 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
After the "admins are gone, pschiiiit", now it's
a "software issue", which you don't EVEN consider
to fix.
From the "bazaar or cathedral", you once chose the
cathedral, and due to the useless secrecy and disdain
for newcomers that could help, now that's a shabby
and ruined cathedral ! I'm talking of POV-Ray, there,
the IRTC being just the most visible victim of that
incredible attitude.
Back to the IRTC, the choice of an obscure Smalltalk-based*
framework, which only ten people in the world are
familiar with, was a recipe for disaster. If only it
allowed a quick rebuild, but, no, it took more than
a year to get something up. Any rookie using PHP could
do it in two days, including me** ! And there are millions
of people that can fix PHP, if needed.
(* don't get me wrong, I'm a Ruby lover, and I know
how beautiful is Smalltalk, but for a rather simple
rendering competition site, efficiency matters most)
(** I did this in seven days :
http://le.royaumedad.es
php-mysql-based record collection showcase, including
online encoding of new items)
How bad would it hurt to make a public call to get either
someone to fix the stuff, or a fast rewrite in PHP ?
The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
not the site), compared to what was produced some years
ago. Either you should have the guts to pronounce IRTC
dead once and for all, or make that public call to get it
back within less than a month, so it could maybe evolve
again, instead of stepping back like it did.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien <fab### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
Thanks for your insightful comments. They really helped making things
much better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien <fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> Back to the IRTC, the choice of an obscure Smalltalk-based*
> framework, which only ten people in the world are
> familiar with, was a recipe for disaster.
I'd be happy to volunteer to fix it. I know Smalltalk, and have used Seaside a
bit.
Edouard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 7:12 AM, Fabien wrote:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
You could, if you want a competition, you could always enter the TC-RTC.
http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien <fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
> ago.
Ouch.
Well, I personally don't think my images sucked too hard in comparison to the
"old" IRTC (but I suppose I'm biased).
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien <fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
> ago.
While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP). The people working on the
images generally have worked hard at learning the program [POVRAy] and using it,
whether or not their images can be classed to a 'high-quality' standard.
Perhaps some of the preious entrants that had developed great expertise in
POV-Ray have been absent (for whatever their reasons), but that is no reason to
casually sling such unconstructive, anbased and blanket criticism at those who
have participated. They are there to learn the craft and present what they have
done, and perhaps learn something from it. That has been (generally) the whole
spirit of POV-Ray and the community since it's inception (I have been using and
present here intermittently since 1994, there others that are even longer). The
spirit is for everyone to learn and contribute, through praise encouragement and
constructive criticism of what they have achieved so far. This is one of the
best and consistent communities I have ever run across.
Would you criticize a 5 year old about his crude drawing of a person and tell
him it sucks? Perhaps one day that 5 year old will be Van Gogh, having learned
and developed far beyond that initial crude drawing.
Say what you need to regarding the running of the IRTC, and those responsible
can handle that, but please refrain from slagging the artists. If you have
specific constructive criticism on how they can improve their work, it would be
much more welcome and helpful.
Thanks
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 5:45 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>> ago.
>
> While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
> site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
> contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).
I read it that Fabien was referring to the new IRTC site.
But since you mention TC-RTC may I say that it was set up as a temporary
stand in for the stalled IRTC by the late Steve Paget. It is a
commercial site now maintained by Thomas de Groot and myself. This costs
money and it is for the benefit of our community.
Lately there has been a drop off in the number of entries which IMO is a
shame. But maybe if we can rally round it will be an outlet for our
creative, competitive spirit. The current topic is “History and Practice
of the Art of Photography” which can mean what you want it to mean, it
closes on the 15th of April.
If anyone has any ideas for the topics or any other constructive ideas
the will be welcomed.
> The people working on the
> images generally have worked hard at learning the program [POVRAy] and using it,
> whether or not their images can be classed to a 'high-quality' standard.
> Perhaps some of the preious entrants that had developed great expertise in
> POV-Ray have been absent (for whatever their reasons), but that is no reason to
> casually sling such unconstructive, anbased and blanket criticism at those who
> have participated. They are there to learn the craft and present what they have
> done, and perhaps learn something from it. That has been (generally) the whole
> spirit of POV-Ray and the community since it's inception (I have been using and
> present here intermittently since 1994, there others that are even longer). The
> spirit is for everyone to learn and contribute, through praise encouragement and
> constructive criticism of what they have achieved so far. This is one of the
> best and consistent communities I have ever run across.
>
Well said.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 5:45 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> > Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> >> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
> >> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
> >> ago.
> >
> > While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
> > site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
> > contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).
>
> I read it that Fabien was referring to the new IRTC site.
Sorry, I was unaware that the IRTC had been running again recently, and assumed
he was referring to images at TC-RTC that you had set up in its place.
Other than that correction, my comments still stand.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 8:14 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 03/03/2011 5:45 PM, Trevor G Quayle wrote:
>>> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>>>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>> While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
>>> site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
>>> contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).
>>
>> I read it that Fabien was referring to the new IRTC site.
>
> Sorry, I was unaware that the IRTC had been running again recently, and assumed
> he was referring to images at TC-RTC that you had set up in its place.
>
No apology required.
> Other than that correction, my comments still stand.
>
No matter who Fabien was talking about your comments are valid and welcome.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:12:41 +0100, Fabien wrote:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
Wow, what a troll you are. Something maintained by members of the
community for the community and it doesn't meet your standards.
Let me grab the world's smallest violin and start playing it for you.
Instead of being a jackass about it, how about offering to pitch in and
help rather than just heap criticism after criticism on the site?
You say "any rookie using PHP could do it in two days, including me" but
I sure as hell didn't see you step up and offer it. Instead you decided
to act like a jerk and criticise.
Instead of stepping up, you stepped on. Bravo indeed - WELL DONE, Fabien.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien wrote:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
I realize you've probably built up some frustration
until it exploded, but it's usually not good idea to post
publicly in the heat of the moment.
> After the "admins are gone, pschiiiit", now it's
> a "software issue", which you don't EVEN consider
> to fix.
I can somewhat relate to this sentiment. It's a bit
strange to spend a year rebuilding this and engaging
the community in discussion and testing and then take
it down with such a vague reason and no perspective.
I'd go so far as to say it is a bit disrespectful to
a community that I'm sure would be supportive and
constructive whatever the actual problem is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.03.2011 08:12, schrieb Fabien:
> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> After the "admins are gone, pschiiiit", now it's
> a "software issue", which you don't EVEN consider
> to fix.
>
> From the "bazaar or cathedral", you once chose the
> cathedral, and due to the useless secrecy and disdain
> for newcomers that could help, now that's a shabby
> and ruined cathedral ! I'm talking of POV-Ray, there,
> the IRTC being just the most visible victim of that
> incredible attitude.
Apparently you didn't even bother to inform yourself properly about the
organizational structures around POV-Ray and the IRTC.
I'm not sure about the roots of the IRTC, but the recent "revival" was
/not/ run by the organization that owns the software name "POV-Ray" - it
was run by an individual from the community, for the community; all the
"POV-Ray organization" had to do with it was that it supported the
project with server space and communication channels (there is a reason,
for instance, that the IRTC newsgroups are not named "povray.*", but
"irtc.*").
So what you see is indeed /not/ the result of a cathedral approach at
all, but to the contrary that of a bazaar: A shop has closed down
because it didn't have enough customers, not enough employees, the wrong
quality of goods, or whatever - it was /not/ a decision of some high
priest to discontinue it, but of the person who had been running the shop.
Your problem is actually that you apparently /want/ a cathedral, where
you can just go to and receive something, and if you don't get what you
need you can blame it on the priests. A bazaar isn't that easy for the
customers: They have to go round and ask where they can get things; they
may have to invest something to get them; and some things may not be for
offer even when they're badly needed. And last not least there's no
single person or organization you can blame when something doesn't run
smoothly.
So here you are, standing in the middle of the market place, crying out
aloud that this whole bazaar you call POV-Ray makes for a shabby
cathedral. Duh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 01:15:42 +0100, clipka wrote:
> So here you are, standing in the middle of the market place, crying out
> aloud that this whole bazaar you call POV-Ray makes for a shabby
> cathedral. Duh.
Now that will get an enthusiastic "Bravo!" from me - I wish I'd written
your response instead of mine. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 3/03/2011 11:21, Edouard a écrit :
>
> I'd be happy to volunteer to fix it. I know Smalltalk, and have used Seaside a
> bit.
I hope someone in charge (i.e. someone who has the power to mess with
the server linked to www.irtc.org) reads this and contact you.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 3/03/2011 12:06, Stephen a écrit :
> On 03/03/2011 7:12 AM, Fabien wrote:
>> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> You could, if you want a competition, you could always enter the TC-RTC.
>
> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/
Thanks for the info, being away these years I didn't knew about it.
To the (anonymous, so far) person who wrote that incredible
current irtc.org homepage : did you know about that competition ?
If so, why didn't you AT LEAST put a link to it ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 3/03/2011 17:55, Robert McGregor a écrit :
> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>> ago.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Well, I personally don't think my images sucked too hard in comparison to the
> "old" IRTC (but I suppose I'm biased).
Sorry if I appeared to say that all images were bad. Of course not.
But the average level of the renewed competition (and I'm definitely
talking about the irtc.org stuff, not anything else) was very low
compared to what it was before the Big Blackout.
The problem is not the low end of the lot, beginners are fully
welcome, and I've done my part of constructive critiscism to them,
in the past.
It took years, from IRTC creation, to get a hive of talents, which
resulted in rounds with a good number of good-to-excellent images.
Three years of interruption destroyed that, and the higher end of
last competition was just a handful of good-to-very-good, not enough
to call a "waaah" after viewing a round. Given the CPUs and memory
ressources we have these days, it's a pity that the recent rounds
were of a lower quality than three years before.
So, unless IRTC is killed once and for all* (which seems an acceptable
option rather than the hiatus), a prolonged absence will cause
harm again to the quality level, which only a continuous effort
can improve. Something SHOULD be done, and that's why the "not
to be fixed anytime soon" message instead of a call for help is
so irritating.
(* : meaning the IRTC role must be officially _handed over_ to
other(s) competition(s))
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 3/03/2011 18:45, Trevor G Quayle a écrit :
> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> The "new" IRTC literally sucked, quality-wise, (the images,
>> not the site), compared to what was produced some years
>> ago.
>
> While you may have some points worth arguing regarding maintaining of the IRTC
> site, I think it's a bit harsh to lay such criticism on the images in the newer
> contest site (I assume you refer to the TINA CheP).
I was referring to www.irtc.org. For the rest, see my reply to
Robert McGregor.
> Would you criticize a 5 year old about his crude drawing of a person and tell
> him it sucks? Perhaps one day that 5 year old will be Van Gogh, having learned
> and developed far beyond that initial crude drawing.
I'm not bashing a 5-year old future Van Gogh, I'm talking about a
talented 10-years old which stops drawing for three years, and is
less talented at 13 than (s)he was at 10.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 3/03/2011 22:55, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:12:41 +0100, Fabien wrote:
>
>> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> Wow, what a troll you are. Something maintained by members of the
> community for the community and it doesn't meet your standards.
No, it doesn't meet my standard of expecting a very simple website
to be up and running continuously, neither my standard of either
coping with a problem or asking for help. That's precisely what
a community is about, and the current www.irtc.org homepage is quite
anti-community, IMO.
About who I am, I am the author of this :
http://www.povcomp.com/entries/191.php
...I've spent countless hours many years ago helping people,
making objects, macros, demo scenes, testing new stuff. I am
the author of the default demo scene which can be run afer
POV-Ray's installation, the one with the bicuits and tea cup
(and I'm not glad that it's still there these days, after
ten years it looks pretty dated, there are enough people out
here that could make something more fresh and technically advanced)
> Instead of being a jackass about it, how about offering to pitch in and
> help rather than just heap criticism after criticism on the site?
This was not meant to offer help, but really to express how much
I'm pissed off by what's happening.
> You say "any rookie using PHP could do it in two days, including me" but
> I sure as hell didn't see you step up and offer it. Instead you decided
> to act like a jerk and criticise.
Watch this space.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 5/03/2011 1:15, clipka a écrit :
>
> Apparently you didn't even bother to inform yourself properly about the
> organizational structures around POV-Ray and the IRTC.
See my reply to Jim Henderson to see how much I've been implied into this.
> I'm not sure about the roots of the IRTC, but the recent "revival" was
> /not/ run by the organization that owns the software name "POV-Ray" - it
> was run by an individual from the community, for the community; all the
> "POV-Ray organization" had to do with it was that it supported the
> project with server space and communication channels (there is a reason,
> for instance, that the IRTC newsgroups are not named "povray.*", but
> "irtc.*").
Whoever (anonymous, so far) wrote the current www.irtc.org homepage,
related or not to the current POV-Ray Team, is adopting the same
irritating attitude that I describe (mainly : the piping is broken,
we won't call a plumber, and we keep the keys of the house).
And I'm linking both because I've seen the same attitude in POV-Ray
making.
> So what you see is indeed /not/ the result of a cathedral approach at
> all, but to the contrary that of a bazaar: A shop has closed down
> because it didn't have enough customers, not enough employees, the wrong
> quality of goods, or whatever - it was /not/ a decision of some high
> priest to discontinue it, but of the person who had been running the shop.
The message on the homepage says it's a "software problem", nothing
to do with closing voluntarily, whatever the reason ! And, in your
hypothesis, there's a solution : HAND THE KEYS.
> Your problem is actually that you apparently /want/ a cathedral, where
> you can just go to and receive something, and if you don't get what you
> need you can blame it on the priests. A bazaar isn't that easy for the
> customers: They have to go round and ask where they can get things; they
> may have to invest something to get them; and some things may not be for
> offer even when they're badly needed. And last not least there's no
> single person or organization you can blame when something doesn't run
> smoothly.
At some point, a single person wrote that "broken, don't care" homepage.
It's that person I'm yelling at, asking that something is done, or
handled to other volunteers !
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 4/03/2011 0:00, Christian Froeschlin a écrit :
> Fabien wrote:
>
> > How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>
> I realize you've probably built up some frustration
> until it exploded, but it's usually not good idea to post
> publicly in the heat of the moment.
>
>> After the "admins are gone, pschiiiit", now it's
>> a "software issue", which you don't EVEN consider
>> to fix.
>
> I can somewhat relate to this sentiment. It's a bit
> strange to spend a year rebuilding this and engaging
> the community in discussion and testing and then take
> it down with such a vague reason and no perspective.
> I'd go so far as to say it is a bit disrespectful to
> a community that I'm sure would be supportive and
> constructive whatever the actual problem is.
You are more diplomatic than I, but, yes, that's the point.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien <fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> At some point, a single person wrote that "broken, don't care" homepage.
> It's that person I'm yelling at, asking that something is done, or
> handled to other volunteers !
>
> Fabien.
Well, I'm not sure who wrote the message on that home page, but Chris Cason did
say he'd try and sort it all out after the 3.7 release, so there's still hope:
http://news.povray.org/4d39775c@news.povray.org
And that means Chris could get Edouard set up with whatever he needs too :)
Progress!
Cheers,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/03/2011 11:21, Edouard a écrit :
> Fabien<fab### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>> How did you guys MANAGE to get to this situation ?
>>
>> Back to the IRTC, the choice of an obscure Smalltalk-based*
>> framework, which only ten people in the world are
>> familiar with, was a recipe for disaster.
>
> I'd be happy to volunteer to fix it. I know Smalltalk, and have used Seaside a
> bit.
>
> Edouard.
>
>
Now that David Buck has expressed that he would let someone try to
fix the stuff, can you contact him and see what you can do ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 11:15:32 +0100, Fabien wrote:
> No, it doesn't meet my standard of expecting a very simple website to be
> up and running continuously, neither my standard of either coping with a
> problem or asking for help. That's precisely what a community is about,
> and the current www.irtc.org homepage is quite anti-community, IMO.
As is coming in and intentionally being rude to the community instead of
being polite and asking "so what's going on here and how can I help make
things better?"
That would have been a much more constructive way to get things going
again.
Christian did a much better job of expressing the exact same sentiment.
You'll notice that nobody is criticizing him for agreeing with you.
I honestly don't particularly care at this point about who you are or
what you have contributed up until this point. You lost all credibility
when you started attacking those who had volunteered their time to fix
things and then had other life commitments come up.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.03.2011 14:26, schrieb Fabien:
> Whoever (anonymous, so far) wrote the current www.irtc.org homepage,
> related or not to the current POV-Ray Team, is adopting the same
> irritating attitude that I describe (mainly : the piping is broken,
> we won't call a plumber, and we keep the keys of the house).
>
> And I'm linking both because I've seen the same attitude in POV-Ray
> making.
*HELLO?!?!*
You're writing to someone who is actively involved in this "POV-Ray
making", and I will *not* let your statemend stand unchallenged.
I started using POV-Ray in September 2008 (after having toyed around
with it some decade earlier). Back then, I only had a single-core
machine, and 3.6 and MegaPOV were fine for my purposes. Some 2 months
later though, I bought a quad-core system to set aside just for
rendering - initially with the intention of running multiple instances
of MegaPOV in parallel - and found that POV-Ray 3.7 would promise more
speed than 3.6, if only it would run radiosity on multiple cores. It
didn't, and the few development status reports that trickled in
indicated that development was stalling, and radiosity was still way
down on the dev team's priority list.
So in december, I wrote this newsgroup post in povray.beta-test:
http://news.povray.org/povray.beta-test/thread/%3Cweb.494c5db633949b3be71a54f80%40news.povray.org%3E/?ttop=358039&toff=350
To make a long story short: I was involved in the making of POV-Ray in
no time flat, and got free hand in designing a way to make radiosity
work with SMP (even including some architectural change to the rest of
the code) and rid it of several design uglies. Since then, I went on to
implement subsurface scattering (an idea that Chris Cason came up with),
implemented a bunch of smaller features that I wanted to see in POV-Ray,
gave gamma issues a thorough addressing because /I/ felt it important,
and - of that I do take particular pride, and will not suffer having you
slander those efforts - addressed virtually any reported bug that I felt
capable of addressing.
From what I have experienced since I first volunteered to get my hands
dirty, there is no secrecy about POV-Ray; no closed circle of ivory
tower developers; there is no resentment to accept help - to the
contrary. There is just too much to do to waste time and energy on
begging for help, because experience is that the resonance to such
requests is pretty scant. So instead of suffering the frustration to be
expected (or maybe even start whining and complaining, like /certain/
people do prefer instead of being constructive), the people involved
just continue being as productive as they possibly can, and as their
day-time jobs & families allow.
If you'd ask Le Forgeron, I'm pretty sure he'd have a similar story to
tell. He, too, recently decided to get his hands dirty and become involved.
> The message on the homepage says it's a "software problem", nothing
> to do with closing voluntarily, whatever the reason ! And, in your
> hypothesis, there's a solution : HAND THE KEYS.
Yes. But the productive first step on your behalf should have been to
*ask* for the keys yourself, instead of ranting that the keys hadn't
been handed to anyone else. To whom, I ask you, should they have been
given? Who stepped forward and volunteered to continue that business?
As for being a software problem vs. closing voluntarily, the one doesn't
exclude the other: It probably is a software problem so severe that the
maintainer of the site sees himself unable to fix it given his limited
time & energy.
(Another note here: the current maintainer stepped up after a long
desperate search for someone to revive the IRTC; there was no reason for
him to assume that there would be anyone around just waiting to lend a
hand or even take over the business)
> At some point, a single person wrote that "broken, don't care" homepage.
> It's that person I'm yelling at, asking that something is done, or
> handled to other volunteers !
Still you're also ranting about "POV-Ray" in general, and about the
"attitude in POV-Ray making". It is *that* which I will not suffer.
And, to re-iterate: Instead of just building up steam and then
exploding, you should have addressed that person with a suggestion to
/help/ first.
Now, with that attitude of yours, I wonder whether that person would
still be willing to hand the keys to /you/ - or if he did, whether any
of his "customers" would be willing to deal with you. You managed to
offend the current IRTC "owner", his "customers", the people providing
the market infrastructure, and virtually anyone on the marketplace, in
just a single posting. Bravo.
I guess it would be prudent for you to step down from your box at
speakers' corner, and mumble a humble "sorry" to the offended crowd,
before they stone you to death with ripe tomatoes and rotten eggs (be
warned - that's a very long, humiliating way of dying). But that choice
is up to you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow, the minds are pretty hot and the pot is boiling!!
I am a bit sorry to see that something made by passionate, talented and
benevolent people, leads to a consumer's attitude.
If we support and help, instead of having this consumer's attitude, those people
are likely to bring things to a new golden age.
Bruno.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMM+. . .. OMMM7. =MM: MMM
MMMO . .. . . NM . MM
MMM, +. .:DMM87778MMMMO 7MZ M:. MMI
MMM . . . .?MM+ M M .MM:
7M M O , . :8 =~ $. MM
MM :. M . Z . .MM
MN 7 . 7MMMMI , . .7M
MM 7 MMMM:MMMMMMMM, .MM?
MMM MMMMMMMMMM . MM, MMMMMM= MM . . .ZMM.
MM8 NM$ MMMMMMMMMMMM MZ MM. MMMMMMMMMMMMMD $M. . ..?M MMM.
.MM ?... OMMMM. MMMM+ MN . .MMMMMM. .ZM..
MM M M :MMM, M MMM .. +MMMM MM~ M$
MM M MM~. MMM.MM M MMMMM8. M MM M IM.
.MM M M MMMM.. .MMM MMMM .M M MI
M M M . MM~ MMMMMM ~MMMM 7MMM M M M8
MMM . ~ MM~ . MMMM 7~ . MM . MMMMM MM ~M MM :M
MM.OM MMMM ...M ~ MM . MMMMMM MMO ... MMMMMM MM: M MM
MM MMMMMM . ,MM~M . MMMMMM .M MMMM M .MM
OMI MMM,MMMMMO $M . MMMMMMI . MMMMMMMMM. . MMM.
MM IMMM MM. DMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM8.. MN MMMMM: MM MM.
MM 7MMM MM MM . MO . MM .MM MMMMMMMMM .MM MMM
.~M .MMMMMMO MM 8M MM 8MMMMMMMM= MM.~MM M$
M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM .MMMN MM
=M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MM . MMM. MM
NM MM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM7M7 ?MI . MMM MM.
MM MM=M MM M MM. M8 MM NMMM MM .
MM MM. .MM MM :M MM . .MMMMN .$. O MMM
M= MMMMMMM~ MD MN MM~.OMMMMMM= MI :M8 MMM.
=M .?MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM= . . .M+ .:M? .,MMM..
MM M ? . . . . M MM :MMM.
MM M ,M . ~M? MM .7MMM
MM D . =77I=~ . . $M MMMN
MM. . MM . . . . IM8 MMM
MN . MMM
. MM ,MMMMMMM
MMM .MMMMMMMM
DMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? . .
=8MMMM7
Troll detected!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
