In hindsight I perhaps went overboard. I'll lend a hand in bringing
the tools back in line so that they may compile under MSVC.
With this in mind; it would be easier to maintain the code if the
Windows specifics (like #define determining whether to use sleep(x,y)
or Sleep(x)) were placed in a
JO> Windows users who wish to code fcptools should install Cygwin, another
JO> freely available toolset.
I cannot even begin to find words adequate to express the overwhelming
vehemence of my disagreement with that statement.
To me, any program that requires Cygwin is not a windows program any
mo
Hi Ian,
Monday, December 17, 2001, 7:06:38 PM, you wrote:
IC> On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:52:59PM +1300, David McNab wrote:
>> I was starting to implement the non-dbr inserts into fcpputsite, but I
>> can't be bothered now.
>>
>> Someone else can do it.
>> I now wash my hands of the code entirely
Oskar Sandberg wrote:
>>Like, how would hobx feel if he cvs updated and found that someone had
>>replaced all the crypto with a scheme that encrypts via "XOR
>>0x52494141" ?
Mmh, great idea. Might improve performance tremendously.
/me whistles innocently and presses the submit button
Sebastian
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 01:01:23AM +1300, David McNab wrote:
<>
> Like, how would hobx feel if he cvs updated and found that someone had
> replaced all the crypto with a scheme that encrypts via "XOR
> 0x52494141" ?
I would back it out and remove their CVS access. There is no point in
getting work
David McNab wrote:
> JO> Windows users who wish to code fcptools should install Cygwin, another
> JO> freely available toolset.
>
> I cannot even begin to find words adequate to express the overwhelming
> vehemence of my disagreement with that statement.
>
> To me, any program that requires Cygw
On Sunday 16 December 2001 10:01 pm, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> Oook. So, we become portable by re-defining portability to be what
> we were going to code to anyway. That must make things easier.
>
> --
> Benjamin Coates
>
> P.S. It's really OK to admit that you don't know how to do Win32.
True; b
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:52:59PM +1300, David McNab wrote:
> I was starting to implement the non-dbr inserts into fcpputsite, but I
> can't be bothered now.
>
> Someone else can do it.
> I now wash my hands of the code entirely.
David,
I am sorry to hear that you have been frustrated, but from
>From jlocke at optonline.net
>On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:52:59PM +1300, David McNab wrote:
>> Hi devl,
>>
>> Who's the cunt who took the windows-specific code out of fcptools?
>01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
789
>
>Yes I'm the so-called cunt.
>
>In th
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:52:59PM +1300, David McNab wrote:
> Hi devl,
>
> Who's the cunt who took the windows-specific code out of fcptools?
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Yes I'm the so-called cunt.
I asked nicely in a private email if I could
DM> Hi devl,
DM> Who's the cunt who took the windows-specific code out of fcptools?
DM> I was starting to implement the non-dbr inserts into fcpputsite, but I
DM> can't be bothered now.
DM> Someone else can do it.
DM> I now wash my hands of the code entirely.
DM> David
The basis of my outburst is
Hi devl,
Who's the cunt who took the windows-specific code out of fcptools?
I was starting to implement the non-dbr inserts into fcpputsite, but I
can't be bothered now.
Someone else can do it.
I now wash my hands of the code entirely.
David
___
Dev
David McNab wrote:
> The basis of my outburst is that I put a hell of a lot of time into
> making fcptools work on linux and windows, and to keep the ezFCPtools
> API identical, and the tool command line options.
Hi David, I don't know who removed that specific code, but it would
really be a pi
13 matches
Mail list logo
