[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....

2024-08-01 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.

2024-08-01 15:46

Mixer

Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 452

Breathe, reflect, let go, repeat.

2024-08-01 15:56

Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980

Quoting Mixer

Breathe, reflect, let go, repeat.

=)

4gentE: Still busy working on an answer that wouldn't repeat anything i already said, to drive the point more in the general direction of home. Chiseling one character at a time... .. .

2024-08-01 15:57

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

Making fists with my toes on the carpet. ;-)

2024-08-02 14:17

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386

meanwhile we can question how relevant wikipedia is for anything

2024-08-02 17:12

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

I generally agree about Wiki.

However, considering this specific topic, while We’re at it, do you suggest We question or outright deny the relevance of:

research articles :

http://www.kameli.net/demoresearch2/reunanensilvast-hinc2.pdf (Chapter 2.1)
http://widerscreen.fi/numerot/2014-1-2/crackers-became-us-demos..

diskmag article(s):

http://www.atlantis-prophecy.org/recollection/?load=online_issu..

and printed books written by protagonists:

https://www.amazon.com/Freax-Brief-History-Computer-Demoscene-e..

…in favor of how 2-3 people feel about it and what those 2-3 people say? One of whom dead serious literally provided this (counter) argument: “…demoscene doesnt comes from crack scene because O***** and K**** says so in csdb.” That’d be a weird choice wouldn’t it? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in for dismantling myths, but this is not it.

2024-08-04 14:04

Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980

So, let's return to the original statement to which i objected (with a strong C-64 scene focus in mind):
Quoting hedning

The demo scene emanates from the cracking scene

Hypothesis: The early scene had people produce cracks, intros, and demos.

Sometimes the same dudes, often the same groups, still the same scene.
The same people swapped both legal and illegal productions, and met at the same parties.

As such, the objection is that assuming it thus, there follows a contradiction to above quote.
There wasn't a separate cracking scene, thus a separate demoscene could not emanate from it.

It doesn't even matter much how the internal timeline went, what kind of production came first, or which styles of productions or demos themselves were more popular at which time.

It was the same scene, the same people, the same hodgepodge of legal, illegal and anything in between productions, with the notion and name of a scene-made "demo", in today's meaning, being established early on, long before there was any talk of split or divergence into separate scenes.

Note that this narrative does not contradict
Quoting 4gentE

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.

Merely the finer details as for quantities and their interpretation vary.

2024-08-04 16:54

4gentE

Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285

@Krill
Thanks for that summary.

Difference in views on some points I can indeed see as a matter of semantics. On some other points not.

I have nothing more to write here, I guess all that needed to be said has been said, some things more than once (sorry for that).

And I have to admit I still pretty much fail to see the point of an initiative, a push for nearly cosmetical changes of what is in most papers a preamble. Seems like arguing that Doner is the favourite snack of the scene instead of currywurst, and trying to prove it.

2024-08-04 17:10

Krill

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980

Maybe, maybe not just a case of semantics. Sometimes the wording is important! :)

Also "These programs were initially known by various names, such as letters or messages, but they later came to be known as demos." from the Wikipedia article you quoted is nonsense, of course.
They were known as demos early on, just that "letters" or "messages" were specific styles.

But again, could just be non-important details.