Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 040
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #40
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Monday, 7 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 040
Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
Re: REJECT data problem
Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
Consistency failures
Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
Re: Shareware vendors profiting from YEU.
Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Forsman <thoth@cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 1994 22:02:59 EST
Subject: Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
"D.J.S. Damerell" <djsd100@cus.cam.ac.uk> ,in message <Pine.SUN.3.91.9411060017
56.8986B-100000@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>, wrote:
> If they make a profit, that's not all you're being charged for.
Profit is the payoff from an investment of time and other resources.
Without profit (monetary or otherwise), there is no investment.
------------------------------
From: Stanley Stasiak <stasiak@iinet.com.au>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 12:15:00 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: REJECT data problem
>
> >> What do you mean "of course he needed to use REJECT"?
> REJECT is a fast but not very good reject builder.
> You should really try RMB.
> (RMB v 2.0 is in the NEWSTUFF dir on infant2) <<
>
> Sorry, I meant "he needed to use a REJECT builder." I just used REJECT
> because that was the one I had sitting around. I'll try out RMB. I've heard
> lots of good things about it.
yah.. I tell ya... on my large level speed increase
was about 400%.
8)
Stan.
>
------------------------------
From: "D.J.S. Damerell" <djsd100@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 04:55:31 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
On Sat, 5 Nov 1994, Robert Forsman wrote:
> "D.J.S. Damerell" <djsd100@cus.cam.ac.uk> ,in message <Pine.SUN.3.91.9411060017
> 56.8986B-100000@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>, wrote:
> > If they make a profit, that's not all you're being charged for.
> Profit is the payoff from an investment of time and other resources.
> Without profit (monetary or otherwise), there is no investment.
Tell _that_ to GNU.
David Damerell, GCV Sauricon. djsd100@cus.cam.ac.uk RL: Trinity, Cambridge
WOODHAL2.WAD on infant2. CUWoCS President. METLMAZE.WAD sometime soonish.
|___| All people's aims are unreachable, and their struggles futile. |___|
| | | When you see this true of your own aims, life becomes a vacuum. | | |
------------------------------
From: Paul@rbpage.demon.co.uk (Paul Griggs)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 12:59:06 GMT
Subject: Consistency failures
Hi All
I wonder if anyone knows why when I try to run the wad files I have written
I am getting consistency failures?
I have two levels I have written and both crash out:.. only it seems when a
rocket is launched at the other player from a reasonably close distance..
Both exe's are the same and both wad sizes are the same..
Any ideas?
Thanks.
- --
Paul Griggs
------------------------------
From: "J. Andrew Scherrer" <jas3@rsrch1.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 08:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
> On Sat, 5 Nov 1994, Dave Kirsch wrote:
> > That's nonsense. I work for a large commerical BBS and we charge money
> > for acccessing the system. We make a profit, too. Does that mean I'm
> > charging money to allow people access to freeware?
>
> Yes, in a word.
>
> > Walnut Creek is charging you money for the _transport_ of the data.
> > You're being charged for the time it took them to get the stuff together,
> > put it on a disc and ship it to you.
>
> If they make a profit, that's not all you're being charged for.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in a restaurant, you're being charged for more than
the food, or even the cooking. What you're paying for here is a nice
convenient package, where someone else put the time into downloading and
organizing all the cool stuff so you won't have to. They can charge 19, or
29, or 290 bux for this service. It's up to YOU to decide how much your
time, or this convenience is worth. It really has nothing to do with the
material contained on the medium.
It seems to me that people should have expected this, in today's
information age, where people get $100s/hr for saving other people the
hassle of digging around for information. Many of you are far more
immersed in the Net than I am, and I've seen many instances where people
or companies or the Puissant Capitalistic Devil himself are making a
profit by packaging shareware or freeware--from utilities to games--onto a
bunch of floppies, or with a book, or on a CD. And to THINK they intend to
make money from the endeavor!
So, now that I've patiently sat through a plethora messages regarding this
egregious breach of freeware ethics, can I request that we start talking
about DOOM editing again?
Andy Scherrer
(bothrops)
------------------------------
From: "S. McCrea" <sm@eng.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 1994 15:03:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Shareware vendors profiting from YEU.
Andy Scherrer wrote:
> Dave Damerell(?) wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Nov 1994, Dave Kirsch wrote:
> > > That's nonsense. I work for a large commerical BBS and we charge money
> > > for acccessing the system. We make a profit, too. Does that mean I'm
> > > charging money to allow people access to freeware?
> > Yes, in a word.
> > > Walnut Creek is charging you money for the _transport_ of the data.
> > > You're being charged for the time it took them to get the stuff together,
> > > put it on a disc and ship it to you.
> > If they make a profit, that's not all you're being charged for.
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in a restaurant, you're being charged for more than
> the food, or even the cooking.
>
People don't grow food to give away you know, and THEY expect it to be resold.
> What you're paying for here is a nice
> convenient package, where someone else put the time into downloading and
> organizing all the cool stuff so you won't have to.
>
Would you buy an empty CD just because it looked nice? Or one crammed full
of nice Doom levels? You can say you're charging for the package, but people
are _paying_ for what's in it.
> They can charge 19, or
> 29, or 290 bux for this service. It's up to YOU to decide how much your
> time, or this convenience is worth.
>
And it's up to the level designers to object. Try putting together a bunch of
your favourite commercial games on CD and see if anyone complains.
> It really has nothing to do with the
> material contained on the medium.
>
Yeah, sure.
> It seems to me that people should have expected this, in today's
> information age, where people get $100s/hr for saving other people the
> hassle of digging around for information.
>
There's a lot of parasites out there, true enough.
> Many of you are far more
> immersed in the Net than I am, and I've seen many instances where people
> or companies or the Puissant Capitalistic Devil himself are making a
> profit by packaging shareware or freeware--from utilities to games--onto a
> bunch of floppies, or with a book, or on a CD. And to THINK they intend to
> make money from the endeavor!
>
I see. What is your point?
> So, now that I've patiently sat through a plethora messages regarding this
> egregious breach of freeware ethics, can I request that we start talking
> about DOOM editing again?
>
Patiently waded in with your big oar, you mean. You enjoy it really. Etc.
Anyway, I had this idea, but I don't have the time to make a snazzy WAD
to show it off. What I did was to make an object in a ray-tracer and slice
it into about 12 layers. Then I put each layer into a different transparent
texture and put them together in a Doom level. Et voila, a solid object!
Looks pretty good over about a 90 degree viewing angle. Could probably be
improved with some careful addition of other lines. It's not even _that_
slow.
Hopefully this will steer the conversation away from shareware blah blah blah.
Steve.
------------------------------
From: Gordon_Mulcaster@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Mulcaster)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 10:10:30 -0800
Subject: Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
Matthew Ayres <ayres@cdrom.com> writes:
>However, I highly doubt anyone would really mind too much. It does
>distribute their work widely, and that's the whole idea of releasing
>their work anyhow.
The idea is they want their work freely distributed, they don't want
slimeballs making money off their work.
- --
"How can I be wrong? I have a badge!" -- Groo
Gordon_Mulcaster@mindlink.BC.CA -or- a7902@mindlink.BC.CA
------------------------------
From: Brad Spencer <spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 18:21:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Shareware vendors profiting from DEU.
On Sat, 5 Nov 1994, Robert Forsman wrote:
> "D.J.S. Damerell" <djsd100@cus.cam.ac.uk> ,in message <Pine.SUN.3.91.9411060017
> 56.8986B-100000@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>, wrote:
>
> > If they make a profit, that's not all you're being charged for.
>
> Profit is the payoff from an investment of time and other resources.
> Without profit (monetary or otherwise), there is no investment.
>
Great, but that has nothing to do with the fact that they don't own the
stuff, and I understand freeware properly, you can distribute it and
such, but the ownership remains with the creator. So they're selling
something they down't own...
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Spencer - Bilbo - spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca - Dalhousie University
"Everybody is Kung-Fu Fragging . . ."
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #40
*********************************
