| |
cba
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 935 |
Release id #102925 : Legion's Intro
<sigh>
Stop using .prg files, I'm getting tired of this, I keep on removing them, instead of somebody just doing it right from the start ;(
|
|
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 513 |
Some facts:
1. The first release that was "not done right from the start" is id=12 Sauerkraut 89 so I guess I agree - it was not done right from the start... of the database.
2. At the moment there are 8000+ entries in csdb with .prg files.
3. On the C64 FTPs out there, there are 80.000+ files in form of long-name PRG's. I'd personally risk saying that it has become some standard over time.
Some questions.
1. Can you stop pretending like I'm the biggest source of problem here - as almost everyone's doing it? Recent one-filed releases from all major groups are in prg form, somehow you're not bothered...
2. Let's have an open discussion about it (how about a survey around users?) on who's bothered by that. Take into account that maybe the rules are not catching up with the scene reality around it, not the other way around. You know, those are not ten commandments in stone ;)
3. It is (quote) a measure to preserve original filenames (unquote). What is the point if there is nothing to preserve? I have those as PRGs, I may wrap'em in D64 but what's the added value? Beside the fact that it's me wasting my time instead of you wasting yours, and we're both wasting diskspace and bandwidth?
(and I am hoping for a civilized, adult discussion here :D) |
| |
Digger
Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 437 |
Haha, .PRG files not acceptable? First time I hear about this :) Why not?
Personally, I dont like the idea of wrapping everything in a .d64 unless preserving the filename is crucial (but is it ever?) |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 513 |
PRG's are "not welcome", it is written so in the rules, Digger.
Somehow when Offence (sorry guys, a randomly chosen group, really) uploads their new filedemo as PRG it's ok. At the same time, my PRGs are "horrible". Hurray for double standards! :) |
| |
cba
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 935 |
Quote: PRG's are "not welcome", it is written so in the rules, Digger.
Somehow when Offence (sorry guys, a randomly chosen group, really) uploads their new filedemo as PRG it's ok. At the same time, my PRGs are "horrible". Hurray for double standards! :)
No double standards, it would be much better is Offence also would upload a .d64 file instead of a .prg file.
The difference is that their demo is new and so they decide on how to name it, not much I can do about that.
Stuff like the Legion's Intro which is old is taken off a .d64 file by you as .prg file.
That is a whole different story, there you should preserve the file name as it was.
Get it ?
Not so difficult ain't it ;-)
|
| |
cba
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 935 |
Quote: Some facts:
1. The first release that was "not done right from the start" is id=12 Sauerkraut 89 so I guess I agree - it was not done right from the start... of the database.
2. At the moment there are 8000+ entries in csdb with .prg files.
3. On the C64 FTPs out there, there are 80.000+ files in form of long-name PRG's. I'd personally risk saying that it has become some standard over time.
Some questions.
1. Can you stop pretending like I'm the biggest source of problem here - as almost everyone's doing it? Recent one-filed releases from all major groups are in prg form, somehow you're not bothered...
2. Let's have an open discussion about it (how about a survey around users?) on who's bothered by that. Take into account that maybe the rules are not catching up with the scene reality around it, not the other way around. You know, those are not ten commandments in stone ;)
3. It is (quote) a measure to preserve original filenames (unquote). What is the point if there is nothing to preserve? I have those as PRGs, I may wrap'em in D64 but what's the added value? Beside the fact that it's me wasting my time instead of you wasting yours, and we're both wasting diskspace and bandwidth?
(and I am hoping for a civilized, adult discussion here :D)
1. The link to TDD has the right file and the best would be to remove the .prg file and upload the file from TDD :)
2. I know, way too much, I also have at TDD still a lot of .prg files that I'm slowly getting rid of, just like I did with .lnx/.lha and 64 zipped files, the idea is to have one standard and to preserve the file name.
3. Check TDD, .prg files are slowly being removed ;), I work on it almost daily.
Question.
1. Your for sure not the only one, there are several others that I've been sending messages to, and as for new releases, well <sigh> not much I can do about that, its their choice and too bad CSDB moderators are not pushing them, they are more occupied with cracks :-)
2. Good idea, set up a survey and see what the outcome would be, I really wonder what will show up, if nobody gives a fuck then I will stop my activities on csdb and just focus on my ftp site.
3. If you really don't have them with a original file name then there is not much what you can do.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
what i hate even more than prg files.... are spreaddisks which have been ripped apart. bah =)
and i am with cba there - prg files suck. really, use d64, please. (and only because a lot of people didnt do it before, thats not a good reason to not do it yourself at all) |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 513 |
OK then, as suggested, the survey is there, linked in the news on the main page :) Let's hear the voice of the people.
I propose to come back to this discussion in a few days, when we have some results - ok?
http://kwiksurveys.com?u=csdbformats |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
you can make survey all you want really :) |
| |
Count Zero
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 1932 |
I suggest next time using a "survey maker" that also displays the results afterwards :)
D64 is the way to go! |
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 513 |
I can see the results fine :)
|
... 27 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
