[cod] 1.3 patch

[Neil Sheridan]

Does anyone know if Ryan has re-sent then new binaries to AV ?
 
Sly

>>> Wargod at FragThe.Net 6/24/2006 8:57 am >>>
Very well said Jim ... it's so sad ...

I really had the hope that IW keeps supporting CoD2 when it was
released, 
but it seems in our days money is more important then the community
...

I still remember when there was said, that CoD had not enough modders,
but 
the Linux Binaries for CoD2 have to be developed/updated by non IW or
AV 
Coders ...

strange world ...

Greetings!
Martin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Landi" <jim at landi.net>
To: <cod at icculus.org>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch


> The reason is, IW is trying to save face because for what ever reason
it
> took so long for so little, not to mention they wont even fix the sum
miss
> match issue.
>
> If they had waited and tested everything together and released the
whole
> package at the same time there would be more outcry the just us
server
> admins.
>
> I'm almost sure we wont have to worry about it after we get the 1.3
patch
> for Linux, as I truly feel we wont be getting any more fixes for a
game 
> they
> care nothing about.
>
> When I say they, I mean the upper management who continue to sabotage
all
> the hard work guys like Brian, Ryan and the rest of the developers
who 
> work
> their butts off and truly love this game.
>
> -Jim
> Rudedog
> FPSadmin.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: claus at gamehotel.dk [mailto:claus at gamehotel.dk]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:40 AM
> To: cod at icculus.org
> Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
>
> Fully agree with Ian Mu who states an absolute simple and basal point
wich
> would have created
> complete otherwise than a totally disaster release.
>
> It should just not be an option to release a "half patch" like that -
full
> patch or no patch -
> thats a real option.
>
> This incident has leaded to a destruction of the future for COD2 in
our
> firm.
>
> Our last server are soon to be forced closed by us, and wont be up
again -
> CoD2 is off our product
> list - there will have to be a surprisingly and unexpected rise in
demand
> before we will bring back
> CoD2 in our product line - and even there we will be full with dare
by 
> doing
> it - and certantly not
> before a complete succesfull future release has completed once more -
if 
> not
> for updates then for
> the proof of future stabil release proces.
>
> In other words, we wont tuch it before we are proven it can be done
the
> right way!
>
> Clearly such a release proces failure could and should be used
positively 
> as
> this year's "most to
> be learned from incident" - this truly should have be done
otherwise.
>
> Regards
>
> Claus Jørgensen
> gamehotel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ian mu
> To:  cod at icculus.org
> Sent:  Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:51:49 +0100
> Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
>
> Problem is, people would probably leak it etc, and its then outside
of 
> Ryans
> hands. It's not really a viable option imo.
>
> Realistically there is only one sensible solution, Windows and Linux

> patches
> should not only be released at the same, but just as importantly
should be
> tested together. There's no point releasing a Windows patch that
later a
> Linux version could find a hole in. Windows clients needed to be
tested on
> Windows and Linux servers before they hit the public together. It's
still
> amazing this basic process doesn't sink in to them.
>
>
> On 6/23/06, Andre Lorbach <alorbach at ro1.adiscon.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand their policy to develop and test it in a private
beta
>> environment.
>> If Ryan would just be allowed to run a beta program on his own with
us,
>> we all would happily test and ryan could find and fix the bugs much
>> faster as now. And once the beta is stable enough, it could be added
to
>> the official download site.
>>
>> There is no good reason to do it this way, except if you want to
piss
>> off the server admins ;)
>>
>> --
>> deltaray
>>
>> >> Cod Mailinglist <<
>> - List-Post: <mailto:cod at icculus.org> -
>> - List-Help: <mailto:cod-help at icculus.org> -
>> - List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org> -
>> - List-Subscribe: <mailto:cod-subscribe at icculus.org> -
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: rmount at gmail.com [mailto:rmount at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> > Robert Mount
>> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:47 PM
>> > To: cod at icculus.org
>> > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
>> >
>> > Have you read Ryan's website at all?  I think you'd be hard
>> > pressed to find a Windows system around ;-)
>> >
>> > In all seriousness, Ryan is one person.  Activision probably
>> > sets this up in their lab where they can get any number of
>> > systems to connect to it.
>> >
>> > Speculating about what the show-stopper was at this point is
futile.
>> > Based on the fact that it was called a "show-stopper" leads
>> > me to believe that more than
>> >
>> > On 6/22/06, colin at bell-pc.com <colin at bell-pc.com> wrote:
>> > > Hmm i seriously doubt that the patch that Ryan submitted to AV
for
>> > > approval was kicking clients within 10 secs. Do u think he
doesnt
>> > > check the thing himself ? .
>> > > Probably a minor bug that most clients wouldnt even have
>> > noticed. Give
>> > > the guy some credit
>> > >
>> > > Most clients that play the game at all have upgraded to 1.3
>> > and so it
>> > > is now impossible for them to connect to a Linux server running
1.2
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: "Stierenoog" <stierenoog at silverbulletclan.nl>
>> > > To: <cod at icculus.org>
>> > > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:06 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > So you prefer a 1.3 server kicking people within 10 seconds
i.e.
>> > > > over a
>> > > > 1.2 server that can be used to play normal on?
>> > > > I don't quite follow you. Just relax the binaries will be
>> > released
>> > > > soon, just have some patience.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > colin at bell-pc.com wrote:
>> > > >> Why doesnt someone just leak the the 1.3 linux patch so
>> > we can get
>> > > >> on with upgrading our servers. Seems to me that that 99% of
the
>> > > >> linux server providers out there would prefer this than
>> > having to
>> > > >> hang around waiting with empty servers.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I know a few have commented that we dont need another 1.2a b,
c,
>> > > >> etc. but something that would allow 1.3 patched clients
>> > to at least
>> > > >> join the server would be a whole lot better than sweet
>> > fanny adams.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release
Date:
>> > > > 21/06/2006
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://icculus.org/pipermail/cod/attachments/20060624/30c50339/attachment.htm>