Ryandor.com
https://ryandor.com/forum/

Looks like Orbsydia has been hacked?
https://ryandor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2766		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  HellRazor [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:50 am ]
Post subject:  Looks like Orbsydia has been hacked?
http://www.orbsydia.ca/forum/
Author:  Planet_Jeroen [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:54 am ]
Post subject: 
That, or his date function is off by -23 days.
Author:  HellRazor [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Hmmm. Someone said he posted in one of his other forums that he was taking a break. But the site looks hacked, someone has messed with the forum templates and the "closed" message doesn't look like it was written by him.
Author:  Stormcrow [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Do to Stress and other of Life I'm Closing OrBSydia.
LOL
No, Rob's spelling and grammar may not be the greatest, but that was written by some asian script kiddie.
Author:  Dev Viperrious [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:31 am ]
Post subject: 
Appearence is everything to Rob so even if he was going to close the site it would be something lengthy, flashy and totally uninformative...

Hacked for sure.

Dev
Author:  Stormcrow [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Dev Viperrious wrote:
Appearence is everything to Rob so even if he was going to close the site it would be something lengthy, flashy and totally uninformative...

Hacked for sure.

Dev


LOL
Author:  Sharlenwar [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Haha, look at that link now... looks like it is shut down? :roll:
Author:  Dev Viperrious [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ah don't fret to bad, he'll be back once he thinks everyone has forgotten or moved on and start all over. This isn't the first time he or his web site vanished.

Dev
Author:  Sharlenwar [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Doesn't matter anyways, it is a shame that he just does that. Oh well.
Author:  Coldfire [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ive talked to Irro on aim, it looks like its been shut down for good...


:( :( :( :(

can you tell im angry? just great dealing with router problems...and now what will i use to make my maps :(
Author:  Dev Viperrious [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ah the old "Make them beg" manouver...yeah thats Rob.

He can keep 2.0, easy to say it will blow everything out of the water when no one can see it to find out (Yes the old "It doesn't really exist unless you prove it manouver").

I've known Rob since 1998 when he played UO online, though thats really nothing to brag about all things considered.

Dev
Author:  Sydius [ Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 
I really do not understand why people wait for software from hobbyists.
Author:  HellRazor [ Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 
What's funny about all these posts from Khaybel, none of them SOUND like Khaybel!

I'm thinking he is having someone else "ghost" for him while he sorts out whatever personal stuff he's got going.
Author:  Dian [ Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Sydius wrote:
I really do not understand why people wait for software from hobbyists.


Not everyone is as god like as you are, syd... some of us do not have the knowlege to code our own software. Whats so hard to understand...

What I dont understand though, is why so many people act like Orbsydia was such a great place.. I have to take Dev's attitude on this one.
Author:  Sydius [ Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 
I realize the majority of people in this community are not programmers, but that is not the point. The point is, a significant amount of the time, hobbyist developers do not come through with their grand dreams, and rarely release any better than mediocre software. Given that general track record, I do not see why anybody would count on any hobbyist software project -- at least until it has proven itself.

On the other hand, if you really want to see that kind of software get finished, fund it. If not with money, then volunteer and do some of the work yourself. The more people who either pay up or donate their time, the more likely the project is to be finished. Granted, many projects cannot be adequately funded or helped, no matter how much desire to do so may exist -- for any number of reasons, most often due to leadership issues.
Author:  Stormcrow [ Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sydius wrote:
The point is, a significant amount of the time, hobbyist developers do not come through with their grand dreams, and rarely release any better than mediocre software. Given that general track record, I do not see why anybody would count on any hobbyist software project -- at least until it has proven itself.


Well not every hobbyist developer is like you Syd :P
BURN!
Author:  Paigelore [ Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sharlenwar wrote:
Doesn't matter anyways, it is a shame that he just does that. Oh well.


I'd like to agree...except I think everyone in the uo community lost count of how many times i vanished with paigelore, only to return a month or less later :P
Author:  Planet_Jeroen [ Mon May 01, 2006 2:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Sydius wrote:
On the other hand, if you really want to see that kind of software get finished, fund it. If not with money, then volunteer and do some of the work yourself. The more people who either pay up or donate their time, the more likely the project is to be finished. Granted, many projects cannot be adequately funded or helped, no matter how much desire to do so may exist -- for any number of reasons, most often due to leadership issues.


You could simply condense that by saying that noone follows the proper software lifecycle. In skipping planning and design, they shoot themselves before they are born. If they manage to pull it out of their ass along the way, they have a chance if they do not deflect from that too much, else they have an unmaintainable piece of c(rap)ode

I'm not sure if this goes for this forum as well, but it shure as hell goes for my work.
Author:  Sydius [ Mon May 01, 2006 8:33 am ]
Post subject: 
Software lifecycle my ass. I used to think it was God before I got into the industry and spoke to other people in the industry. The truth about games, from the garage games to the big MMOs, is simple: pure bruteforce programming.

My cousin, who I lived with for a brief bit of time, and now works as the top exec of Yahoo! Games, always told me: SOFTWARE LIFECYCLE! LEARN IT! DESIGN FIRST! BLAH BLAH BLAH! But when I asked to see how it really worked, it was more like "pretend to design, program program program, pretend to design, program, realize you screwed everything up, delete half the program, pretend to design better, then fix bugs for a while, then program program program".

As my boss likes to call it, "rapid prototyping"... a fancy way of saying "just make it work."

The big difference between a hobbyist and a paid programmer, though, is that the paid programmer has an obligation to sit down a certain number of hours a month to program solely on one specific project (or small group of related projects).

...

Granted, some games and especially business apps, do go through the proper design cycle before coding, and come out much more polished and refined... but I think the companies that follow that rigidly are cold, in a sense.
Author:  Planet_Jeroen [ Mon May 01, 2006 9:28 am ]
Post subject: 
And there you have the main reason for all the crappy software out there.
Author:  Sydius [ Mon May 01, 2006 9:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Planet_Jeroen wrote:
And there you have the main reason for all the crappy software out there.


And there you have the main reason for there being software out there, period. :P
Author:  Planet_Jeroen [ Mon May 01, 2006 10:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Just to prove that not everyone thinks that way:

http://www.typo3.org

This is an open source content management system, like it should be done.
All it takes is discipline. It has design docs, manuals, clean source, commented source, etc.

I dare to make a bet now that this will be around years to come, as opposed to people who code like you propose. I admit that I have a LOT of trouble doing the design phase proper, but it saves heaps of time when you do it proper, and keeps code maintainable.
Author:  Sydius [ Mon May 01, 2006 10:32 am ]
Post subject: 
I am not saying that nobody follows those design principles, but I do think they go against the spirit of and entertainment of programming.

I think programming prototypes, fixing bugs, and just getting it done is much more fun; as soon as the programmers become businessmen worried about economic efficiency more than algorithm efficiency, the company looses its soul.

If you can implement that system without killing the soul of entertaining programming, then fine, and some companies have done that to varied degrees of success, but I would rather wait three more years, and deal with more bugs and testing, than play a game finished sooner by a group of programmers and designers who did not love every aspect of their job.
Author:  Planet_Jeroen [ Mon May 01, 2006 11:42 am ]
Post subject: 
... a group of programmers and designers who DO love every aspect of their job would have their algorithm described, their planning done, and would not need to bugtrack 3 more years, unless the world all of sudden changed.

We're saying the same thing tho... you need to care about what you are doing, else it turns crap.

*EDIT

I admire the rare programmer who can code decent stuff without planning, it's just that there are not much who can actualy do it VS a lot who think they can do it.
Author:  Sydius [ Mon May 01, 2006 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
I do not know of any programmer who enjoys designing and laying out their program before they begin coding... at least not beyond the first day or so of planning. We all think about code, and think about how we will implement it, but writing it all down (in a human language) and using fancy graphs and flow charts to describe each and every aspect of a program before it is even started (in code), is, well, boring. After all, a major reason that many programmers are attracted to programming is because of the challenges it presents, and once those challenges are solved, it becomes a work of tedium to force yourself to fill in code. Designing everything first effectively removes all of the grand, over-arching "fun" problems by solving them first -- that is, after all, why that paradigm works so well from a business perspective.

There will always be some people who will enjoy writing down elaborate diagrams and deciding how each and every aspect of the program will work before they begin coding, and then still enjoy coding it. I even enjoy the concept of it, but in practice, not many people I know of can stomach that much thinking about one group of problems. As a result, I believe when that method of program construction is enforced, the programmers who do the work do it more because they have to, and less because they want to -- which may result in a better program thanks to the planning stage, but a soulless one as far as I am concerned.

Yes, the Ultima Online client is a piece of crap from a design-first/program-later standpoint, as are all of the Ultima games, but the way they were made gave them soul. They went through hell, many revisions, and cried murder before making it out to the public. Then EA came in, with their business efficiency, and, well, now their programs are released right as they are crying murder. That is why there is so much crap on the market -- you cannot combine business efficiency with old-school programming effectively. At the same time, you cannot use the newer design principles (at least rigidly) without effectively killing the soul of a program (especially games) in most scenarios.

I simply do not think the "design first" philosophy is a better one than "program first, then fix" from a "making a good program" perspective, although I will admit that designing first is both cheaper and faster.

I think a mix is best.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/