The above video goes away if you are a member and logged in, so log in now!
I have been able to compile all revisions with SNC up until now (including my uncommitted experimental versions) all this time - using SNC with Wine on Arch Linux.
Originally Posted by subcon959
Anyway, I know what the problem is - overzealous on my part hardcoding some stuff. I will rectify it just now.
Yeah, there is still no Netplay.
Originally Posted by Metagondria
IIRC - Mednafen has Netplay support - but of course playing SNES on it is a no-go since bSNES will run like crap.
So I guess I will either have to look at it again for SNES9x PS3 and decide if it performs well enough to leave it in. If it lags as hell or won't even play at a more or less constant 60fps, then it's not worth putting it in.
That is completely false both as to why the material is still here and as to the reason why squarepusher2 has left the site.
Originally Posted by drenuf
If you have to rake up this matter, then make sure to stick to the facts, not weird propaganda and other incorrect statements.
He was 'banned' at his own request. So that decision was really made by himself. Blaming it on others is twisting the truth.
Some of his released material is still available through this site, because while squarepusher2 does have ownership rights to his code, he chose to make a public release.
And by international law, a release made to the general public is indeed PUBLIC.
It is not possible, within the law, to exclude a specific public medium from using the same public release as others, even if the author wants to do so.
Anyone who believes that it should be so simply does not understand what a public release means.
Don't get me wrong now, as I'm not saying he doesn't own his work. He does.
But he chose to make a public release of it, both here and elsewhere.
And once that has been done it is not possible to change it into a non-public release, exclusive to some other site.
That is simply not how the law works. Retroactive changes of that kind are simply not possible.
So while he still owns the stuff he produced, and will have the opportunity for new decisions on how/if future versions are released,
he does not have any legal right to forbid the continued existence of what he originally posted here.
And as for the general sabotage of these threads that some people tried to do, deleting ongoing discussion threads etc, that in itself was illegal.
The text published in a public medium is normally owned by whatever company provides this medium, regardless of the ownership of the stuff discussed in that text.
So for example, if a newspaper publishes an article that some freelancer wrote about the Harlem Globetrotters, the published text belongs to the newspaper, subject only to whatever deal they made with the freelancer (exclusive VS non-exclusive etc), though neither one of them 'owns' the Harlem Globetrotters. And if that freelancer then gets a better offer from some other newspaper (or internet site), he is not able to make an exclusive release to them and forbid the first newspaper from continuing to publish his original release.
That corresponds very closely to the situation with squarepusher2 and the reason why his posts and links still remain here.
Because his attempts to forbid them, and even to sabotage them, simply were not legal.
Not at all. It is being run by perfectly normal standards. You just see it the way you want to see it...
This site is crap now and is being run like a dictatorship.
As for the TOS clauses that some developers objected to earlier, those particular clauses have never been applied to anyone on this site, and have now been removed. They were included only because the admins used an existing TOS template without doublechecking its suitablity for this kind of site, in their eagerness to get things running at all. That check has now been made and the TOS amended accordingly, to eliminate any and all cases where the old TOS implied loss of ownership to published software (probably because the old TOS was not designed for a site with software releases, but was designed for pure news reporting.)
In the new TOS all such cases have been carefully rephrased so as not to infringe the ownership rights of any contributing developers.
I emphasize again that the fact that these threads remain (despite squarepusher2's wishes) has nothing to do with his continued ownership of all software he produced.
But ownership of those software products does not translate into ownership of all pages discussing them. Those pages belong to each site they reside on.
Since there appears to have been some misunderstandings about my role in the recent past, let me point out that while I am a moderator of this site since many years back (long before the recent change of administration), I have never had any direct ties to the admins of this site, past or present. In fact I am one of those contributing developers (mainly for PS2 software) which recent propaganda-mongers have tried to scare into moving to other sites, in fear that we'd otherwise have our work 'stolen' as the propaganda puts it. And that is something which I simply find absurd. And I am amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people have fallen for this nonsense. I have no more reason to distrust this site today than I had those many years back when I first started publishing my work here. I've never had anything 'stolen' from me here yet, and I don't expect that ever to happen.
Best regards: dlanor
Except for some errors at first by the new administration
This site seems much better then when thing spiraled out of control when PS3 was first cracked
V10 SCPH-50001 with Network adapter SCPH-10281 500 G HD
PSP 3000 9G 6.20 PRO CFW Perm
Unofficial FMCB v1.8C OPL self compiled HD and SMB preferred
Is how all good gaming systems came to be
Even if it was removed. It probably would have just been shared again by another person following his work. This way he gets to keep all credit for his great work.
Originally Posted by Robocrop
Not that his wishes mean nothing. It just would be counter productive to a open forum.
Not to support the use of illegal drugs, but I'm pretty sure this could all be happily settled with a good joint session. Maybe a hookah