Re: Rubywand's new award! Plus, a few Questions

[pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) writes:

>In article <34F7519A.885105CC@swbell.net>,
>Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> Your idiotic programming practices which have been shot down 
>>> many times this week?
>>     No fair! Tripping over mutilated, sliced-up half-wits is not the
>>same as being shot down.

>   Um, you're the one who's totally refused to look at any evidence to
>the contrary this whole week. You're the one who's acting like you
>flushed your brains down the toilet, but still have for some crazy
>reason, forgotten to tell your fingers that when hitting the 'post'
>button.

I have a dark secret to confess: I've pretty much given up on getting much
usefull information out of comp.sys.apple2 any more. Mainly, I just stick
around to see how Nathan's going to humilitate himself next. And hoooo
boy, after all this times he's still going strong ;-)


>>> mouth off for everyone to see. Such uncalled-for abuse about wrong
>>> programming advice is why csa2 has become such a wasteland for actual
>>> programmers who care about the truth

>>    "Truth"? You should not use words unless you know what they mean.

>   I can program, and do so correctly on the GS. You're the one

Although he seems to be of the asurd (IMHO) opinion that using a *known*
buggy API call that forces a user to get a ROM upgrade rather than taking the,
what? hour? to simply rewrite the code to not use that API call can be
considered *Good* programming. Come on... from what I understand the bug
in question isn't even critical, and could easily be rewritten. The fact 
that Rubywand? posted a patch seems indicative that it would be simple to
fix.

>spouting lies about tool patches, suitability, and bughunting. Sorry,
>but the truth of the matter is that you've only refused to listen to
>the truth about OS bugs. Why have you totally refused to deal with the
>other OS bugs I brought up, like the one on System 6.0.1's
>_ChooseFont? Why have you totally refused to deal with the truth of
>the code in ROM causing this bug? You're hiding from the truth behind
>a shield of lies, flames, and idiocy. And it's only making you look
>like the idiot.

Here lies the crux of Nutball's latest crusade... it isn't an alleged
piracy this time, surpirse surprise, but it's his opinion that 
programmatically correct code that uses a known problematic API level can
be considered bug free. I would contest this: as a Windows programmer on
the PC, living with OS problems is an everyday reality: if we find a bug
that's the fault of the OS, I don't start whinging about Microsoft and
demanding that users upgrade to a PII 300 running Windows 98 just so it'll
work... no, I recognise that my code is buggy, because it uses a buggy
system call. I simply *rewrite it*.

I'll repeat that: It's my view [and seems honestly to be the main view of
the computing world] that code that uses a buggy call is buggy by inference.

>>>, and about the facts.

>>     You mean like a game that causes machines running the standard OS--
>>the one all those other programs run on with no problem-- does not have
>>a BUG? Perhaps it has escaped your notice that there is _no_ popular,
>>installed OS under which the particular game will run without bombing
>>some user systems.

>   As I've detailed *many* times already, the OS has the bug. What
>part of the ROM code addresses where I detailed it did you not
>understand? On a ROM 3, look at FE/0342 and tell me why Apple's logic
>is faultless. Or a ROM 01 at roughly +$1D4 into the L=$57FE block of
>TS2. Explain to me exactly HOW the OS is supposed to deal with
>toolsets after it has unloaded them from memory incorrectly? Wolfy
>follows the rules. Most people do not have problems. For those that do,
>patches to the OS are available.

I agree willy with this. And, yes, OS patches are available. It'd have been
nice if the Wolfy team actually bothered to make a note of this, considering
that they're now claiming they knew about the problem a week beforehand.

>>     By the way, as you may recall, we worried about, identified, and
>>discussed the bug for roughly a week on the world's largest Apple II
>>newsgroup without getting a word of feedback from the creator.

>   First, did you bother reading the documentation in the least and
>emailing the author first? Since you did not, it's safe to assume
>you're just as much the illiterate fool as you've shown to be with the

I won't even go into the argument that this *IS* the apple2 newsgroup (as
you're so fond of insisting when Mac posts come along), and that by
pointing out a found bug and asking for comments/providing discovered info
was a good idee.

>OS bug facts and the truth above. You cannot follow the rules in the
>least, of COURSE you're gonna be ignored. 

Oh come on Nutball, I hardly ever expect rational postings from you anymore,
but I still read your articles to see just who you're going to flame next
[it's even better then the soapies, trying to keep track of who's 
insulting who, who's accused of piracy, and who's on who's side in the
latest argument].

>   By the way, I seem to have missed the bit in the csa2 charter that
>said programmers did have to read it. Perhaps in your idiotic rantings
>and ravings at a recent full moon you had a delusional moment to that
>effect, but it's certainly not in the truth. 

Again, considering that this IS the apple2 newsgroup, is it unreasonable
to assume the programmers should keep an eye on it? Considering that they
DID post the announcement in here, then YES, I do think they have a 
responsibility to keep an eye on the newsgroup. If they don't, tough tits
to them, Rubywand still had the right to post his announcement of the bug
in it. It IS after all an Apple 2 matter, right?

>>>    "Normally" does not mean *always*, except in the pirating idiot's
>>> guide to English, I suppose. Also, were you a *real* GS programmer
>>> with 2 brain cells to fire off occasionally,

>>     Granted, the above description aptly describes some (not all) of
>>those "*real* GS programmers" who have tried to tell us that a bug is
>>not a bug. I guess "2 brain cells" makes it kind of tricky debating with
>>'half your brain tied behind your back', doesn't it?

>   It is an OS bug, as it exists in the ROM code. Now as you cannot
>handle that truth, you're gonna act the idiot. Go away, back under the
>rock whence you came from, pirating liar.

I wonder if Nutball actually believes Rubywand to be a pirate, or is it
just a title of honour he confers to whoever he happens to hate the most
at the moment. Personally, I believe the latter.

>>     1. The same bunch who put out your doc put out the OS which has
>>some serious bugs, including at least one associated with the CALL
>>described. In such a doc, the expression "can use" means "can use if you
>>want to try and are willing to test the results". 

>   Really? I seem to have missed that line in reading Apple's notes.
>Would you please point out chapter and verse where that was said, or
>are you reading the atoms between the lines to come up with such a
>pathetic excuse. 

Although the fact they're now claiming they knew the call was dodgy for
at least a week before release, and couldn't be stuffed to change it
doesn't count? They knew the bug existed... they didn't write a workaround...
they didn't tell us until the furore about bugs started that it was an OS
fault, and required an upgrade: and you find nothing amolous in that
statement?

>>     According to the credits, you did some last-minute modifications to
>>the game. Was the CALL to SetTSPtr one of your modifications?

>   Not in the least. I sent Sheppy some code previously in
>TurkeyShootGS for use in speeding up screen draws (particularly on
>slot GSs), and helped squash a totally different bug just before
>release. Sheppy put in that call of his own free will more than a week
>before the game was released, and neither he nor any of the regular
>testers encountered it before release. Many others tried launching and
>quitting the game up to 30 times in a row, never once crashing. Since
>you've already proven you can't handle technical truth, I think
>challenging you to explain why the bug *didn't* bite them would be way
>over your head.

That's a novel idea.. ask people to provide proof when you never provide
any yourself, mr "Rubywand is a pirate". I haven't even yset seen a post
saying why you think Rubywand's a pirate, you know. 

>>     Why all the secrecy?
>>     Was it really so difficult to level with us from the start?

>   Secrecy? It's been clear from the beginning-- this is an OS bug,
>and I've said where and why it happened. You're the one inventing
>conspiracies, inventing stories about who did what, inventing bullshit
>about how to program the GS, and how to debug things. You've been the
>illiterate idiot seeing things that don't happen, and refusing to
>accept the truth when presented to you. We have been telling the
>truth, but since you've apparently been standing a little too close to
>a few aboveground nuke tests, you can't see that worth a damn. In your
>fantasyland, we're wrong. But, in reality, you're only proving that
>you should not be ever be allowed to be trusted again as factual.

In reality Nutball copulates lives with his head up his arse. He seems 
to have such a pristine imagine of the Wolfy team in his mind, that 
every problem automatically becomes an OS problem. The fact that they
know about the bug, knew the call was faulty, for at least a week
beforehand, and chose not to rewwrite is in my mind, "buggy".

>   Go back to your trailer trash home, watch the X-Files some more,
>and put on your tinfoil-lined pants and hat... the GS conspiracy is
>going to beam some more thoughts into you if you don't watch out.

Damn. I was going to say more or less the same thing back to you. Ahhh
well, I'll just have to stick to Antichrist then. 

>Nathan Mates


--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 5, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.