[CSDb] - User Forums

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > CSDb Discussions > Howdy

2024-07-27 16:00

angelo

Registered: Jul 2024
Posts: 13

Howdy

Hi there. It's my first post here, so lemme introduce myself. I'm angelo, or æn.d͡ʒə.loʊ, or unj, a founder of KSKPD, the group behind polish unesco application.

I'm in process of researching some early-computing stuff, including an idea planted by @Krill and @bitfat, that the default narrative of "In the beginning it was a cracker scene, that developed into demoscene later because $REASONS" might be worth challenging.

I might be asking in various sub-forums questions around data on this site, but while I used to be a part of demoscene as a coder (1995+), I also owned PC exclusively since my first computer in like 1990. I skipped 8bit phase completely, so please bare with me, if the questions sound obvious or straight-up outrageously naive :)

... 92 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....

2024-07-31 15:48

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

Quote:

but that only happened later, in the late 80s. If you look at the early 80s, cracks usually got no, or very simple intros. And the few demos that existed were MUCH more interesting than those.

Yes. That only happened in mid to late 80s. That’s what I’m saying. Which means that the swapper network preceded intros. And that this network swapped mainly (intro-less) cracks. The existance of a few outsider demos with severely limited distribution scope prior to the intros changes almost nothing. Your experience of getting hold of the said demos originated on Compunet via schoolyard swapping is the first such experience I heard, and while this new info requires some thought readjustment, I don’t think it’s massive enough a phenomenon to warrant a history rewrite. I could be wrong. Excuse me for asking, but are you perhaps older than most? I’m 50 and the games 2 cracks 2 intros 2 code 2 demos perhaps applies only for todays below 50s. As I mentioned before (when you mentioned the nature of software not necessarily being regarded as merchandise) the misunderstanding could be that you in your mind place the early scene further back in history than I do in my mind. Again, that’s why i think establishing a timeframe is the first step.

2024-07-31 16:20

Mixer

Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 452

Personally I was a barely conscious teenager mid 80's when I started dabbling with programming. I am barely conscious now, so not much has changed. So, what I say about others at that time can be only conjecture.

There are some things that make a forced timeline: namely the availability and adoption of hardware, software tools and books and magazines. X cannot have happened before Y. Also, X or Y must have been created by someone before it is published and distributed, so there is a incubating time before the publishing date, etc.

(Off topic) I've pondered creating a timeline/narrative tool to make sense of discussions like this. In the past these were called notes, but I'd just pass stuff to a LLM application and have it pick up assertions and order them semi automatically. No idea if it would work or not.

2024-07-31 16:40

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386

Quote:

Which means that the swapper network preceded intros. And that this network swapped mainly (intro-less) cracks.

You'd be surprised how many people were organised in "computer clubs", where it was all about writing - and swapping - your own stuff, and where (later) swapping cracks might even have been frowned upon.

And no, i'm not older than most of you :) Whats true is though, that in the early 80s i was hanging around with older guys (Jihad, Florasoft) because almost noone else was sharing my interests or even had a computer :) (it was more weird for them than for me i am sure :D)

2024-07-31 18:08

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

Well, yes, I see how it could be sort of “generational”. Like, by the time I became aware of some kind of scene going, let’s say 1985 or early 1986, the “computer club” guys “left their ideals behind” and either dispersed into writing commercial software or stayed with the “new wild” kids and went into cracking. One of very few famous local “computer club” type guys I was aware of was the guy who recoded Saboteur for C64. My uncle was one of “computer club” guys, but he and his gang were never into realtime audiovisual stuff. More like hardware/lowest level code.
Mixer has a point about forced timeline: the above hypothesis leaves only around 2 years for these “demos before cracks and intros” if we suppose C64 started selling in Europe around xmas 1982. That’s 2 years to get the new machine, learn the intricacies, learn to code (how many good books are there?), go back and forth with techniques between authors, etc. Doable but quite tight.

2024-07-31 18:18

Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980

Quoting 4gentE

the above hypothesis leaves only around 2 years for these “demos before cracks and intros”

It's not about flipping the timeline.

2024-07-31 18:34

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

Quote:

It's not about flipping the timeline.

OK. It was a hypothesis.You don't yield an inch do you. You just won't allow that the fully formed scene exists in mid 1980s and that this scene is predominantly swapping cracks (with intros) and to a much lesser extent demos (which by this time tend to look like standalone intros minus the size cap, wonder why) as described in Newscopy's article. You need the "demoscene" to be one unbroken entity from the very first C64 sold, right until today with as little to do with crackerscene as possible. I tried to approach your writings from 3 different angles, but every time you lead me to the same conclusion : agenda/crusade/crusader.

2024-08-01 10:12

Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980

Quoting Hein

So maybe interview him as well. My thought is that only people from those early days have first hand stories.

Exactly. As others have noted, interviewing people who have first-hand experience is the way to go.

The questions should be framed to allow for that different interpretation, with calling the early scene just the scene and explicitly asking about either or both legal and illegal activities and productions.

Quoting 4gentE

You just won't allow that the fully formed scene exists in mid 1980s and that this scene is predominantly swapping cracks (with intros) and to a much lesser extent demos (which by this time tend to look like standalone intros minus the size cap, wonder why) as described in Newscopy's article.

Why, this looks rather close to what i'm proposing.

Can you now stop with the strawmen, name-calling, Bulverism etc., please?

2024-08-01 10:52

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

@Krill
Perhaps you could (please) take time and write in short and clear terms exactly what you think, what bothers you about the existing myth, and what you propose, because it seems I always get snippets from you, which make me go guessing what you really want with all this, which then in turn leads to you feeling me "strawmaning" you. (you sure do love fashionable internet arguing terms don't you?)
So can you please fix the goalposts for me so to speak.

Here's what's written on wiki:
Demos in the demoscene sense began as software crackers' "signatures", that is, crack screens and crack intros attached to software whose copy protection was removed. The first crack screens appeared on the Apple II in the early 1980s, and they were often nothing but plain text screens crediting the cracker or their group. Gradually, these static screens evolved into increasingly impressive-looking introductions containing animated effects and music. Eventually, many cracker groups started to release intro-like programs separately, without being attached to unlicensed software.[6] These programs were initially known by various names, such as letters or messages, but they later came to be known as demos.

Thank you in advance.

2024-08-01 14:26

Mixer

Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 452

4gentE: I do not believe that we can complete the suggested new research on this thread, because the unknowns are still unknown and will remain so, until someone does the hard work, so asking Krill and others give you proof already is unfounded, we've only conjectures and alternative narratives.

There were a large population of people doing things on c-64 and other platforms, so If we were to learn and map what they were doing over time, we'd probably get a result which is a grouping or a distribution of narratives, not a certainty for a single one. In this discussion it has been suggested that the "demoscene" is a term that has been coined later than mid 80's for those who were mainly interested in crafting these programs. Past research were looking for origins of demoscene only, so they found something to that nature. However, people did do all sorts of technology demonstrations decades earlier, the word demo was a term used for such works already. Wiki and research state a link between crack intros and a demo, which describe a specific type of demonstration that became the demo in demoscene. Is the wiki definition too narrow a definition and is the crack intros to demos the only path that happened? What did the game devs, researchers, computer club and other people call their - non-product and skill/technology demonstrations?

Undoubtedly you 4gentE will dissect this word by word and find something in to counter the words, but I for one have no clarification to give to what I do not know or no one has studied yet, and people will challenge the current research and look for clarification.

There is a lot of diffusion of terms and ideas, and we cannot avoid it in this format as we all learn and then project back to past. I've learned many new things in this discussion, but I acknowledge that that is not everything there is.

2024-08-01 15:29

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

Quote:

…I do not believe that we can complete the suggested new research on this thread…

I couldn’t agree more. So, status quo it is. Current research stands, until better one comes along. I’ve been saying this not only from the start, but actually before the very start here on CSDb. This whole thread is redundant, the thread before it which unfortunately bears my handle in its title is redundant, and Krill’s hijack of Mankeli’s original “Amiga” thread is redundant.

At this point, in my last post, I was asking Krill to state what he actually wants with opening this redundant and unresolvable controversy (not only on CSDb) in short bullet point style, because after all the noise I’m at a bit of a loss. I put that Wiki quote there so that he can pinpoint exactly what bothers him about the “official myth” and what he feels should be changed.