Flameproof

[Sixes]

As instructed on various threads, I check back here regularly. But what would be really useful is a definitive answer to the following questions:[list=a] Is there actually going to be a working version of SEQ within a reasonable timescale?
Have the developers given up trying to keep up with the regular changes by SOE?
Is it actually worth checking back here regularly?
Is the project still alive?
[/list=a]Yes, I appreciate I'll probably get flamed to hell by the regular flamers. But wouldn't it be nice to get one definitive response from the developers?

[Alfred]

I don't think I normally "flame"...

But there HAS been a definitive answer! I leave it to you, to find it :)

I'll give you a hint for making life easier in the future. Simply click on the show new posts at the top of the main forum page and it amazing what you can learn. :)

The project isn't dead.

[uncleubb]

http://seq.sourceforge.net/images/top_search.gif
(http://seq.sourceforge.net/search.php?s=)

[Ratt]

a. Yes, according to my definition of reasonable.
b. No.
c. That's up to the individual.
d. Yes.

[Amadeus]

Ratt,

Thanks so much for the info. I try to read all worthwhile posts on the board and no matter what Alfred says, it's nice to get a definitive answer on things.

We should sticky this. I don't think anyone has a problem with patience, but I think everyone loves to know what's up from someone with authority rather than rumor/speculation.

[fester]

Nice to get answers, but maybe I am confused. I seem to remember these questions having been asked and answered a number of times in the recent past.

[CybMax]

Yes.. it has been posted again and again.. and answered again and again..

But.. Well.. lets see.. I post a question asking "Is SEQ dead? Or is someone working on it?".. I get 4 flames saying some shite about how impatient i am and all that.. and perhaps 1-2 posts stating that SEQ is not dead. (Usually never by any of the so called "devs").

Then 2 weeks goes by without ANY whatsoever post about status or anything at ALL that have to do with anyone working on something.

So the question is naturally asked again. Is that so strange?

I know.. i know.. noone owes anyone anything.. be patient.. it will come.. "everyone" is working on a fix.. and so on and so forth.. :)

[baelang]

A once-per-week status update isn't unreasonable to ask.

A daily status update IS unreasonable.

[Amadeus]

I'm not sure where you guys have seen these questions answered directly from an official developer in the past. Maybe you could post links to threads?

I'm not complaining, and I would have never asked the questions because I KNOW someone would have posted if the project were dead. However, I have been following the board and I have not seen these questions answered directly as yet from someone with the authority to actually answer them (ie, Ratt).

[Alfred]

dude lol :)

just relax and hit the link I told you about at the top of the forum page that shows only new messages. It is how I found your jewel ;)

Eventually you will find the information you are looking for.

Or try using the search with keywords like "status" or "dead" or "anyone working" etc. Your a smart one, you can figure it out.

[Dedpoet]

click me (http://www.macsrule.com/~seqfaq/seq-faq.html)

[PainNSuffering]

Oh sure, just hide it in the FAQ, when people want questions answered you know they will not accept any answer given before they ask. doing that is like getting laid then having to entertain some one all night. Sure it would be great if the world worked that way, but basic human nature will some how screw it up.

[Alfred]

Hmm

Librarian's never get any rest then. If everyone is so damn lazy.... ;)

What ever happened to wanting to find something out on your own?

[Dedpoet]

I still contend that the flame warning message at the top of the main page should somehow indicate that the "read this" link is actually the FAQ. Like, "Read the <link>FAQ</link> and use the <link>search</link> feature before posting any questions. Something like that. Either that, or make the "FAQ" button on the main page actually point at the ShowEQ FAQ rather than the Sourceforge FAQ. I would be glad to keep the FAQ up to date with the top line indicating current status and offer to do just that. Maybe add a line to the top above the current memory offset that says, "Please check the <link>FAQ</link> for current status of ShowEQ." I don't know...just throwing out ideas.

I know that the giant +5 size message at the top of the FAQ isn't as noticeable as, say, a sticky post in the help forum, but it's what is within my power to do. When we're back up and running, I will take the message out.

[Amadeus]

The FAQ says that SEQ is broken...now, that's no mystery. However, Ratt answered questions that had not yet been answered.

[Alfred]

Are you certain of that? ;)

[fester]

Amadeus, each of those four questions have been answered before and multiple times.

[Amadeus]

Honestly, I read every thread that goes through these boards that's not utterly stupid (ie, "What's UR religious belief"), and I havn't seen those questions answered before in such a straightforward fashion and from an official MQ developer.

Perhaps you could point out a couple examples of where this has been addressed with both of those criteria (straightforward and from official dev) since the last major patch.

It's not worth arguing about either way. I thanked Ratt for making a statement in a way that I hadn't seen before, and you guys are making such a big fuss out of it...hell, I started teaching college so I could get away from such attitudes. I mean, I can understand even flaming someone for harassing the devs with questions or what not, but thanking them?

[Alfred]

Casey's post (http://seq.sourceforge.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3092)


Second, dont assume anything. You are frequently wrong when you try. Development has not stopped. Sure, it has slowed a little, as the nature of the changes recently have become a bit more in depth (ie, not just opcode/struct changes). And yes, not everyone is working on the problem for some reason or another, whats your complaint there? You surely are not helping.

It isn't the best post but it confirmed it for me. I searched for "working".

This isn't a matter of flaming, just showing an instance how sometimes we think we know.. when we really don't. :)

hehe I fully realize that I can fall into that camp too. ;)

[Amadeus]

I did see that by Casey, and it does answer one or two of the questions asked in this thread. The one that was new, and for which I appreciated an answer the most, was question a).

[Alfred]

I would think that is implied by Casey's post.

However, If you consider:


a. Yes, according to my definition of reasonable.

a definitive answer.

Then yes, I agree. ;)