MyName wrote on 2024-03-07, 18:27:
In any case, if you choose to support an initially flawed project, passing it off as original and claiming that it is stable, this characterizes you quite well. Your consumers are naive users of second-rate software. It is your choice and the choice of these users. I don't dare judge.
Puh, ok. Yes, I also have a pretty good idea of your character now.
You still fail to actually provide any proof of instability aka. bugs.
I'm not "passing it off as original". The first sentence of the readme states: "This fork is a continuation of the abandoned sourceforge project - see development history for details." - which then details it's history, original developer and contributors (you included) in a the first section after the initial "About" section. At the end of the readme i list all involved authors (again you included):
David Wang aka wangds: Original author
Andrea Ratto aka neg3ntropy: Compilation fixes and graphics updates
Zbynek Vyskovsky aka […]
Show full quote
David Wang aka wangds: Original author
Andrea Ratto aka neg3ntropy: Compilation fixes and graphics updates
Zbynek Vyskovsky aka kvr000: Compilation fixes and other polishing
1oom-fork: Various fixes and new features
codeflorist: Various fixes, new features and maintainer of this fork
This pretty much corresponds to the facts. I'm even calling it explicitly a "fork". I'm not trying to "pass off" anything for anything.
I'm just some dude, that got it to compile and continued fixing and adding stuff and thought it was worth a release - because noone else did. Mostly for myself and not my "consumers" (lol). I don't want to sell anything. I pour dozens of hours of my free time into an open-source project to provide value for myself and any others, that find it useful. That's simply it. I love playing the game and want it to improve. If any "naive users of my second-rate software" get enjoyment out of it, i'm glad. For all others, i've listed the alternatives in the readme.
I'll start ignoring you now.