e' on their desktop "the Internet"?
>> I know that on NAO the crash bug concerning wielded items that somehow
>> disappear (e.g. lit candle, cream pie) is fixed.
>
> Just to make it clear; I don't say that Nethack is bugfree. But I can
> assert you that I have to use so called operating systems where I count
> reliability in "{reboots|aborts|errors|annoyances|surprises...} per hour".
And still you're using it. Not completely out of free will but you're
using it. I understand you, I am guilty of the same thing. :)
How many working hours get lost because of bugs that could have been
avoided is probably too frightening to know.
Humans sometimes have an almost infinite capacity for suffering.
>> People don't want reliable software. They just want something that
>> works. An easy workaround makes software "working"
>
> Being distracted from your work because of a buggy software, or have data
> lost because of an unreliable system is nothing a sane person should accept,
> as long as there are options to choose from! People certainly want reliable
> software; they want there job done and their precious time not wasted.
Yes, they want that. But they don't want it bad enough otherwise they
would do something about it. But then it isn't that bad after all ...
Janis Papanagnou
>
> [...] Don't you know
> anybody who calls the big blue 'e' on their desktop "the Internet"?
Frankly, no.
Janis
Janis Papanagnou
> "Jonathan Ellis" <jle3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it still being *developed*, as in gameplay changes or new features added?
>
> Yes, members of the DevTeam might tell you about features in the
> development version when you report a bug.
>
> I guess, their reply usually starts with "Oh, we already fixed that
> looooong time ago." or "I can't reproduce this in our advanced
> development version." :-)
>
>
> I don't know - *nobody* who's not on the DevTeam knows - why they are
> taking so long.
The same applies what you wrote above; sometimes members of the DevTeam
signify why they are taking so long.
> Speculations about technical or political reasons are
> completely moot as we don't have any clue for the reason.
Mostly.
Janis
BigBalls
wrote:
>On Aug 6, 12:49�pm, BigBalls
Quote what, dumbass? You are supposed to declare that. D'oh!
And regardless of what you claim here, but fail to properly cite, a
large number of ISPs refuse any requests to create email addys that
contain multiple capital letters or ANY of the 'special' characters. Mine
can have one capital letter at the beginning. So perhaps you should
re-examine the way things are now, as opposed to whatever it was whenever
your quoted kaka was written.
It is 100% obvious to anyone but a total retard that my emails are not
valid, just like MOST folks that post to Usenet that have a brain.
If you are one such total retard, then you should not be here... in
Usenet... at all.
FatBytestard
wrote:
>Microsoft has brainwashed most users to EXPECT software to be buggy and
>accepting that the next update might fix it.
IFYPFY
Archimedes' Lever
wrote:
>
>Trying to impress people much better informed than
>you are with your arcane "knowledge" is a fool's
>errand.
You're a goddamned retard.
>
> > You are all dopey twits if you ask me.
Still true.
>
>We didn't ask you,
I do not need your fucking permission, retard boy.
> we just asked you to take your
>low IQ muttering to somewhere that the intellectual
>level matches your own.
You are not any "we", and you, nor anyone else "asked" me to do
anything, you fucking joke.
Again you expose the fact that you received a bit too many Gamma rays
back in your better days. Hasn't that myocardial infarction grabbed you
by the chest yet, boy?
BigBalls
wrote:
>If not, it is easy enough for you to create a new
>alt,* newsgroup, all your own.
>
>I have mine, two of them in fact, why shouldn't you
>be equally well equipped?
Not as easy to newgroup as you claim, retard.
1) When did you create yours?
2) Tried it lately?
Again you express YOUR lack of knowledge. My experience is less than a
year old. So, answer the questions, smart ass.
BigBalls
wrote:
>It's far too late in your life to do anything about
>that little glaringly obvious problem.
It is far too late in your life to teach the hard wired retard that you
are, that your powers of assessment hover at nil.
BigBalls
wrote:
>Oh, and lest you waste your time increasing your
>idiot quotient here by continuing arguing against
>the obviousness of your cluelessness and lack of
>human worth:
I have done more in the last year to make the world a better place than
you have in your entire, pathetic life, Dolan.
You'll die soon enough, and I will continue performing better, in each
year, than you have in your entire, pathetic life, Dolan.
If I put my feces out in the garden it would get more done in a year
than you have in your entire, pathetic life, Dolan.
Tally that clue, pussy boy.
Sergey Zaharchenko
Hello Patric!
Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:15:24PM +0200 you wrote:
> Sometimes people don't even know they have a choice. Don't you know
> anybody who calls the big blue 'e' on their desktop "the Internet"?
Frankly, at the first sight of this description I first thought of an
oversized floating eye.
--
DoubleF
No virus detected in this message. Ehrm, wait a minute...
/kernel: pid 56921 (antivirus), uid 32000: exited on signal 9
Oh yes, no virus:)
life imitates life
<doubl...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
>Hello Patric!
>
>Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:15:24PM +0200 you wrote:
>
>> Sometimes people don't even know they have a choice. Don't you know
>> anybody who calls the big blue 'e' on their desktop "the Internet"?
>
>Frankly, at the first sight of this description I first thought of an
>oversized floating eye.
Consider yourself to have been mesmerized.
Kent Paul Dolan
> And regardless of what you claim here, but fail to
> properly cite, a large number of ISPs refuse any
> requests to create email addys that contain
> multiple capital letters or ANY of the 'special'
> characters.
So what?
Your desktop is not the universe.
Your email service provider is not the Internet
Engineering Task Force, the people who _do_ make
the rules.
As with every single thing you have posted here
so far, you are again entirely wrong.
Go away, and grow some gonads, you pea brained
infantile voluntarily gelded twit.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Again you express YOUR lack of knowledge.
You certainly are your own personal bad joke.
> My experience is less than a year old.
Mine net use experience is around thirty-three years
old, and predates both the Internet and Usenet, much
less the AlterNet.
I began on the early ARPAnet.
I didn't create either of the news groups that are
"mine", they were created by others in my honor.
I have created lots of other newsgroups, though,
that are a formally recognized part of Usenet,
around 16 of them if I remember correctly.
Ideas I originated in that effort have been used by
others to create about 30 additional newsgroups,
last I counted.
> So, answer the questions, smart ass.
Nice try, dim-bulb, but I'm not under a geas to chew
your food for you. If you want an education, go earn
it like the rest of us did.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
Lots of claims there, no specifics, no evidence, no
credibility.
My contributions to the world, in contrast, are a
matter of public Usenet record. Let's see if you are
as smart as you say you are. Go find the list of
them, and provide a URL for them back to the group
here.
Until you can do that, you're just a witless
gormless faceless blow-hard.
Oh, and when low-lifes like you are involved, I go
by "Commander Dolan", just FYI, though that too is
an honorific.
xanthian.
As far as hints go, you sound remarkably like Julian
Francis Waldby when he's off his meds and bat-guano
insane, but so do lots of others of the world's
worthless and demented trash.
You are nothing special, though you delude yourself
that you are.
You are just another one of any dozen who together
cost a dime.
BigBalls
wrote:
>Mine net use experience is around thirty-three years
>old, and predates both the Internet and Usenet, much
>less the AlterNet.
>
>I began on the early ARPAnet.
Good for you. The question was how many years ago did you make your
groups. Real simple. Answer the question.
The Keeper of the Key to The Locks
wrote:
>
>I didn't create either of the news groups that are
>"mine", they were created by others in my honor.
You're a legend in your own mind.
Why am I not surprised?
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:
>You are nothing special, though you delude yourself
>that you are.
The part of your post which I snipped away shows you to be the one that
deludes yourself by thinking that you rate above that of E-1 grade twit.
You command nothing more than the growing stench that your slowly
decaying body is acquiring as you tick tock your final few years away.
Orr@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org George Orr
wrote:
>You are just another one of any dozen who together
>cost a dime.
My work keeps a select several hundred thousand lives safe.
I had you beat in my first year in my present position.
Now, I are experienced... yup. I have great value to those that count.
You matter not.
Patric Mueller
>> I don't know - *nobody* who's not on the DevTeam knows - why they are
>> taking so long.
>
> The same applies what you wrote above; sometimes members of the DevTeam
> signify why they are taking so long.
This is news to me. I've never been given hints why it's been so long
and I can't remember reading something like that in here.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> You are just another one of any dozen who
>> together cost a dime.
> My work keeps a select several hundred thousand
> lives safe.
Sadly for your boasting, I've been able to make a
much stronger claim since 1992, that my work _saves_
about 100,000 lives per year, worldwide.
That datum was conveyed to me, in appreciation, by
the PhD meteorologist, Dr. Charles Samson, who ran
the Navy tropical cyclone forecasting program which
my software work improved to that extent.
[Arcanely, the US Navy provides tropical cyclone
forecasting services for the bulk of the world's
oceans, other than the Atlantic, and for the
maritime nations bordering them.]
> I had you beat in my first year in my present
> position.
You wish. You have only brags with no details. I
have specifics which a diligent student can confirm.
Nor do my contributions stop with mere lifesaving,
that is one of several dozen "services to humanity"
I can claim. Look it up.
> Now, I are experienced... yup. I have great value
> to those that count.
Now, you are illiterate, but don't let that stop you
from your vapid and vacuous vaporware bragging.
> You matter not.
Strangely, I have a rather large number of people
who tell me otherwise, on a regular basis. Unlike
you, they have not joined the Darwin Award winners
by gelding themselves with a rusty spoon.
Unlike you, they are not reduced to making public
fools of themselves in pursuit of attention.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> You are nothing special, though you delude
>> yourself that you are.
> The part of your post which I snipped away shows
> you to be the one that deludes yourself by
> thinking that you rate above that of E-1 grade
> twit.
So, you're not yet able to locate the list on Usenet
of my contributions to humanity? You display the
'Net skills of a moron, hardly a surprise, given the
rest of your behavior.
> You command nothing more than the growing stench
> that your slowly decaying body is acquiring as you
> tick tock your final few years away.
My father's still alive, at age 93, so I have
comfortably more years life expectancy than you have
lifetime, or at least than you have _demonstrated_
intellectual maturity.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>> My net use experience is around thirty-three
>> years in extent, and predates both the Internet
>> and Usenet, much less the AlterNet.
>> I began on the early ARPAnet, in 1976.
> Good for you. The question was how many years ago
> did you make your groups.
I'm afraid you did not write comprehensibly any such
question. I take it you learned your simian grasp of
English off the back of cereal boxes?
> Real simple. Answer the question.
Chew your own food. I'm not about to do your 'Net
research for you.
The groups I created are a matter not only of public
record, but of public astonishment and controversy.
The accomplishments at the time broke many Usenet
newsgroup creation records.
You should have no trouble locating the information,
if you are anything but the worthless drudge you
present yourself to be.
xanthian.
Richard Bos
TheQuickBrownFox
wrote:
> > My work keeps a select several hundred thousand
> > lives safe.
>
>Sadly for your boasting, I've been able to make a
>much stronger claim since 1992, that my work _saves_
>about 100,000 lives per year, worldwide.
You missed the reading comprehension class.
You fail to understand what the term "select" means, and you fail to
note that I did not say I had saved them. I stated that I KEEP them
safe.
Your IQ has to be higher than 40 to grasp the meaning of the statement,
so I do not expect you to be able to decipher it.
BigBalls
wrote:
>You wish. You have only brags with no details. I
>have specifics which a diligent student can confirm.
Sorry, chump but you cannot equate improving weather modeling software
with "saving hundreds of thousands of lives per year".
If that stupid remark were true, there would be stats on how hundreds
of thousands per year died before your help came along.
Sorry, but the stats do not support your claim.
You have saved no one.
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:
>So, you're not yet able to locate the list on Usenet
>of my contributions to humanity? You display the
>'Net skills of a moron, hardly a surprise, given the
>rest of your behavior.
What makes you think that I would waste three seconds of my personal
time looking up anything regarding the level of apathy you live under?
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
wrote:
> but of public astonishment and controversy.
Bwuahahahahahaahahahah!
Richard Bos
> Derek Ray <de...@moot.its.only.a.spamtrap.org> wrote:
> > The second thing it should do is go through the buglist and fix all the
> > bugs it could, and immediately release; this would drag onboard everyone
> > who's been waiting for vanilla.)
>
> Let me quote Bill Gates: "The reason we come up with new versions is
> not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy[*]
> a new version I ever heard. When we do a new version we put in lots of
> new things that people are asking for."
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/17.44.html#subj11
>
> [*] for NetHack this obviously should read "play"
>
> Now, I don't quite agree with him - at least the bugs that cause
> crashes or are exploitable should be fixed - but did he or I got
> millions of people to use his software? There is certainly something
> to be learned from his success. ;-)
So let me get this right... you expect the DevTeam to handle a
multi-million advertising team, and a high-octane sleazy lawyer
department? Because those are what made Microsoft great, not the quality
of their software.
Richard
Janis Papanagnou
True, I am no [WinDOS-]sysadmin. (In our company the sysadmin wouldn't
see it your way, too. But we're just a small company, so you probably
have a larger data set of users to have another picture than I have.)
Janis
ha...@eyry.org
VioletaPachydermata <The One Eyed, One Horned Flyin' Purple People Eater> wrote:
> Is there a way to make a runtime engine for nethack that allows one to
>set a pointer to a directory with the un-compiled source for a given
>release, and "run" it un-compiled? Or could we compile certain segments
>and do this?
*shudder*
Dusty brain cells are trying to tell me about interpreted C from the
past, but there are *reasons* that it never went anywhere.
There are literally dozens of languages that I could pick up, edit, and
modify without even realizing which I was using. But C . . . I've
learned and forgotten it at least three times!
hawk
AlexO
> On 2009-08-03, RjY wrote:
>
> > Indeed not. I think the most likely outcome is that eventually some
> > variant will take over, as has happened with Crawl and Stone Soup.
> > However, one barrier to this transition is that when you search the
> > internet for nethack, it doesn't turn up any of the active variants.
> > (At least Google doesn't and sadly very few people use anything else.)
>
> As far as I know, neither active variant wishes to be $NEXTVERSION. (I
> can only speak positively about this for myself, but I'm sure Patric
> will be along shortly to enlighten us all on UnNethack.)
>
> This will probably be a bigger barrier than the Google thing, to be
> honest. (Of course, if an active variant _did_ wish to be $NEXTVERSION,
> the first thing it should do is reappropriate the Holy Name in some
> fashion, call itself Nethack 4.0, and thereby force the Dev Team into
> a confrontation where they could either yield or disclose their plans.
And that is the reason why the DevTeam is detrimental to Nethack.
Perhaps a confrontation such as you envision would be a good thing.
It has the potential to inject some life into Nethack development.
> Not that I've ever thought about it in the past or anything. (And no,
> this doesn't change what I said above. The reason I haven't done such a
> thing isn't because I'm waiting for public approval, it's because I
> _don't want to_.)
A pity. I can think of worse things than you and Patrick pooling
resources
and calling the result NH 4.0