<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>Does anyone know if Ryan has re-sent then new binaries to AV ?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sly<BR><BR>>>> Wargod@FragThe.Net 6/24/2006 8:57 am >>><BR>Very well said Jim ... it's so sad ...<BR><BR>I really had the hope that IW keeps supporting CoD2 when it was released, <BR>but it seems in our days money is more important then the community ...<BR><BR>I still remember when there was said, that CoD had not enough modders, but <BR>the Linux Binaries for CoD2 have to be developed/updated by non IW or AV <BR>Coders ...<BR><BR>strange world ...<BR><BR>Greetings!<BR>Martin<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "James Landi" <jim@landi.net><BR>To: <cod@icculus.org><BR>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:48 PM<BR>Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch<BR><BR><BR>> The reason is, IW is trying to save face because for what ever reason it<BR>> took so long for so little, not to mention they wont even fix the sum miss<BR>> match issue.<BR>><BR>> If they had waited and tested everything together and released the whole<BR>> package at the same time there would be more outcry the just us server<BR>> admins.<BR>><BR>> I'm almost sure we wont have to worry about it after we get the 1.3 patch<BR>> for Linux, as I truly feel we wont be getting any more fixes for a game <BR>> they<BR>> care nothing about.<BR>><BR>> When I say they, I mean the upper management who continue to sabotage all<BR>> the hard work guys like Brian, Ryan and the rest of the developers who <BR>> work<BR>> their butts off and truly love this game.<BR>><BR>> -Jim<BR>> Rudedog<BR>> FPSadmin.com<BR>><BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: claus@gamehotel.dk [mailto:claus@gamehotel.dk]<BR>> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:40 AM<BR>> To: cod@icculus.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch<BR>><BR>> Fully agree with Ian Mu who states an absolute simple and basal point wich<BR>> would have created<BR>> complete otherwise than a totally disaster release.<BR>><BR>> It should just not be an option to release a "half patch" like that - full<BR>> patch or no patch -<BR>> thats a real option.<BR>><BR>> This incident has leaded to a destruction of the future for COD2 in our<BR>> firm.<BR>><BR>> Our last server are soon to be forced closed by us, and wont be up again -<BR>> CoD2 is off our product<BR>> list - there will have to be a surprisingly and unexpected rise in demand<BR>> before we will bring back<BR>> CoD2 in our product line - and even there we will be full with dare by <BR>> doing<BR>> it - and certantly not<BR>> before a complete succesfull future release has completed once more - if <BR>> not<BR>> for updates then for<BR>> the proof of future stabil release proces.<BR>><BR>> In other words, we wont tuch it before we are proven it can be done the<BR>> right way!<BR>><BR>> Clearly such a release proces failure could and should be used positively <BR>> as<BR>> this year's "most to<BR>> be learned from incident" - this truly should have be done otherwise.<BR>><BR>> Regards<BR>><BR>> Claus Jørgensen<BR>> gamehotel<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: Ian mu<BR>> To: cod@icculus.org<BR>> Sent: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:51:49 +0100<BR>> Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch<BR>><BR>> Problem is, people would probably leak it etc, and its then outside of <BR>> Ryans<BR>> hands. It's not really a viable option imo.<BR>><BR>> Realistically there is only one sensible solution, Windows and Linux <BR>> 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>><BR>><BR>><BR>> <BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>