RadQuake Final

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:01 am

There's plenty to improve on. I have no idea why Speud labeled this as "final".

mankrip · Post by **mankrip** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:09 am

Ian mentioned that he would stop working on RADQuake when he get saving working.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:11 am

im not the one who labeled it final, nor the one who decided it would be the last version.

Post by **Quzar** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:26 am

then again, ian intended for this version to have more in it and to be worked on for longer.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:33 am

im not the one who labeled it final, nor the one who decided it would be the last version.

So Ian's not working on it anymore? Oh well, no big deal. Just curious.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:06 am

quzar wrote:then again, ian intended for this version to have more in it and to be worked on for longer.

what do you mean exactly? i didnt decided to release it alone, we discussed a lot with ian before i knew it was ok i could release it. also he wanted it to be released for a while, im the one who delayed it again and again, he was already satisfied with the beta i sent him, said it was complete and he wanted to be the last version.

Post by **Quzar** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:16 am

im talking before the whole buisness with fragger.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:46 am

err, the whole buisness with fragger has little to do with this release. but since you want to bring that back thats not me who said i didnt want to see fragger release his own version with his changes after i released mine. all i said was fraggers changes and mine couldnt be used in one version without modifying what i done, and it wasnt a little modification actually.

Post by **Christuserloeser** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:09 am

Speud in his funny RADQuake readme wrote:I'd like to mention here a few people that didn't help, their negative, unrespectful and ungrateful attitude is a shame for the DC scene.
Here they are: Wraggster, souLLy, ace, Ender, Butters and Christuserloeser.
There were probably some more people but those are the ones I can think of at the moment.
Also dcemulation.org and dcemu.co.uk tend to bash some devvers for personnal reasons, so if you are a devver willing to contribute i don't recommand these places.

I feel honored

speud wrote:err, the whole buisness with fragger has little to do with this release. but since you want to bring that back thats not me who said bla bla bla

Who wants to bring back what!?

Chris

ajay() · Post by **ajay()** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:57 am

I should know better than to contribute to the general negativity, but to include negative comments about people, but not a simple "how to use" seems just ridiculous - what's the point of releasing stuff anyway?
I just don't get dreamcast people sometimes, people's inability to create without competing and trying to win petty battles is just amazing.
It would be true to say that a guide to use radquake is avaliable on wesbites, well so is the ridiculous battle.
I should've pm'ed this but it's only taken my a couple of months to realise why I didn't visit here too often for a while, and I think I'll just not bother - the devvers and the forumites (with a couple of excpetions) are the same, and this scene is no nearer growing up than it was 2 years ago.
It's a bigger shame 'cos the quake forum used to be fairly devoid of all this crap, and we used to tick along quite nicely.
Maturity seems a rare commodity it appears.

And yes, my dad is bigger than all of yours.

ace · Post by **ace** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:45 am

Also, for the record, I don't even remember souLLy or Christuserloeser bashing you in any way, shape, or form.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:40 am

souLLy's post is still in the thread where the conflict around my decision about fraggers changes happened, also christuserloeser sent me some PMs that really dispointed me. the most disapointing is he suddenly became nicer when i said i'd release it anyway.

> ajay i didn't do this to win a battle or anything, it's a warning to those who would like to contribute to these sites and could be rewarded by humiliating badges for no reason.

also i didn't start this topic, i didn't want to make an official release here. it was originally posted in another thread that was mentionning RADquake. if you want to discuss about the new release feel free to do it in the official thread at IMR tech.
now can a mod lock this topic?

MrSiggler · Post by **MrSiggler** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:05 pm

Wow. I probably shouldn't even bother posting this, but wow.

Speud, Reaper, can you two get any more childish?
Putting those comments in your readme?

Grow up.

And you want us to lock this topic, so people can go to Reapers forums to disscus it?
I don't think i'll be doing that. If they want to discuss this *quake* release in the *quake dev* forum, by all means, they can.

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:10 pm

I shouldn't bother posting this either. I should just leave it alone, and let you guys sort it out yourselves. However, my patience is wearing thin...

Why would we lock this topic? There's no reason to do so, and as you say you didn't start it. The only possible reason to lock this topic is that you want all discussion pertaining to this release to occur somewhere you can control and censor it. Well, too bad. That isn't going to happen.

And if anyone does lock it, I'm just going to open it again.

Anyway, having looked at this release, I have one main comment. Including crap like that in the readme, and then complaining bitterly when people remove it, is just childish.

For one, you have no right to demand that anyone include your readme with the source or the binaries. Either the readme has the same licence as the Quake source code, which means we can modify it as much as we want to (or remove it completely), or it's just a random text file with no licence, in which case we can simply remove it. It's not part of Quake, so it's not required.

Second, you can't place additional restrictions on what we can do with the source or the binary. That's the whole point of the GPL, and that's why id chose to licence the Quake engine under the GPL instead of a BSD-style licence.

That means the little "You may not distribute this without this readme" means precisely nothing. Or, if you want to be really mean about it, it means that you're violating the GPL by adding additional restrictions, therefore you have no right to distribute the code at all.

As for the content... Absolutely pathetic. I suggest you keep your personal vendetta to yourself from now on. If you have issues with anyone, take it up with them.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:11 pm

sure they can, they can also start a new topic since im not the one who made it. i didnt want to start a topic about this release here because i knew it will turn like that: people would talk about me instead of RADquake.

also ian didnt do anything, i am the one who decided to put this comment in my readme, and your attitude (removing my comments from the readme, refusing to lock a thread that is going way off topic) just tend to aprove my comment.

butters · Post by **butters** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:18 pm

I will say that it's possible to put a license just on the readme to keep it from being altered, but that wouldn't stop anyone from just making a new readme.

MrSiggler · Post by **MrSiggler** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:18 pm

speud wrote:also ian didnt do anything, i am the one who decided to put this comment in my readme, and your attitude (removing my comments from the readme, refusing to lock a thread that is going way off topic) just tend to aprove my comment.

Alright, so not only did you go and cry in your readme, but you did so in a group project, without asking the other member(s)? Well then.. that makes you look much less childish

BlackAura · Post by **BlackAura** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:19 pm

also ian didnt do anything, i am the one who decided to put this comment in my readme, and your attitude (removing my comments from the readme, refusing to lock a thread that is going way off topic) just tend to aprove my comment.

Not really, no.

It's generally felt that those comments have no place in the readme. You have no right to stop us removing them, or even removing the readme entirely. There is no problem with that. Had you included links to porn sites, copyrighted data from Quake, racist/sexist/whateverist or otherwise inflammatory abuse, or anything else like that, it too would have been removed. You may want to include garbage with the release, but that doesn't mean that everyone else must do the same.

Anyway, you knew that comment would provoke a negative reaction, but you included it anyway. Since it's part of the release (and you insist that it not be removed), I'd say discussion of it is on topic.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:22 pm

this is my contribution to the project, hence why i put my name in the readme. so this is my personnal opinion in this file. ian was aware of that, he read the file before aproving the release, he just didnt ask me to include it.

also i dont cry, thats the way you prefere to read it. i just talk about the people and sites that didnt help so people like me who would like to contribute to the DC scene are aware of my problems. then if they decide to take this in account or not is up to them.

speud · Post by **speud** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:25 pm

Had you included links to porn sites, copyrighted data from Quake, racist/sexist/whateverist or otherwise inflammatory abuse, or anything else like that, it too would have been removed. You may want to include garbage with the release, but that doesn't mean that everyone else must do the same.

nobody forces this site to miror the file and talk about this release afaik.