I've posted a news item on VROC - http://vroc.net/
much information as I can about the premature publication of test
versions of GPL 1.2.
I've also updated and expanded the preliminary GPL 1.2 FAQ. Since Randy
Cassidy has already posted the GPL 1.2 readme on r.a.s, I believe it's
appropriate to publish the FAQ in anticipation of the definitive release
of GPL 1.2. This way, at least people will be able to look forward to
all the good stuff until it arrives!
Hopefully the fixes and new features in GPL 1.2 will prove to be of such
value that the GPL community will forgive the premature publication of
test versions!
Alison
Remove the spam blocker NOSPAM to email me.
[link lost in import]
First I'd like to say how much I appreciate all that Alison has contributed
to the world of Grand Prix Legends. But I take strong exception to the
notion we should forgive those responsible for premature publication
(leaking?) of test versions of the fix. We should thank them for doing what
Sierra should have done long ago.
The problems created by the 1.1 patch are known to have been fixed early on.
If there is a good reason for not releasing that beta fix right away, I
would like to hear it. Companies who really care about their customer base
release beta patches before official fixes are complete all the time.
The suits at Sierra have seriously damaged the loyalty of the Grand Prix
Legends community and the reputation of Papyrus by deliberately delaying the
release of the fix. One has to wonder if that isn't the intent sinse N3 has
been released in the mean time. Not much of a reach I think for the motives
of pea brained, short sighted, bean counting suits that run companies like
Sierra.
The good work done by people like Alison Hine and Randy Cassidy is not
served by corporate decision makers who deny users the fruits of their
labors.
Marty
Quoted text (15 lines)
> I've posted a news item on VROC - http://vroc.net/ - encapsulating as > much information as I can about the premature publication of test > versions of GPL 1.2. > I've also updated and expanded the preliminary GPL 1.2 FAQ. Since Randy > Cassidy has already posted the GPL 1.2 readme on r.a.s, I believe it's > appropriate to publish the FAQ in anticipation of the definitive release > of GPL 1.2. This way, at least people will be able to look forward to > all the good stuff until it arrives! > Hopefully the fixes and new features in GPL 1.2 will prove to be of such > value that the GPL community will forgive the premature publication of > test versions! > Alisonhere! here!
you said it bub.....
............and also too strong!
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Alison, you know we will forgive you of *anything* oh Goddess of GPL.
8-)
*Peter* 8-)
Quoted text (10 lines)
>First I'd like to say how much I appreciate all that Alison has contributed >to the world of Grand Prix Legends. But I take strong exception to the >notion we should forgive those responsible for premature publication >(leaking?) of test versions of the fix. We should thank them for doing what >Sierra should have done long ago. >The problems created by the 1.1 patch are known to have been fixed early on. >If there is a good reason for not releasing that beta fix right away, I >would like to hear it. Companies who really care about their customer base >release beta patches before official fixes are complete all the time.As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as
two weeks ago.
How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix?
// Rolf
Sorry to dispute you Marty but I own a few Sierra titles. (Mostly domestic,
cooking and such.) GPL is, by far, the cream of the crop when it comes to
technical support and customer relations. :-)
--
Mark Jeangerard
www.soundchaserweb.com
New Mexico USA
> As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as
> two weeks ago.
> How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix?
That's an easy one.. Because someone who has no clue said so. hehe,
see how they jumped on the 1.2 patch and said that since sierra of
germany put it out that it was official?
--
=========================================
Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
=========================================
http://members.xoom.com/BarlowRacing/
Racing online with the help of......
Race Communications Association
Holodyne Engineering
Mystic Music
(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)
> As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as
> two weeks ago.
> How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix?
I know because the major problem created by the 1.1 patch (slomo / new sync
method) was known to have been fixed very soon after it's release. Yes, I've
been leaked a couple of the fixes and the problem is not only fixed but online
play is much improved over 1.0. GPL became practically unusable for many with
1.1.
My point here is that there is no good excuse for Sierra not to release that fix
as an unsupported beta, IF, they really wanted GPL customers to be happy with
the product. They can dink around with the final official fix as long as they
want to, fixing other relative minor bugs and adding whistles and bells.
Good software companies who really care about customer satisfaction don't
hesitate to get temporary fixes out when the problem is as serious as this one
is.
So why is Sierra doing this? I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
that it isn't just stupidity...partly stupidity but not completely. My guess is
the truth of the matter lies with the effect on their sales of their major cash
cow, N3. I've heard N3 still isn't available in Europe.
Marty
You make my point Mark...the difference between the suits at Sierra who own
Papyrus and control the resourses, and the creative/technical people at Papy
who gave us GPL and are not permitted to release the fix for 1.1.
Marty
Quoted text (19 lines)
> Sorry to dispute you Marty but I own a few Sierra titles. (Mostly domestic, > cooking and such.) GPL is, by far, the cream of the crop when it comes to > technical support and customer relations. :-) > -- > Mark Jeangerard > www.soundchaserweb.com > New Mexico USA > > First I'd like to say how much I appreciate all that Alison has > contributed > > to the world of Grand Prix Legends. But I take strong exception to the > > notion we should forgive those responsible for premature publication > > (leaking?) of test versions of the fix. We should thank them for doing > what > > Sierra should have done long ago<snip>My previous point is that Papy didn't throw out Quick fixes even
BEFORE Sierra bought them up. It just isn't in the Business model that
company follows. Yes they found the problem quickly. But...They have
something like 5 different versions to support and the testing can get
pretty nit-picky. So while you may want to call in Scully and Mulder to
uncover the *** at Sierra, I just don't see it.
Having said all that... :) I will admit that Sierra hasn't allocated
funds to place patching GPL very high on Papy's priorities. I believe
the 1.1 patch was done 'after hours' as all of Papy's resources were
focused on N3 and NL. So in THAT respect you might be correct in saying
Sierra is holding up development of the patch but I'd still say Papy
just doesn't rush patch releases. From Sierra's point of view, from a
business perspective...GPL must have been a grand failure. Do you throw
good money after bad?
Quoted text (28 lines)
> You make my point Mark...the difference between the suits at Sierra who own > Papyrus and control the resourses, and the creative/technical people at Papy > who gave us GPL and are not permitted to release the fix for 1.1. > Marty > > Sorry to dispute you Marty but I own a few Sierra titles. (Mostly domestic, > > cooking and such.) GPL is, by far, the cream of the crop when it comes to > > technical support and customer relations. :-) > > -- > > Mark Jeangerard > > www.soundchaserweb.com > > New Mexico USA > > > First I'd like to say how much I appreciate all that Alison has > > contributed > > > to the world of Grand Prix Legends. But I take strong exception to the > > > notion we should forgive those responsible for premature publication > > > (leaking?) of test versions of the fix. We should thank them for doing > > what > > > Sierra should have done long ago<snip>Quoted text (14 lines)
> My previous point is that Papy didn't throw out Quick fixes even > BEFORE Sierra bought them up. It just isn't in the Business model that > company follows. Yes they found the problem quickly. But...They have > something like 5 different versions to support and the testing can get > pretty nit-picky. So while you may want to call in Scully and Mulder to > uncover the *** at Sierra, I just don't see it. > Having said all that... :) I will admit that Sierra hasn't allocated > funds to place patching GPL very high on Papy's priorities. I believe > the 1.1 patch was done 'after hours' as all of Papy's resources were > focused on N3 and NL. So in THAT respect you might be correct in saying > Sierra is holding up development of the patch but I'd still say Papy > just doesn't rush patch releases. From Sierra's point of view, from a > business perspective...GPL must have been a grand failure. Do you throw > good money after bad?Quoted text (28 lines)
> > You make my point Mark...the difference between the suits at Sierra who own > > Papyrus and control the resourses, and the creative/technical people at Papy > > who gave us GPL and are not permitted to release the fix for 1.1. > > Marty > > > Sorry to dispute you Marty but I own a few Sierra titles. (Mostly domestic, > > > cooking and such.) GPL is, by far, the cream of the crop when it comes to > > > technical support and customer relations. :-) > > > -- > > > Mark Jeangerard > > > www.soundchaserweb.com > > > New Mexico USA > > > > First I'd like to say how much I appreciate all that Alison has > > > contributed > > > > to the world of Grand Prix Legends. But I take strong exception to the > > > > notion we should forgive those responsible for premature publication > > > > (leaking?) of test versions of the fix. We should thank them for doing > > > what > > > > Sierra should have done long ago<snip>Quoted text (15 lines)
> > As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as > > two weeks ago. > > How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix? > I know because the major problem created by the 1.1 patch (slomo / new sync > method) was known to have been fixed very soon after it's release. Yes, I've > been leaked a couple of the fixes and the problem is not only fixed but online > play is much improved over 1.0. GPL became practically unusable for many with > 1.1. > My point here is that there is no good excuse for Sierra not to release that fix > as an unsupported beta, IF, they really wanted GPL customers to be happy with > the product. They can dink around with the final official fix as long as they > want to, fixing other relative minor bugs and adding whistles and bells.> > As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as
> > two weeks ago.
> > How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix?
> I know because the major problem created by the 1.1 patch (slomo / new sync
> method) was known to have been fixed very soon after it's release. Yes, I've
> been leaked a couple of the fixes and the problem is not only fixed but online
> play is much improved over 1.0. GPL became practically unusable for many with
> 1.1.
> My point here is that there is no good excuse for Sierra not to release that fix
> as an unsupported beta, IF, they really wanted GPL customers to be happy with
> the product. They can dink around with the final official fix as long as they
> want to, fixing other relative minor bugs and adding whistles and bells.
> Good software companies who really care about customer satisfaction don't
> hesitate to get temporary fixes out when the problem is as serious as this one
> is.
> So why is Sierra doing this? I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
> that it isn't just stupidity...partly stupidity but not completely. My guess is
> the truth of the matter lies with the effect on their sales of their major cash
> cow, N3. I've heard N3 still isn't available in Europe.
> Marty
I seem to remember reading several posts from Alison Hine and
others,that the GPL patches are being mostly done by Randy Cassidy on his
OWN time, not work time. This certainly would help to explain the rather
long develop and testing time.
But the fact still remains that Randy and company continue to stand
behind and develop gpl.
Joel Willstein
Quoted text (29 lines)
> > > As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as > > > two weeks ago. > > > How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix? > > I know because the major problem created by the 1.1 patch (slomo / new sync > > method) was known to have been fixed very soon after it's release. Yes, I've > > been leaked a couple of the fixes and the problem is not only fixed but online > > play is much improved over 1.0. GPL became practically unusable for many with > > 1.1. > > My point here is that there is no good excuse for Sierra not to release that fix > > as an unsupported beta, IF, they really wanted GPL customers to be happy with > > the product. They can dink around with the final official fix as long as they > > want to, fixing other relative minor bugs and adding whistles and bells. > And who would have been the first to start whining if ever there would have been an > unforseen problem with the patch's patch just because they didn't take enough time > to test it thoroughly? I think most people underestimate the effort it takes to get > a product (especially software) tested properly. Creating software is one thing, > getting it solid is a total different story! > How much credibility would Sierra/Papyrus earn to release patch upon patch? > Why'd you think they use a Beta-testteam? I think that's the main reason we're > still very happy with GPl1! > Let's face it: If FF wouldn't have been that fantastic you could stil do with the > original. It almost hasn't got any bugs. Compare this to for example MGPRS2, in no > time they had released 6 patches!!!!! > Jan.Quoted text (44 lines)
> > > As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late > as > > > two weeks ago. > > > How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the > fix? > > I know because the major problem created by the 1.1 patch (slomo / new > sync > > method) was known to have been fixed very soon after it's release. Yes, > I've > > been leaked a couple of the fixes and the problem is not only fixed but > online > > play is much improved over 1.0. GPL became practically unusable for many > with > > 1.1. > > My point here is that there is no good excuse for Sierra not to release > that fix > > as an unsupported beta, IF, they really wanted GPL customers to be happy > with > > the product. They can dink around with the final official fix as long as > they > > want to, fixing other relative minor bugs and adding whistles and bells. > > Good software companies who really care about customer satisfaction don't > > hesitate to get temporary fixes out when the problem is as serious as this > one > > is. > > So why is Sierra doing this? I'm willing to give them the benefit of the > doubt > > that it isn't just stupidity...partly stupidity but not completely. My > guess is > > the truth of the matter lies with the effect on their sales of their major > cash > > cow, N3. I've heard N3 still isn't available in Europe. > > Marty > I seem to remember reading several posts from Alison Hine and > others,that the GPL patches are being mostly done by Randy Cassidy on his > OWN time, not work time. This certainly would help to explain the rather > long develop and testing time.Quoted text (24 lines)
>> As far as I know the beta team (incl Alison) were still testing as late as >> two weeks ago. >> How do you know that Sierra has deliberately delayed the release of the fix? >I know because the major problem created by the 1.1 patch (slomo / new sync >method) was known to have been fixed very soon after it's release. Yes, I've >been leaked a couple of the fixes and the problem is not only fixed but online >play is much improved over 1.0. GPL became practically unusable for many with >1.1. >My point here is that there is no good excuse for Sierra not to release that fix >as an unsupported beta, IF, they really wanted GPL customers to be happy with >the product. They can dink around with the final official fix as long as they >want to, fixing other relative minor bugs and adding whistles and bells. >Good software companies who really care about customer satisfaction don't >hesitate to get temporary fixes out when the problem is as serious as this one >is. >So why is Sierra doing this? I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt >that it isn't just stupidity...partly stupidity but not completely. My guess is >the truth of the matter lies with the effect on their sales of their major cash >cow, N3. I've heard N3 still isn't available in Europe.On some points yes (mainly Game Service) on other points they didn't do
anything.
(Example: A lot of people complained about sound problems starting from patch
4 (i believe), they just claimed it was the soundcard, not the game, "solve it
yourself".)
That's what I meant: They solved one problem with a patch but due to probably
inaccurate testing they introduced another one.
I did follow the MGPRS2 scene before becoming ***ed to GPL and honestly
have the feeling the guys from Papy (esp. R.Cassidy) are much more involved
and serious in helping the race-sim community than in this case Ubisoft. Never
seen any feedback from them in this ng, did you?
Jan.
J.H.Hovius.vcf
< 1K
Download
