Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
SVN-HEAD binaries download
thomas:
--- Quote from: rickg22 on December 06, 2005, 04:14:56 pm ---And Yiannis, please try to be a little softer the next time (just a suggestion).
--- End quote ---
I don't think he was entirely unjustified in his reply, although it was not Revvy's fault alone - it is a general attitude problem which is slowly evolving. Revvy was just unlucky to be the person getting it today.
Those repeated implied threats (whether people mean them that way or not) are as annoying as the "you owe me some" attitude that some other people express. None of the developers here are getting paid or have any benefits for providing this software, so it is quite silly to try to blackmail them.
I remember well this other person posting something like "code completion in MinGW Developer Studio is so much better than in Code::Blocks, you should think about changing it, or I'll use VS Express 2005".
That's not only plain outraegous (who do those people think they are?), but these comments are also unproductive and stupid. First, if MinGW Studio is really that good, then why switch to VS Express? Second, if they were really thinking about using another IDE which is so much better, then why do they bother.
If people come and tell you "Hey sucker! You do as I want or I'll use a competitor's product", then you are perfectly right to tell them off, especially if you get no retaliation for your work. Personally, I have even been showing customers who would havepaid me the finger when they started like this, and I have never run into a problem with that.
Much depends on how you say something. Revvy, if you had just said "Oh, I noticed that cmd.exe is hardcoded, for Win98 this should be...", then it would probably have been fixed within very short time. If you browse the forums, you will find that most issues that can be fixed easily are addressed within very short time (often only a few hours). And let's not forget that we're talking about an in-development version.
On the other hand, bailing out "Bah, nothing works, I quit! I'll go Microsoft" only provoke a negative reaction from people, and while they're typing their flames, they don't write code ;)
me22:
--- Quote from: thomas on December 06, 2005, 05:19:35 pm ---and while they're typing their flames, they don't write code ;)
--- End quote ---
:)
Well said.
mandrav:
--- Quote from: rickg22 on December 06, 2005, 04:14:56 pm ---Revvy, look, I don't think any of us developers has Win98 to test and stuff, we appreciate your effort to make it work on that platform. The reason we can't release a workable version *right now* is that there are still many bugs to tackle. It's just about being patient and having to bear with an open source product *still* in beta. But since the feature is already being implemented, there's nothing to worry about, right?
--- End quote ---
Rick, as I already said, I do test releases on win98. That's probably why the SHFolder problem has not been mentioned before. That's also why, I told you and you added in the downloads section the note about win98 and gdb.exe. Because I *do* test it on win98...
--- Quote from: rickg22 on December 06, 2005, 04:14:56 pm ---And Yiannis, please try to be a little softer the next time (just a suggestion).
--- End quote ---
I was going to reply to you, but just read Thomas' post (above yours). It's exactly what I would 've said...
Oh, and Rick don't forget: you 're supposed to be the good guy while I 'm the bad guy ;)
Urxae:
--- Quote from: mandrav on December 06, 2005, 12:27:47 pm ---Mispunt is referring to using GetConsoleShell() under both platforms. For windows it would be cmd /c arguments while for linux it would be /bin/sh 'arguments' (notice the quotes).
Your solution is to revert to the previous way, which does not allow for builtin shell commands (i.e. for windows, no command shell).
--- End quote ---
I already admitted it didn't allow for builtin shell commands, but I was making the point that my version didn't add any quotes.
Also, on both unix-like environments I have access to (a fedora system and msys on win2k) single and double quotes seem to do the same thing:
--- Code: ---s010625@svstud:~/tmp$ ls -l
total 8
-rw------- 1 s010625 student 0 Dec 6 17:48 testfile
s010625@svstud:~/tmp$ sh -c 'ls -l'
total 8
-rw------- 1 s010625 student 0 Dec 6 17:48 testfile
s010625@svstud:~/tmp$ sh -c "ls -l"
total 8
-rw------- 1 s010625 student 0 Dec 6 17:48 testfile
s010625@svstud:~/tmp$ cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.12-1.1372_FC3smp (bhcompile@tweety.build.redhat.com) (gcc version 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22)) #1 SMP Fri Jul 15 01:30:03 EDT 2005
s010625@svstud:~$ sh --version
GNU bash, version 3.00.14(1)-release (i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Frits@S010625:/d/tmp$ ls -l
total 2
-rw-r--r-- 1 Frits Administ 73 Dec 6 17:49 testfile
Frits@S010625:/d/tmp$ cat testfile
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 Frits Administ 0 Dec 6 17:49 testfile
Frits@S010625:/d/tmp$ ls -l
total 2
-rw-r--r-- 1 Frits Administ 73 Dec 6 17:49 testfile
Frits@S010625:/d/tmp$ sh -c 'ls -l'
total 2
-rw-r--r-- 1 Frits Administ 73 Dec 6 17:49 testfile
Frits@S010625:/d/tmp$ sh -c "ls -l"
total 2
-rw-r--r-- 1 Frits Administ 73 Dec 6 17:49 testfile
Frits@S010625:/d/tmp$ sh --version
GNU bash, version 2.04.0(1)-release (i686-pc-msys)
Copyright 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
--- End code ---
As double quotes work on Windows as well, maybe those should be used? Or is there a difference on any/all *nix systems? Is this a bash-only thing?
Oh, and you might want to escape special characters on the command lines if you use a shell. Commands can contain quotes and other special characters which might not work otherwise...
mandrav:
Anyway, we removed cmd.exe completely (i.e. reverted the way it was before). It seems it caused other problems too.
So, Revvy, when Therion creates another snapshot your problem will be gone :).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version