<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5346.5" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>Its nothing short of disgusting that 2 weeks after a patch is released the Linux files are still not available.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Whatever the reason it shouldn't be this way.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sly<BR><BR>>>> mu.llamas@gmail.com 6/23/2006 3:51 pm >>><BR>Problem is, people would probably leak it etc, and its then outside of Ryans<BR>hands. It's not really a viable option imo.<BR><BR>Realistically there is only one sensible solution, Windows and Linux patches<BR>should not only be released at the same, but just as importantly should be<BR>tested together. There's no point releasing a Windows patch that later a<BR>Linux version could find a hole in. Windows clients needed to be tested on<BR>Windows and Linux servers before they hit the public together. It's still<BR>amazing this basic process doesn't sink in to them.<BR><BR><BR>On 6/23/06, Andre Lorbach <alorbach@ro1.adiscon.com> wrote:<BR>><BR>> I don't understand their policy to develop and test it in a private beta<BR>> environment.<BR>> If Ryan would just be allowed to run a beta program on his own with us,<BR>> we all would happily test and ryan could find and fix the bugs much<BR>> faster as now. And once the beta is stable enough, it could be added to<BR>> the official download site.<BR>><BR>> There is no good reason to do it this way, except if you want to piss<BR>> off the server admins ;)<BR>><BR>> --<BR>> deltaray<BR>><BR>> >> Cod Mailinglist <<<BR>> - List-Post: <mailto:cod@icculus.org> -<BR>> - List-Help: <mailto:cod-help@icculus.org> -<BR>> - List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cod-unsubscribe@icculus.org> -<BR>> - List-Subscribe: <mailto:cod-subscribe@icculus.org> -<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: rmount@gmail.com [mailto:rmount@gmail.com] On Behalf Of<BR>> > Robert Mount<BR>> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:47 PM<BR>> > To: cod@icculus.org<BR>> > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch<BR>> ><BR>> > Have you read Ryan's website at all? I think you'd be hard<BR>> > pressed to find a Windows system around ;-)<BR>> ><BR>> > In all seriousness, Ryan is one person. Activision probably<BR>> > sets this up in their lab where they can get any number of<BR>> > systems to connect to it.<BR>> ><BR>> > Speculating about what the show-stopper was at this point is futile.<BR>> > Based on the fact that it was called a "show-stopper" leads<BR>> > me to believe that more than<BR>> ><BR>> > On 6/22/06, colin@bell-pc.com <colin@bell-pc.com> wrote:<BR>> > > Hmm i seriously doubt that the patch that Ryan submitted to AV for<BR>> > > approval was kicking clients within 10 secs. Do u think he doesnt<BR>> > > check the thing himself ? .<BR>> > > Probably a minor bug that most clients wouldnt even have<BR>> > noticed. Give<BR>> > > the guy some credit<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Most clients that play the game at all have upgraded to 1.3<BR>> > and so it<BR>> > > is now impossible for them to connect to a Linux server running 1.2<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > > From: "Stierenoog" <stierenoog@silverbulletclan.nl><BR>> > > To: <cod@icculus.org><BR>> > > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:06 PM<BR>> > > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > > So you prefer a 1.3 server kicking people within 10 seconds i.e.<BR>> > > > over a<BR>> > > > 1.2 server that can be used to play normal on?<BR>> > > > I don't quite follow you. Just relax the binaries will be<BR>> > released<BR>> > > > soon, just have some patience.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > colin@bell-pc.com wrote:<BR>> > > >> Why doesnt someone just leak the the 1.3 linux patch so<BR>> > we can get<BR>> > > >> on with upgrading our servers. Seems to me that that 99% of the<BR>> > > >> linux server providers out there would prefer this than<BR>> > having to<BR>> > > >> hang around waiting with empty servers.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >> I know a few have commented that we dont need another 1.2a b, c,<BR>> > > >> etc. but something that would allow 1.3 patched clients<BR>> > to at least<BR>> > > >> join the server would be a whole lot better than sweet<BR>> > fanny adams.<BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > >><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > --<BR>> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>> > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release Date:<BR>> > > > 21/06/2006<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>