| John IV |
|
IV/Play, MAME, MAMEUI
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/22/03
|
|
Posts: 1969
|
|
Loc: Washington, USA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
#353132 - 04/18/16 04:15 AM
|
|
|
mame -help
MAME v0.172 (542-ga45d713)
...
Was this intentional? The build date was used by my front end on the titlebar.
|
john iv
http://www.mameui.info/
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: John IV]
#353133 - 04/18/16 04:54 AM
|
|
|
> mame -help
> MAME v0.172 (542-ga45d713)
> ...
>
> Was this intentional? The build date was used by my front end on the titlebar.
Yes. It's showing the number of revisions since tag and revision hash that it was compiled from. The compile date is pretty much meaningless. In this case, the abbreviated revision hash is a45d713 and it's 542 revisions since the tag.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#353143 - 04/18/16 12:34 PM
|
|
|
I think the data was a useful human digestible metric, which is one of the issues I have with GIT in general; without access to the repository it's basically just a random bunch of numbers and letters which you can't mentally store as anything.
Don't see a problem with listing the git revision, but the date should still be there IMHO.
|
|
|
| CiroConsentino |
|
Frontend freak!
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 6211
|
|
Loc: Alien from Terra Prime... and Brazil
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353149 - 04/18/16 01:58 PM
|
|
|
> I think the data was a useful human digestible metric, which is one of the issues I
> have with GIT in general; without access to the repository it's basically just a
> random bunch of numbers and letters which you can't mentally store as anything.
>
> Don't see a problem with listing the git revision, but the date should still be there
> IMHO.
The presence of the date kills the possibility of reproducible builds, which is why the debian guys asked if it was possible to do something about it.
OG.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Olivier Galibert]
#353153 - 04/18/16 04:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: AntoPISA]
#353154 - 04/18/16 06:28 PM
|
|
|
> Sorry, but it's complicated to leave both the information?
Do you read the posts you reply to? And if you don't understand them, do you try to look up the missing information?
OG.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Olivier Galibert]
#353155 - 04/18/16 06:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Olivier Galibert]
#353158 - 04/18/16 07:19 PM
|
|
|
> > I think the data was a useful human digestible metric, which is one of the issues I
> > have with GIT in general; without access to the repository it's basically just a
> > random bunch of numbers and letters which you can't mentally store as anything.
> >
> > Don't see a problem with listing the git revision, but the date should still be
> there
> > IMHO.
>
> The presence of the date kills the possibility of reproducible builds, which is why
> the debian guys asked if it was possible to do something about it.
>
> OG.
seems to be idealist vs. practical here...
unfortunately it doesn't surprise me given where the idea is coming from, pretty much mirrors my experiences.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: AntoPISA]
#353159 - 04/18/16 07:19 PM
|
|
|
> As always your answers do not help me.
They don't help because you don't understand? Or because you just don't like them.
If the build includes the date, then builds made from the same source version on different days won't be identical. Linux distro people apparently need that. So now MAME builds don't include the date.
It seems like a very simple explanation to me.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: SoltanGris42]
#353160 - 04/18/16 07:26 PM
|
|
|
> > As always your answers do not help me.
>
> They don't help because you don't understand? Or because you just don't like them.
>
> If the build includes the date, then builds made from the same source version on
> different days won't be identical. Linux distro people apparently need that. So now
> MAME builds don't include the date.
>
> It seems like a very simple explanation to me.
Here's another teacher...
I repeat: it is possible, in addition to the Git version number, put "even" the date?
But I realized that the answer will be "no".
Thank you for your very kind patience in answering.
|
Site: https://www.progettosnaps.net/
Board: progetto-SNAPS Official Board
Twitter: @progettosnaps
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: AntoPISA]
#353161 - 04/18/16 07:27 PM
|
|
|
> > > As always your answers do not help me.
> >
> > They don't help because you don't understand? Or because you just don't like them.
> >
> > If the build includes the date, then builds made from the same source version on
> > different days won't be identical. Linux distro people apparently need that. So now
> > MAME builds don't include the date.
> >
> > It seems like a very simple explanation to me.
>
> Here's another teacher...
> I repeat: it is possible, in addition to the Git version number, put "even" the date?
> But I realized that the answer will be "no".
> Thank you for your very kind patience in answering.
I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking, because I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a Linux distro.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353162 - 04/18/16 07:33 PM
|
|
|
> I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking, because
> I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a Linux
> distro.
Yes Haze, agree fully.
|
Site: https://www.progettosnaps.net/
Board: progetto-SNAPS Official Board
Twitter: @progettosnaps
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353163 - 04/18/16 07:43 PM
|
|
|
> I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking, because
> I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a Linux
> distro.
"This BS"? When on earth have you ever actually used this information, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: John IV]
#353165 - 04/18/16 07:57 PM
|
|
|
As micko said here date doesn't make any sense. The version number is enough.
If you've compiled for your own usage only and if you're on windows, then your compiled executable will have date and time it was made.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353168 - 04/18/16 09:14 PM
|
|
|
The date has always sense, representing the historical period in which a certain version was published, while "642 ga45d713" does it mean?
However, I understood the reason for that decision and, as always, although not agree, I take humbly act.
|
Site: https://www.progettosnaps.net/
Board: progetto-SNAPS Official Board
Twitter: @progettosnaps
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: MooglyGuy]
#353170 - 04/18/16 09:33 PM
|
|
|
> > I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking,
> because
> > I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a Linux
> > distro.
>
> "This BS"? When on earth have you ever actually used this information, or are you
> just arguing for the sake of arguing?
I've restored backups from CD before (where file mod dates have been lost during burning etc.) and always found it handy to see when things were built.
what we've replaced it with is just an additional version number, it tells you nothing of when the software was built, so we've essentially dropped a perfectly useful human readable field of data for the sake of some dumb linux distro.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353171 - 04/18/16 09:46 PM
|
|
|
> > > I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking,
> > because
> > > I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a Linux
> > > distro.
> >
> > "This BS"? When on earth have you ever actually used this information, or are you
> > just arguing for the sake of arguing?
>
> I've restored backups from CD before (where file mod dates have been lost during
> burning etc.) and always found it handy to see when things were built.
>
> what we've replaced it with is just an additional version number, it tells you
> nothing of when the software was built, so we've essentially dropped a perfectly
> useful human readable field of data for the sake of some dumb linux distro.
Except Debian is probably one of the top 5 Linux distributions, and it makes perfect sense if you think of it from the perspective of being able to make reproducible builds. Ideally, the user should be able to reproduce an identical binary to the one that's currently being shipped. The fact that you're fucking ignorant that you think that Debian is "some dumb linux distro" is evidence enough that you don't have a fucking clue and have no basis for calling any kind of shots when it comes to this sort of feature.
For someone who bitches as much as you do as to the lack of contributors, you sure don't seem to give a fuck about supporting a feature that would mean more contributors. The fuck is wrong with you?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353172 - 04/18/16 09:48 PM
|
|
|
> seems to be idealist vs. practical here...
>
> unfortunately it doesn't surprise me given where the idea is coming from, pretty much
> mirrors my experiences.
I know, right? Those fucking people, trying to get MAME accepted by a wider audience who could potentially contribute. Fuck them, right?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: MooglyGuy]
#353173 - 04/18/16 09:55 PM
|
|
|
> > > > I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking,
> > > because
> > > > I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a
> Linux
> > > > distro.
> > >
> > > "This BS"? When on earth have you ever actually used this information, or are you
> > > just arguing for the sake of arguing?
> >
> > I've restored backups from CD before (where file mod dates have been lost during
> > burning etc.) and always found it handy to see when things were built.
> >
> > what we've replaced it with is just an additional version number, it tells you
> > nothing of when the software was built, so we've essentially dropped a perfectly
> > useful human readable field of data for the sake of some dumb linux distro.
>
> Except Debian is probably one of the top 5 Linux distributions, and it makes perfect
> sense if you think of it from the perspective of being able to make reproducible
> builds. Ideally, the user should be able to reproduce an identical binary to the one
> that's currently being shipped. The fact that you're fucking ignorant that you think
> that Debian is "some dumb linux distro" is evidence enough that you don't have a
> fucking clue and have no basis for calling any kind of shots when it comes to this
> sort of feature.
>
> For someone who bitches as much as you do as to the lack of contributors, you sure
> don't seem to give a fuck about supporting a feature that would mean more
> contributors. The fuck is wrong with you?
I'm saying leave the date there on Windows, just because it's a popular thing to do on Linux, and it makes sense in some contexts doesn't mean it makes sense in all of them, it is typical dumb idealist Linux BS, I'm sorry, but things like this just reinforce my opinion there.
There are reasons Windows is still the primary PC OS, and things like this (ie stripping information people can digest) is one of them, we don't need to fall into that trap, so yeah, give them what they want, but why take it away from everybody else too?
You had a rant the other day about putting yourself in the shoes of ordinary users, and how being a dev can cloud that, this is a prime example, ordinary users prefer to see a build date.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353178 - 04/18/16 10:46 PM
|
|
|
> > > > > I think a better question would be to add 'on Windows' to what you're asking,
> > > > because
> > > > > I don't see why we should all have to put up with this BS just because of a
> > Linux
> > > > > distro.
> > > >
> > > > "This BS"? When on earth have you ever actually used this information, or are
> you
> > > > just arguing for the sake of arguing?
> > >
> > > I've restored backups from CD before (where file mod dates have been lost during
> > > burning etc.) and always found it handy to see when things were built.
> > >
> > > what we've replaced it with is just an additional version number, it tells you
> > > nothing of when the software was built, so we've essentially dropped a perfectly
> > > useful human readable field of data for the sake of some dumb linux distro.
> >
> > Except Debian is probably one of the top 5 Linux distributions, and it makes
> perfect
> > sense if you think of it from the perspective of being able to make reproducible
> > builds. Ideally, the user should be able to reproduce an identical binary to the
> one
> > that's currently being shipped. The fact that you're fucking ignorant that you
> think
> > that Debian is "some dumb linux distro" is evidence enough that you don't have a
> > fucking clue and have no basis for calling any kind of shots when it comes to this
> > sort of feature.
> >
> > For someone who bitches as much as you do as to the lack of contributors, you sure
> > don't seem to give a fuck about supporting a feature that would mean more
> > contributors. The fuck is wrong with you?
>
> I'm saying leave the date there on Windows, just because it's a popular thing to do
> on Linux, and it makes sense in some contexts doesn't mean it makes sense in all of
> them, it is typical dumb idealist Linux BS, I'm sorry, but things like this just
> reinforce my opinion there.
>
> There are reasons Windows is still the primary PC OS, and things like this (ie
> stripping information people can digest) is one of them, we don't need to fall into
> that trap, so yeah, give them what they want, but why take it away from everybody
> else too?
>
> You had a rant the other day about putting yourself in the shoes of ordinary users,
> and how being a dev can cloud that, this is a prime example, ordinary users prefer to
> see a build date.
Builds would be repeatable if instead of the build date it had the date of the GIT version (or whatever). Can't that be done somehow?
|
|
|
| redk9258 |
|
Regular
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 3968
|
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353179 - 04/18/16 10:49 PM
|
|
|
Maybe it doesn't even have to be a build date, but just the date the source was modified. Then the builds should come out equal.
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: redk9258]
#353183 - 04/18/16 11:32 PM
|
|
|
As a windows user that has been compiling for many years, I've never looked at or cared to see any build date information.
Official release goes in mame folder and freshly compiled build goes into it's own folder to look at the latest freshly added stuff.
I've never heard of anyone saying before I can play any games or see anything cool, I must check the build date because that information is so valuable and I must know it RIGHT NOW!
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353184 - 04/18/16 11:49 PM
|
|
|
LOL! You bring up a very good point. I also have compiled MAME for several years & never cared, or even woulda noticed, a build date on it. This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've read here.
|
Windows 11 64 bit OS
Intel Core i7-10700
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 6GB
32GB DDR4 RAM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353185 - 04/19/16 12:57 AM
|
|
|
That build date is totally useless. It only tells you when it was compiled, and any meaningful comparison with a non-stock build (which you will have NO WAY to tell by the build date) will be hopelessly compromised.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Firehawke]
#353188 - 04/19/16 02:15 AM
|
|
|
yes, I like to know when things were built, that's the entire point...
anyway, apparently all Windows builds put the date somewhere else in the executable, so common sense prevails anyway.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9714
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353191 - 04/19/16 02:49 AM
|
|
|
> You had a rant the other day about putting yourself in the shoes of ordinary users,
> and how being a dev can cloud that, this is a prime example, ordinary users prefer to
> see a build date.
Ordinary users need the version number, period.
If they're building from Git, then they need the Git ID instead of the version number, but either way the date doesn't come into it. I could build 0.115 today with today's timestamp and the timestamp is going to be 100% useless for any practical purposes.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: R. Belmont]
#353192 - 04/19/16 02:57 AM
|
|
|
> > You had a rant the other day about putting yourself in the shoes of ordinary users,
> > and how being a dev can cloud that, this is a prime example, ordinary users prefer
> to
> > see a build date.
>
> Ordinary users need the version number, period.
>
> If they're building from Git, then they need the Git ID instead of the version
> number, but either way the date doesn't come into it. I could build 0.115 today with
> today's timestamp and the timestamp is going to be 100% useless for any practical
> purposes.
but if you were to find a build of 115 with a much newer date than expected it tells you that it isn't a compile from when that version was released, but one that, for whatever reason, was compiled more recently, which is actually a useful piece of information.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353195 - 04/19/16 03:42 AM
|
|
|
> yes, I like to know when things were built, that's the entire point...
>
> anyway, apparently all Windows builds put the date somewhere else in the executable,
> so common sense prevails anyway.
Why would you ever need this information? It's actually someone's private information that she doesn't need to disclose. Like seriously what could you possibly do with the build date that you couldn't do with something else? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353201 - 04/19/16 11:03 AM
|
|
|
> > > You had a rant the other day about putting yourself in the shoes of ordinary
> users,
> > > and how being a dev can cloud that, this is a prime example, ordinary users
> prefer
> > to
> > > see a build date.
> >
> > Ordinary users need the version number, period.
> >
> > If they're building from Git, then they need the Git ID instead of the version
> > number, but either way the date doesn't come into it. I could build 0.115 today
> with
> > today's timestamp and the timestamp is going to be 100% useless for any practical
> > purposes.
>
> but if you were to find a build of 115 with a much newer date than expected it tells
> you that it isn't a compile from when that version was released, but one that, for
> whatever reason, was compiled more recently, which is actually a useful piece of
> information.
I'm not familiar enough with linux, but isn't there a "file created/accessed/modified date" equivalent ?
I've always managed file under windows using this.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: remax]
#353204 - 04/19/16 01:59 PM
|
|
|
> > > > You had a rant the other day about putting yourself in the shoes of ordinary
> > users,
> > > > and how being a dev can cloud that, this is a prime example, ordinary users
> > prefer
> > > to
> > > > see a build date.
> > >
> > > Ordinary users need the version number, period.
> > >
> > > If they're building from Git, then they need the Git ID instead of the version
> > > number, but either way the date doesn't come into it. I could build 0.115 today
> > with
> > > today's timestamp and the timestamp is going to be 100% useless for any practical
> > > purposes.
> >
> > but if you were to find a build of 115 with a much newer date than expected it
> tells
> > you that it isn't a compile from when that version was released, but one that, for
> > whatever reason, was compiled more recently, which is actually a useful piece of
> > information.
>
> I'm not familiar enough with linux, but isn't there a "file created/accessed/modified
> date" equivalent ?
>
> I've always managed file under windows using this.
It can be lost, as I said, I've picked up files off an old CD before where said data was lost, so knowing the compile dates was handy.
I'm actually amazed so few devs disagree because when we're *actually emulating stuff* this very same information, if left embedded in the ROMs etc. is really, really fucking useful and we use it quite frequently.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: AntoPISA]
#353208 - 04/19/16 05:24 PM
|
|
|
> The date has always sense, representing the historical period in which a certain
> version was published,
the problem is that you can take the source today and compile it next month. in that case date would be not today, but next month. what is then the meaning?
at the same time, in another folder you might have a newer codebase built in between with an older compile date, making the date pointless if not confusing 
> while "642 ga45d713" does it mean?
642 is a progressive number, so it means that there have been 642 commits in the source after latest release...
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: etabeta]
#353210 - 04/19/16 05:30 PM
|
|
|
Yes, I fully understand the meaning of these codes...
I only say that the date (only for official releases and only for Windows) should be maintained.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: etabeta]
#353213 - 04/19/16 05:48 PM
|
|
|
> > The date has always sense, representing the historical period in which a certain
> > version was published,
>
> the problem is that you can take the source today and compile it next month. in that
> case date would be not today, but next month. what is then the meaning?
>
that the build was compiled a month after the release... that's kinda the point in having the field.
I have lot of older source trees lying around, it's nice to know the last time I compiled them..
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353215 - 04/19/16 05:52 PM
|
|
|
Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353216 - 04/19/16 05:54 PM
|
|
|
> Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news
> headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
>
> You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
or you know.. we could just have the build date in there and avoid such life hacks.
I have to say B2K24, I often find you far too defensive of mamedev as a whole, no matter how badly done something is (and we do a lot of stuff badly) you sing the praises of it. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but I did have a conversation with Moogly the other day about how we need to look at how things work in terms of ordinary users, and how devs + power users can end up making us think we're doing the right thing when we're not.
Understanding what less techy users expect / need is very important to improving the project. A date might seem 'meaningless' to high-end users, but it's something people can connect with when they see it, that's why it ended up being used. A git hash and code OTOH might seem really useful to us, but it's absolute gibberish to a normal user. Having both satisfies both audiences.
It's not always what we want to see / hear, but as long as it's *non-destructive* it doesn't hurt to listen. The Widescreen debate amused me in the same way. As much as it annoys me seeing stretched to Widescreen videos on YouTube, EVERY SINGLE PERSON I know in real life wants the games to look that way, a significant number of them even want VERTICAL games stretched to fill a 16:9 screen, it looks like shit, but your every day person seems to expect that 'I paid for the screen, I'm making use of every pixel for my game' etc. (and yes, they do the same with movies)
The MAMEUI issue is the same, I don't know anybody who wants the command-line build, even coupled with QT. We keep trying to push it, to try to encourage people to move past MAMEUI, but most of them would never update MAME again without it (it took long enough for people I know to realise that MAME hadn't died when MAME32 stopped being updated, and that it was now actually called MAMEUI)
We're not, for the most part, dealing with ultra-intelligent people here, if anything a lot of our userbase seems to be of significantly below average intelligence (but often with good practical skills instead)
Something like a date is also a good reminder to ordinary people, they can see a date and think 'is that REALLY the last time I updated?' and it might prompt them to do so. There's nothing with a version number or git hash that can prompt them in that way. Yeah, some people will hold on to old versions on purpose anyway, but we now risk losing those who, come this time next year, would see 'May 2016' and think "I wonder what's happened in a year, maybe it's about time I updated"
I've always said the project needs to have a human side, not just a robotic side, that's what I'm trying to show here, the robotic approach feels really quite autistic and we need to be aware of that.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9714
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353217 - 04/19/16 07:33 PM
|
|
|
> Something like a date is also a good reminder to ordinary people, they can see a date
> and think 'is that REALLY the last time I updated?' and it might prompt them to do
> so.
In that case, we can put a fixed date in that gets updated on each release (the updating could even be done as part of the release tools). That way the ordinary people *and* the people trying to make sure someone doesn't stuff trojans into MAME binaries both win.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9714
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353218 - 04/19/16 07:37 PM
|
|
|
> Why would you ever need this information? It's actually someone's private information
> that she doesn't need to disclose. Like seriously what could you possibly do with the
> build date that you couldn't do with something else? I'm genuinely curious.
Haze doesn't have a real use for it (reminding people that they're using an old build is the weakest of sauces), he's just being Haze for no reason. I guess since JD is being nice these days the Force would become unbalanced otherwise.
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353222 - 04/19/16 07:49 PM
|
|
|
While I see where you're coming from with a lot of your points, My opinion still is the date is meaningless information and won't make a difference especially to these 'less techy or casual users'
If the majority of these users don't even care to upgrade their Computers Operating system or hardware than what relevance would seeing a date actually make?
A unique version number is more distinctive and with certain people making videos about new games or things in MAME in version 0.1XX seeing the differential in the versions will prompt more casual users to update rather than seeing a date.
In reality people see dates everywhere. They see it on their bills, forum posts or social media, etc. etc. etc.
This information is easily disregarded and omitted with the casual users thinking to themselves "It's only been a year or two and it's not worth the trouble. Everything I want to play works fine"
I'm inclined to believe casual users would more likely update based on version number rather than seeing a date, especially if they see videos or read about progress that tempts them to update because that information will be represented with a version number rather than any specific date.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353223 - 04/19/16 07:54 PM
|
|
|
> Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news
> headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
>
> You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
Or you can just use a tape archive like any sane person would do.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353224 - 04/19/16 08:00 PM
|
|
|
> > Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news
> > headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
> >
> > You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
>
> or you know.. we could just have the build date in there and avoid such life hacks.
>
> I have to say B2K24, I often find you far too defensive of mamedev as a whole, no
> matter how badly done something is (and we do a lot of stuff badly) you sing the
> praises of it. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but I did have a conversation
> with Moogly the other day about how we need to look at how things work in terms of
> ordinary users, and how devs + power users can end up making us think we're doing the
> right thing when we're not.
>
> Understanding what less techy users expect / need is very important to improving the
> project. A date might seem 'meaningless' to high-end users, but it's something people
> can connect with when they see it, that's why it ended up being used. A git hash and
> code OTOH might seem really useful to us, but it's absolute gibberish to a normal
> user. Having both satisfies both audiences.
>
> It's not always what we want to see / hear, but as long as it's *non-destructive* it
> doesn't hurt to listen. The Widescreen debate amused me in the same way. As much as
> it annoys me seeing stretched to Widescreen videos on YouTube, EVERY SINGLE PERSON I
> know in real life wants the games to look that way, a significant number of them even
> want VERTICAL games stretched to fill a 16:9 screen, it looks like shit, but your
> every day person seems to expect that 'I paid for the screen, I'm making use of every
> pixel for my game' etc. (and yes, they do the same with movies)
>
> The MAMEUI issue is the same, I don't know anybody who wants the command-line build,
> even coupled with QT. We keep trying to push it, to try to encourage people to move
> past MAMEUI, but most of them would never update MAME again without it (it took long
> enough for people I know to realise that MAME hadn't died when MAME32 stopped being
> updated, and that it was now actually called MAMEUI)
>
> We're not, for the most part, dealing with ultra-intelligent people here, if anything
> a lot of our userbase seems to be of significantly below average intelligence (but
> often with good practical skills instead)
>
> Something like a date is also a good reminder to ordinary people, they can see a date
> and think 'is that REALLY the last time I updated?' and it might prompt them to do
> so. There's nothing with a version number or git hash that can prompt them in that
> way. Yeah, some people will hold on to old versions on purpose anyway, but we now
> risk losing those who, come this time next year, would see 'May 2016' and think "I
> wonder what's happened in a year, maybe it's about time I updated"
>
> I've always said the project needs to have a human side, not just a robotic side,
> that's what I'm trying to show here, the robotic approach feels really quite autistic
> and we need to be aware of that.
In my opinion putting the build date is the hack. File formats have never needed to keep their ctime in the file itself. That's always been the job of the operating system. Likewise, it's the job of the system administrator to do backups correctly. There is nothing 'autistic' about removing pointless and potentially misleading information from a file. Please, provide use cases for this incredibly important build date. I'm curious as to what sort of amazing things one can accomplish with it.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353226 - 04/19/16 08:10 PM
|
|
|
Your average, less techy, user won't compile MAME. They'll just use the regular stable releases. That was a stupid argument and only YOU want the date back. Quit making it sound like you're arguing for everyone else and somehow the community is hurt by the date being removed. You're the only one that cares. Everyone else really could care less. You really are making a very stupid argument and it's quite laughable how upset you're acting about all this
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353228 - 04/19/16 08:27 PM
|
|
|
For a moment I was thinking 'wow Haze is so cool' and then;
> We're not, for the most part, dealing with ultra-intelligent people here, if anything a lot of our userbase seems to be of significantly below average intelligence (but often with good practical skills instead)
Nevermind, it's not just mamedev that gives the petty user a feeling they're monkeys, all software devs are like that. I remember it was the same at my old job, they didn't even hide how much they despised everyone outside of their team, and usually only did help us after the boss got pissed off because nobody could use their new uncalled feature/version/patch whatever.
The fact they never considered that people outside of their field of expertise and knowledge are not necessarily retards never crossed their minds, not one of them, ever.
And from what I've heard from my business contacts, developers adopt the same posture and mentality practically everywhere they're found.
Ok that's at work and regards paid workers, still in any case what seems to be the most unexplicable, impossible thing to fathom in the mind of a dev, is that even if it's voluntary work he does in his free time, the moment he makes it public, sharing with the world, he's actually not making software for just himself or his buddies anymore, nor exclusively people of his/her 'species' like other devs or same-field professionals, he's now doing software also for possibly masses who are completely different, each indiviual having his own interests and knowledge and just want to use that program for its obvious primary use.
It's normal for users to have a simple utilitarian vision, this what technology is for almost every human. In this case MAME = PLAYING GAMES period.
But that's not everything. I know you guys look down on people who use MAME to play games (what the !?), but that's because you're developers and hobbyists, your vision is twisted in regards to what MAME is for 99% of people who come to it and who are not 'in'.
Apparently it comes as a surprise to some that so many users praise MAME and your great achievements, but still complain about many things.
I believe that's because you won't admit that people can enjoy and even love games, admire what you all do and your mission, while at the same time not giving a fuck in their whole life about computers, code, chips and whatever is your personal interest in addition to gaming.
- What the hell do games have to do with code ? Are you talking about morse ?
- Aren't computer programs just like phone pps only you use with a mouse and keyboard ?
I know lots of people with impressive academic record and fine cultivated minds who speak like that.
Maybe basement dwellers are all Einstein-level, dunno, but Personally I've never met any that gave that kind of vibe, and certainly not the aura (considering the traditional contemptuous attitude).
That's why consoles sell well, and computer nerds traditionally get kicked by the cool kids during recess.
PS: you know the solution for you is to cut off communication with users, right ? or do you like coming here to get pissed and/or bash ?
People will always come to complain, to criticize and demand.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353229 - 04/19/16 08:43 PM
|
|
|
> For a moment I was thinking 'wow Haze is so cool' and then;
>
> > We're not, for the most part, dealing with ultra-intelligent people here, if
> anything a lot of our userbase seems to be of significantly below average
> intelligence (but often with good practical skills instead)
>
Sorry, this wasn't meant explicitly as a 'user base' it was an observation.
I've done things for other audiences and got a different feeling about the userbases, I think some of it is simply background, arcades attracted quite a rough crowd even back in the day, so people who follow MAME as 'something to play arcade' games are often of a similar background. It doesn't really surprise me that a lot of the brightest minds we've encountered lately have come from the MESS side of the project, people who grew up leaning specific pieces of hardware inside out etc.
As I said tho, I see a lot of good practical skills, the cab building etc. but when it comes to others areas there doesn't seem to be a good level of understanding without spoon feeding everything. The number of times we have to repeatedly dispel old myths and explain the obvious is significant, and yes, we need to do it, because it's important that the right information is out there, so no, cutting off all communications isn't a good idea.
Now, I'm sorry if you actually find that offensive, I was simply considering it a requirement in the way we present what we do, ie, regardless of how the project might evolve we're always going to have to present an *easy* way of doing things and present easily digestible information because for the most part a lot of our userbase seem to need that - as soon as things get even slightly complex they flee. That's just going on personal experience, trying to convince people to use something like QMC2 and have them reject it, simply because it's not as much of a '1 click solution' as MAMEUI.
It makes me happy when Dullaron has a good understanding of things, because he has posted on here before to say he has actual disabilities yet often manages to get a really good grasp on how a lot of the things we do, even some of the more advanced ones work. That is what we should be aiming for.
We *could* go full 'fuck you' and make thing as complex as we'd like, make the barrier to entry for MAME *actually* steep, but I'm advising caution against that.
If I see changes that seem to be heading in that direction, replacing easy to understand information with something meaningless, yes, I'll make a point about it, it's my duty to do so.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353230 - 04/19/16 08:46 PM
|
|
|
> > Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news
> > headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
> >
> > You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
>
> Or you can just use a tape archive like any sane person would do.
I know precisely 0 people with tape archives...
I knew 1 back in the 90s..
It's not really what people do, at all.
Again, you seem to be falling into that 'advanced user, so everything is simple' trap. There's no way I'd ever even consider buying a tape backup system, I wouldn't even know where to start with research. You're not going to just walk into a high street store and buy a tape backup solution.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353231 - 04/19/16 08:59 PM
|
|
|
> > For a moment I was thinking 'wow Haze is so cool' and then;
> >
> > > We're not, for the most part, dealing with ultra-intelligent people here, if
> > anything a lot of our userbase seems to be of significantly below average
> > intelligence (but often with good practical skills instead)
> >
>
> Sorry, this wasn't meant explicitly as a 'user base' it was an observation.
>
> I've done things for other audiences and got a different feeling about the userbases,
> I think some of it is simply background, arcades attracted quite a rough crowd even
> back in the day, so people who follow MAME as 'something to play arcade' games are
> often of a similar background.
>
> As I said tho, I see a lot of good practical skills, the cab building etc. but when
> it comes to others areas there doesn't seem to be a good level of understanding
> without spoon feeding everything. The number of times we have to repeatedly dispel
> old myths and explain the obvious is significant, and yes, we need to do it, because
> it's important that the right information is out there, so no, cutting off all
> communications isn't a good idea.
>
> Now, I'm sorry if you actually find that offensive, I was simply considering it a
> requirement in the way we present what we do, ie, regardless of how the project might
> evolve we're always going to have to present an *easy* way of doing things and
> present easily digestible information because for the most part a lot of our userbase
> seem to need that - as soon as things get even slightly complex they flee. That's
> just going on personal experience, trying to convince people to use something like
> QMC2 and have them reject it, simply because it's not as much of a '1 click solution'
> as MAMEUI.
>
> We *could* go full 'fuck you' and make thing as complex as we'd like, make the
> barrier to entry for MAME *actually* steep, but I'm advising caution against that.
I think you all need to come to realize that computers to most of humanity are bloody egyptian hieroglyphs, and what's obvious or easy to understand to you is an entirely different language to them.
And no they're not stupid or doing this because they're lazy.
If any of you has ever been faced with he challenge of teaching people, teaching them stuff they've never heard about in their life and that's completely irrelevant to their everyday lives, then you might understand what the problem is.
It's not a matter of intelligence per se, but setting up a new way of thinking that translates whith what you already know.
Technology, and computers in general, are not natural at all to people if they didn't grow up with it practically.
Windows UIs are liked because they look mostly like the rest of Microsoft Windows, you just have to tick boxes, that's what computers are for most of humanity.
EDIT: Learning about computers and programs takes a lot of time people don't necessarily have. Does that make them unworthy of using computers and programs ?
When you talk about something like QMC2, I know the problem with it: it takes ages to set up properly, there's always something wrong, the wiki is huge and full of technical jargon, basically it defeats its own purpose: making MAME easily and immediately usable, directly from a UI.
I predict the new integrated MEWUI in comparison will become tremendously more popular and acclaimed, because it looks a lot like a Windows UI and is immediately useable.
It's clearly made by and for people who already are familiar with stuff.
One more EDIT sorry: Look, even if it's beginners stuff in your eyes, it's not the issue. What if I posted my next message in the simplest Chinese I can think of ? Would you understand it ?
Trust me, even just the basics of drawing characters and baby-level phrase structure will take you some time, and not everyone can do it. I have buddies who couldn't learn Chinese but were at ease with German, which I fucking don't get a t all. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353232 - 04/19/16 09:01 PM
|
|
|
> > > Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news
> > > headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
> > >
> > > You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
> >
> > Or you can just use a tape archive like any sane person would do.
>
> I know precisely 0 people with tape archives...
>
> I knew 1 back in the 90s..
>
> It's not really what people do, at all.
>
> Again, you seem to be falling into that 'advanced user, so everything is simple'
> trap. There's no way I'd ever even consider buying a tape backup system, I wouldn't
> even know where to start with research. You're not going to just walk into a high
> street store and buy a tape backup solution.
I'm talking about a file format that's used by literally every Linux and BSD distribution.
But you don't even need to use tars. A zip file will save timestamps.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353233 - 04/19/16 09:08 PM
|
|
|
> When you talk about something like QMC2, I know the problem with it: it takes ages to
> set up properly, there's always something wrong, the wiki is huge and full of
> technical jargon, basically it defeats its own purpose: making MAME easily and
> immediately usable, directly from a UI.
>
> I predict the new integrated MEWUI in comparison will become tremendously more
> popular and acclaimed, because it looks a lot like a Windows UI and is immediately
> useable.
Hopefully, had the Windows 8 'Metro' stuff caught on maybe moreso because that was pushing very much for a direction of simplified fullscreen UIs like the internal one, although maybe that rejection is just a sign that it's really still not the best idea.
but yeah, that's what I'm talking about, in *reality* QMC2 isn't that difficult to use, but the way it's all presented overwhelms people, they don't see simple things they can connect with, they see pages and pages of technical jargon on a wiki, it's worse for projects which have huge wiki pages where half the content is out of date too because when people do try they end up getting even more confused when things don't work.
maybe I am overstating the date thing, but it is a field I've used before, it gives a sense of time - something I also find bitterly missing with the github interface which insists for the most part on telling you xx days ago rather than an actual submission date. I consider it awful design that I can go to a page like https://github.com/mamedev/mame/commit/19bbdaac3543c8c17893dc396f08c8ab4ea28fd2 and not see an actual date anywhere; 22 days ago isn't as useful to me as knowing when something happened.
I don't calculate my life in 'days since I was born' I have a birthday...
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353234 - 04/19/16 09:09 PM
|
|
|
> > > > Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest news
> > > > headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
> > > >
> > > > You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
> > >
> > > Or you can just use a tape archive like any sane person would do.
> >
> > I know precisely 0 people with tape archives...
> >
> > I knew 1 back in the 90s..
> >
> > It's not really what people do, at all.
> >
> > Again, you seem to be falling into that 'advanced user, so everything is simple'
> > trap. There's no way I'd ever even consider buying a tape backup system, I wouldn't
> > even know where to start with research. You're not going to just walk into a high
> > street store and buy a tape backup solution.
>
> I'm talking about a file format that's used by literally every Linux and BSD
> distribution.
>
> But you don't even need to use tars. A zip file will save timestamps.
Ok, I thought you meant ACTUAL tapes, which again is what most people would think reading what you put. If you'd said 'Tar files' it would have made more immediate sense to me, but still, to 99% of the population that would still have no meaning at all.
I don't see the point in arguing this with you, because it will just end up mirroring my experience every time I've tried to use Linux, an expectation that everybody already knows everything and will jump through any hoop to do anything.
I'd really rather that level of thinking didn't infect this project, which just about sums up this entire thread and my reasons for posting in it...
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353235 - 04/19/16 09:19 PM
|
|
|
> > > > > Just before burning your CD you can put a .txt file with the date, latest
> news
> > > > > headlines, and current weather in your location if you so wish.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can also label the CD or sharpie the date on it.
> > > >
> > > > Or you can just use a tape archive like any sane person would do.
> > >
> > > I know precisely 0 people with tape archives...
> > >
> > > I knew 1 back in the 90s..
> > >
> > > It's not really what people do, at all.
> > >
> > > Again, you seem to be falling into that 'advanced user, so everything is simple'
> > > trap. There's no way I'd ever even consider buying a tape backup system, I
> wouldn't
> > > even know where to start with research. You're not going to just walk into a high
> > > street store and buy a tape backup solution.
> >
> > I'm talking about a file format that's used by literally every Linux and BSD
> > distribution.
> >
> > But you don't even need to use tars. A zip file will save timestamps.
>
> Ok, I thought you meant ACTUAL tapes, which again is what most people would think
> reading what you put. If you'd said 'Tar files' it would have made more immediate
> sense to me, but still, to 99% of the population that would still have no meaning at
> all.
>
> I don't see the point in arguing this with you, because it will just end up mirroring
> my experience every time I've tried to use Linux, an expectation that everybody
> already knows everything and will jump through any hoop to do anything.
>
> I'd really rather that level of thinking didn't infect this project.
I assumed you were versed. The comment was for you, not the entire world. I suppose I could just PM, but I lack the technical knowledge to do so.
And arguing what exactly? That one should use a proper archive format for backups? That seems kind of obvious to me; I didn't realize there was a debate.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353236 - 04/19/16 09:26 PM
|
|
|
> I assumed you were versed. The comment was for you, not the entire world. I suppose I
> could just PM, but I lack the technical knowledge to do so.
>
well my point is that making such assumptions when it comes to things like this is unwise.
It was probably fair enough to assume that I'd know that, but honestly, not even once have I ever seen a 'Tar' referred to that way.
With MAME we're in the same position, we shouldn't assume things, we should do things in a way that anybody can understand. As I said elsewhere, we should be connecting with everyday people, not acting like robots.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353237 - 04/19/16 09:36 PM
|
|
|
Hey, I'll try to be as straightforward as possible. Devs don't make MAME difficult to use because they hate users. It's difficult to use because a command-line application happens to be the simplest application one can make. Therefore it's easy to setup and make changes to the MAME application code. It's easy to add new features like shaders and slot devices and the like. A more user friendly UI would make this development much more difficult and much slower. This simple interface has allowed MAME and MESS to develop quite rapidly. It's pretty amazing how many systems the emulators supports and how well the emulator runs. It means more systems and games for YOU, the user. Time is the cost for developing MAME, and so the devs have decided to spend that time on the emulators themselves rather than the UI. Nobody's against you, it's just how things work out. You'll notice Windows games don't usually use the Windows GUI either. They usually have their own in-game interface. That's not too different from what MAME has right now.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353238 - 04/19/16 09:37 PM
|
|
|
> > I assumed you were versed. The comment was for you, not the entire world. I suppose
> I
> > could just PM, but I lack the technical knowledge to do so.
> >
>
> well my point is that making such assumptions when it comes to things like this is
> unwise.
>
> It was probably fair enough to assume that I'd know that, but honestly, not even once
> have I ever seen a 'Tar' referred to that way.
>
> With MAME we're in the same position, we shouldn't assume things, we should do things
> in a way that anybody can understand. As I said elsewhere, we should be connecting
> with everyday people, not acting like robots.
What does that have to do with the build date? In my life as user, I didn't even know what a build date was. I knew about a release date though.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353239 - 04/19/16 09:48 PM
|
|
|
> What does that have to do with the build date? In my life as user, I didn't even know
> what a build date was. I knew about a release date though.
For the majority of cases, yes, a release date would suffice, although if somebody has used an old build as a base and forked it / made improvements to it then sometimes knowing when that version was built is handy too and that being automatic means they can't forget to update it.
Having no date at all is a bad idea IMHO.
As I said elsewhere I'm actually surprised by the arguments against it given how often we've found it to be such a useful thing in the very material we're emulating (compile timestamps in the rom data etc. so we know precisely when a build is from when the company forgets to update dates / version numbers elsewhere)
Build dates are also handy if other things get fucked up, I think our 'pacman' update system had an issue recently whereby a newer package had a lower version number, and wouldn't install, but the issue was actually the older package had been versioned incorrectly. It caused a fair bit of confusion.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353240 - 04/19/16 09:52 PM
|
|
|
> > What does that have to do with the build date? In my life as user, I didn't even
> know
> > what a build date was. I knew about a release date though.
>
> For the majority of cases, yes, a release date would suffice, although if somebody
> has used an old build as a base and forked it / made improvements to it then
> sometimes knowing when that version was built is handy too and that being automatic
> means they can't forget to update it.
>
> Having no date at all is a bad idea IMHO.
>
> As I said elsewhere I'm actually surprised by the arguments against it given how
> often we've found it to be such a useful thing in the very material we're emulating
> (compile timestamps in the rom data etc. so we know precisely when a build is from
> when the company forgets to update dates / version numbers elsewhere)
I thought we weren't talking about advanced users here? Why not just state what you want rather than try to manipulate everyone with a contrived argument?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353241 - 04/19/16 09:54 PM
|
|
|
> > > What does that have to do with the build date? In my life as user, I didn't even
> > know
> > > what a build date was. I knew about a release date though.
> >
> > For the majority of cases, yes, a release date would suffice, although if somebody
> > has used an old build as a base and forked it / made improvements to it then
> > sometimes knowing when that version was built is handy too and that being automatic
> > means they can't forget to update it.
> >
> > Having no date at all is a bad idea IMHO.
> >
> > As I said elsewhere I'm actually surprised by the arguments against it given how
> > often we've found it to be such a useful thing in the very material we're emulating
> > (compile timestamps in the rom data etc. so we know precisely when a build is from
> > when the company forgets to update dates / version numbers elsewhere)
>
> I thought we weren't talking about advanced users here? Why not just state what you
> want rather than try to manipulate everyone with a contrived argument?
not sure why you're quoting that? the users of some alt build / fork certainly aren't advanced users, but might be reassured to know when the build they're using was actually released / compiled.
I just genuinely think not having a proper date in our releases is a bad idea, I'm not trying to manipulate anybody, it's something I see as useful, it's something I've seen other people see as useful. I'm putting forward various scenarios in which it could be useful.
I actually think reproducible builds in the sense of being able to run the EXACT same code, with the EXACT same library versions etc. etc. is VERY important, it should always be possible to go back to any given period of time and build, that is a technical ideal for an archival project, and it even bugs me to the point of thinking we've failed if that isn't the case, but I also think the date string is important for more human reasons.
the problem I have is that I can feel the technical ideal is my more autistic side taking over, so recognizing it, and appealing to the more human side is important.
|
|
|
| Foxhack |
|
Furry guy
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/30/04
|
|
Posts: 2409
|
|
Loc: Spicy Canada
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353247 - 04/19/16 11:21 PM
|
|
|
> > When you talk about something like QMC2, I know the problem with it: it takes ages
> to
> > set up properly, there's always something wrong, the wiki is huge and full of
> > technical jargon, basically it defeats its own purpose: making MAME easily and
> > immediately usable, directly from a UI.
> >
> > I predict the new integrated MEWUI in comparison will become tremendously more
> > popular and acclaimed, because it looks a lot like a Windows UI and is immediately
> > useable.
>
> Hopefully, had the Windows 8 'Metro' stuff caught on maybe moreso because that was
> pushing very much for a direction of simplified fullscreen UIs like the internal one,
> although maybe that rejection is just a sign that it's really still not the best
> idea.
>
> but yeah, that's what I'm talking about, in *reality* QMC2 isn't that difficult to
> use, but the way it's all presented overwhelms people, they don't see simple things
> they can connect with, they see pages and pages of technical jargon on a wiki, it's
> worse for projects which have huge wiki pages where half the content is out of date
> too because when people do try they end up getting even more confused when things
> don't work.
>
> maybe I am overstating the date thing, but it is a field I've used before, it gives a
> sense of time - something I also find bitterly missing with the github interface
> which insists for the most part on telling you xx days ago rather than an actual
> submission date. I consider it awful design that I can go to a page like
> https://github.com/mamedev/mame/commit/19bbdaac3543c8c17893dc396f08c8ab4ea28fd2 and
> not see an actual date anywhere; 22 days ago isn't as useful to me as knowing when
> something happened.
>
> I don't calculate my life in 'days since I was born' I have a birthday...
Hovering the mouse over the "22 days ago" text shows the exact time and date of the commit. (Why? That info should be displayed by default instead of hiding it like that!)
Now.
is there a reason why we can't add a line of code that translates that specific bit of information into something that can be displayed in MAME? "This build was created based on the source as available at X date."
I dunno, that sounds like a workable compromise to me?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353250 - 04/19/16 11:55 PM
|
|
|
> Hey, I'll try to be as straightforward as possible. Devs don't make MAME difficult to
> use because they hate users. It's difficult to use because a command-line application
> happens to be the simplest application one can make. Therefore it's easy to setup and
> make changes to the MAME application code. It's easy to add new features like shaders
> and slot devices and the like. A more user friendly UI would make this development
> much more difficult and much slower. This simple interface has allowed MAME and MESS
> to develop quite rapidly. It's pretty amazing how many systems the emulators supports
> and how well the emulator runs. It means more systems and games for YOU, the user.
> Time is the cost for developing MAME, and so the devs have decided to spend that time
> on the emulators themselves rather than the UI. Nobody's against you, it's just how
> things work out. You'll notice Windows games don't usually use the Windows GUI
> either. They usually have their own in-game interface. That's not too different from
> what MAME has right now.
I get that, but you know when there's stuff like mame.exe not producing a mame.ini anymore, when that's where you have to go to change that 0 to 1 and get the damn thing you need to finally work...but wait: before that you have to use command line to create it !? That damn paleolithic thing that doesn't forgive a single mistake and you end up pulling your hair because people tell you commands that don't work on your computer ?
And it's not just mame.ini but several other things that have to be done this way too ? Argh.
I'm just telling you the obvious: that sort of thing won't do. never. ever.
For normal users faster development is not worth such steps back in ease of access/useability.
With the many recent changes and additions you MAME devs have brought, for some time you have focused attention towards baseline, and I suspect people for quite a while will want to use it more than ever, more than some unofficial builds.
How come do you guys expect those users 'new to baseline and unskilled' not to ask for more accessibility and features ? So yeah that's expected that they'll ask for a Win UI among other things.
I'll just take an example of something that matters to me in particular: since multithreading was removed GroovyMAME has been down in the mud.
Problem: the sync and lag issues this unofficial build attended to made it clearly superior to baseline for actually playing.
The removal of multithreading originates from here (mamedev, baseline), and this is also where I am supposed to wait for its hypotetical return.
Yes you have brought me to log in when I hadn't felt the need to post anything for many years, and here I am 'bitching'.
I don't know if you can see my point here; but since you've taken away some of the interest of unofficial builds and are making baseline more the center of attention, how long will you keep telling more noobs and unskilled users how to create mame.ini ? or launch BGFX, or make some sliders appear in the ingame menu, or whatever thing they want...through command line...before one of you retort to cutting all of those user monkey heads with a lawnmover braindead/dead alive style ? 
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Foxhack]
#353251 - 04/19/16 11:57 PM
|
|
|
> > > When you talk about something like QMC2, I know the problem with it: it takes
> ages
> > to
> > > set up properly, there's always something wrong, the wiki is huge and full of
> > > technical jargon, basically it defeats its own purpose: making MAME easily and
> > > immediately usable, directly from a UI.
> > >
> > > I predict the new integrated MEWUI in comparison will become tremendously more
> > > popular and acclaimed, because it looks a lot like a Windows UI and is
> immediately
> > > useable.
> >
> > Hopefully, had the Windows 8 'Metro' stuff caught on maybe moreso because that was
> > pushing very much for a direction of simplified fullscreen UIs like the internal
> one,
> > although maybe that rejection is just a sign that it's really still not the best
> > idea.
> >
> > but yeah, that's what I'm talking about, in *reality* QMC2 isn't that difficult to
> > use, but the way it's all presented overwhelms people, they don't see simple things
> > they can connect with, they see pages and pages of technical jargon on a wiki, it's
> > worse for projects which have huge wiki pages where half the content is out of date
> > too because when people do try they end up getting even more confused when things
> > don't work.
> >
> > maybe I am overstating the date thing, but it is a field I've used before, it gives
> a
> > sense of time - something I also find bitterly missing with the github interface
> > which insists for the most part on telling you xx days ago rather than an actual
> > submission date. I consider it awful design that I can go to a page like
> > https://github.com/mamedev/mame/commit/19bbdaac3543c8c17893dc396f08c8ab4ea28fd2 and
> > not see an actual date anywhere; 22 days ago isn't as useful to me as knowing when
> > something happened.
> >
> > I don't calculate my life in 'days since I was born' I have a birthday...
>
> Hovering the mouse over the "22 days ago" text shows the exact time and date of the
> commit. (Why? That info should be displayed by default instead of hiding it like
> that!)
>
Ah, so it does, but yeah, it's still not good design, there's no visual feedback when your mouse is over the '22 days' to indicate you'll get any kind of mouseover info there if you stop moving, plus it can't be copy+pasted from a mouseover.
> Now.
>
> is there a reason why we can't add a line of code that translates that specific bit
> of information into something that can be displayed in MAME? "This build was created
> based on the source as available at X date."
>
> I dunno, that sounds like a workable compromise to me?
I don't know, I don't really expect a change at this point.
To me both the release date, and the build date, and the difference between them are useful metrics to have, and we've gone to having neither. Don't know if anybody would be willing to compromise.
I think what bugs me about this thread is that I've made mistakes in the past, 6-7 years ago I was probably pushing a bit too hard for 'idealistic' solutions myself, which didn't always go down well because I made the same mistake of assuming that people all had technical minds. I was criticized for that then, but I've taken it onboard, built a wider picture of things, and I'm more or less being shot down for the opposite now :S
|
|
|
|
I like to know the date....
[Re: Haze]
#353252 - 04/19/16 11:57 PM
|
|
|
For all that I think 'history could be destroyed' (that's a play on Boulez' comment in his early days), since we aren't destroying it....ahm, yet.....I like to know when things were done.
|
|
|
|
Re: I like to know the date....
[Re: Traso]
#353258 - 04/20/16 12:14 AM
|
|
|
> For all that I think 'history could be destroyed' (that's a play on Boulez' comment
> in his early days), since we aren't destroying it....ahm, yet.....I like to know when
> things were done.
Perfect, then you can look up the relevant tag on github and see exactly when it was done.
|
|
|
|
MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: LensLarque]
#353260 - 04/20/16 12:16 AM
|
|
|
Multithreaded rendering (-MT) NEVER WORKED RIGHT. It was removed because IT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN.
MAME will still use multiple threads for drivers that support it (e.g. Gradius 4) and eventually the functionality that was _intended_ to be used via -MT will be implemented correctly via BGFX.
That -MT helped a derivative build in any way in the first place was an accident.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: R. Belmont]
#353262 - 04/20/16 12:19 AM
|
|
|
This. Reproducible builds are going to hamstring us a little, but they're a concept with a real good reason underlying it. There are workarounds, we just need to consider it more carefully than a simple "Put it back! Put it back!" complaint.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Haze]
#353264 - 04/20/16 12:32 AM
|
|
|
> It's not always what we want to see / hear, but as long as it's *non-destructive* it
> doesn't hurt to listen. The Widescreen debate amused me in the same way. As much as
> it annoys me seeing stretched to Widescreen videos on YouTube, EVERY SINGLE PERSON I
> know in real life wants the games to look that way, a significant number of them even
> want VERTICAL games stretched to fill a 16:9 screen, it looks like shit, but your
> every day person seems to expect that 'I paid for the screen, I'm making use of every
> pixel for my game' etc. (and yes, they do the same with movies)
Well that's funny, because NOT A SINGLE PERSON I know in real life wants their games/movies stretched to the wrong aspect ratio. I have a big pool non-technical people on my wife's side of the family, so it's not just that I don't know anyone who isn't a geek.
|
|
|
|
Re: MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: Firehawke]
#353265 - 04/20/16 12:47 AM
|
|
|
I know that!
But GM was using it for something else, SwitchRes required it I believe for the feature that allowed to use the monitor-synced and alternative smaller-buffered triplebuffer (that's using D3D9ex).
I was actually using this, and I'm not the only one, what do you know ?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353267 - 04/20/16 12:49 AM
|
|
|
> > Hey, I'll try to be as straightforward as possible. Devs don't make MAME difficult
> to
> > use because they hate users. It's difficult to use because a command-line
> application
> > happens to be the simplest application one can make. Therefore it's easy to setup
> and
> > make changes to the MAME application code. It's easy to add new features like
> shaders
> > and slot devices and the like. A more user friendly UI would make this development
> > much more difficult and much slower. This simple interface has allowed MAME and
> MESS
> > to develop quite rapidly. It's pretty amazing how many systems the emulators
> supports
> > and how well the emulator runs. It means more systems and games for YOU, the user.
> > Time is the cost for developing MAME, and so the devs have decided to spend that
> time
> > on the emulators themselves rather than the UI. Nobody's against you, it's just how
> > things work out. You'll notice Windows games don't usually use the Windows GUI
> > either. They usually have their own in-game interface. That's not too different
> from
> > what MAME has right now.
>
> I get that, but you know when there's stuff like mame.exe not producing a mame.ini
> anymore, when that's where you have to go to change that 0 to 1 and get the damn
> thing you need to finally work...but wait: before that you have to use command line
> to create it !? That damn paleolithic thing that doesn't forgive a single mistake and
> you end up pulling your hair because people tell you commands that don't work on your
> computer ?
> And it's not just mame.ini but several other things that have to be done this way too
> ? Argh.
> I'm just telling you the obvious: that sort of thing won't do. never. ever.
> For normal users faster development is not worth such steps back in ease of
> access/useability.
>
> With the many recent changes and additions you MAME devs have brought, for some time
> you have focused attention towards baseline, and I suspect people for quite a while
> will want to use it more than ever, more than some unofficial builds.
> How come do you guys expect those users 'new to baseline and unskilled' not to ask
> for more accessibility and features ? So yeah that's expected that they'll ask for a
> Win UI among other things.
>
> I'll just take an example of something that matters to me in particular: since
> multithreading was removed GroovyMAME has been down in the mud.
> Problem: the sync and lag issues this unofficial build attended to made it clearly
> superior to baseline for actually playing.
> The removal of multithreading originates from here (mamedev, baseline), and this is
> also where I am supposed to wait for its hypotetical return.
> Yes you have brought me to log in when I hadn't felt the need to post anything for
> many years, and here I am 'bitching'.
>
> I don't know if you can see my point here; but since you've taken away some of the
> interest of unofficial builds and are making baseline more the center of attention,
> how long will you keep telling more noobs and unskilled users how to create mame.ini
> ? or launch BGFX, or make some sliders appear in the ingame menu, or whatever thing
> they want...through command line...before one of you retort to cutting all of those
> user monkey heads with a lawnmover braindead/dead alive style ?
You can always make feature requests. Win32 interface isn't going to happen, but you can always ask for things like 'Can you include a script to generate a default config file?' or 'Can you make it easier to configure MAME from within the program itself, so I don't need to edit text files?' I don't know if they'd get accepted, but simple things like this are more likely to be done than telling us command lines are stupid.
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353270 - 04/20/16 01:27 AM
|
|
|
Some people tend to shy away from what's most efficient to what they'd rather do. When you have people saying QMC2 is too difficult, the reality is they just don't want to use it, so they hide behind excuses.
The fact that a MESSUI Dev says QMC2 is difficult to use is rather hilarious.
The first time you run QMC2 after installing it you're presented with a nice box of options.
http://wiki.batcom-it.net/images/9/97/Qmc2-sdlmame-welcome.png
It basically says "Please tell me where your shit is so I can serve you your majesty"
After that if you wish to be a MAMEUI click monkey then QMC2 allows that after a quick rom check and population of the game listing. Otherwise the customization options are practically endless which how you can change how the GUI looks and how things are presented to you.
Some of the users that claim QMC2 is too difficult don't have any problems inefficiently dumping tons of hours into a HyperSpin or Retroarch setup.
I search YT for Retroarch and there's 20 minute and 40 minute guides with pages and pages of freaking options, but somehow QMC2 or creating a fresh mame.ini is too difficult.
All of the options in the mame.ini are easier to understand and execute rather than trying to make heads or tails of all the crap I'm seeing on YT.
MAME itself is 100% portable and doesn't really require you to install anything at all. As long as it finds your ROMs/CHDs you're good. Of course options like HLSL and BGFX require some things, but that's besides the point and people still don't really embrace the easy way.
There's nothing wrong with command line and you can always keep a shortcut in the same location as your mame binary to eliminate a step. To the people that fail to create a mame.ini if that happened to me, I'd carry my rig to my garage and introduce it to a sledgehammer.
I'm really surprised at the inefficiency people choose to take when it comes to running MAME. Just a day or so back I saw pics of some other front-ends that are putting new options in a miscellaneous #2 tab. I ask myself in the future when they're forced to have 10 of these tabs will people still have a desire to look at all these damn tabs of options?
I'm unsure why people don't familiarize themselves with all the options presented in the mame.ini and have 100% control over their MAME experience instead of relying on a Retroarch or w/e to do it all for them.
|
|
|
|
Re: MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: LensLarque]
#353273 - 04/20/16 01:55 AM
|
|
|
What do I know? I know it'll get fixed properly if you'll have a bit of patience.
|
|
|
|
Re: MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: LensLarque]
#353276 - 04/20/16 02:46 AM
|
|
|
> I know that!
> But GM was using it for something else, SwitchRes required it I believe for the
> feature that allowed to use the monitor-synced and alternative smaller-buffered
> triplebuffer (that's using D3D9ex).
> I was actually using this, and I'm not the only one, what do you know ?
Calamity is now part of the MAME team and is working towards bringing as many GroovyMAME features into baseline MAME as possible, and in fact 0.172 already has the fruits of some of that labor. In fact, I seem to recall it was me, personally, who invited him onto the project. So what exactly are you doing to help?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353277 - 04/20/16 02:51 AM
|
|
|
I've never mentioned stuff like RA or HyperSpin really.
But actually said using mame.ini at least is good, I just don't get why it's no longer included by default/automatically.
Of course I also think it's better if ultimately everything can be controlled via the new default UI/MEWUI. For me something like QMC2 is more time and trouble to get everything to be like I want to, I really don't see the point of it, if I wanted a Win UI, I'd chose MAMEUI or another UI build period, I'm confident most users would.
Command line, I think it's useless to tell again how it's perceived by people with barely any computer skills. It's obvious none of you save maybe Haze realize how bad it is.
But the reactions mostly, demonstrate what I'm saying about how user criticism and therefore requests are received by devs: almost every point gets dismissed, ridiculed.
User experience, degree of useability IMHO should be measured with petty normal users in mind, humans as Haze says, without assuming too much of what they think/want and can do. When you produce a software or anything else that'll be used by millions, whose's skill level matters first ?
[/rant]
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353278 - 04/20/16 03:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353279 - 04/20/16 03:18 AM
|
|
|
> I've never mentioned stuff like RA or HyperSpin really.
> But actually said using mame.ini at least is good, I just don't get why it's no
> longer included by default/automatically.
>
> Of course I also think it's better if ultimately everything can be controlled via the
> new default UI/MEWUI. For me something like QMC2 is more time and trouble to get
> everything to be like I want to, I really don't see the point of it, if I wanted a
> Win UI, I'd chose MAMEUI or another UI build period, I'm confident most users would.
>
> Command line, I think it's useless to tell again how it's perceived by people with
> barely any computer skills. It's obvious none of you save maybe Haze realize how bad
> it is.
>
> But the reactions mostly, demonstrate what I'm saying about how user criticism and
> therefore requests are received by devs: almost every point gets dismissed,
> ridiculed.
>
> User experience, degree of useability IMHO should be measured with petty normal users
> in mind, humans as Haze says, without assuming too much of what they think/want and
> can do. When you produce a software or anything else that'll be used by millions,
> whose's skill level matters first ?
>
> [/rant]
I actually exclusively use the commandline, and can honestly say the project wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today if we'd moved away from that as the primary way of launching MAME, however, I also understand it's not for everybody.
What we need is actually a system that allows you to work in a GUI, but also shows you what the correct commandline syntax for what you're doing would be, so you can learn from it, the GUI also needs to allow you to enter commandline stuff if you want and react to it. They need to work hand in hand.
With something like MAME it is important to be able to get some grasp of what you're doing, and there are times when I struggle to know what the correct commandline is for something today, and as the complexity increases that will only get worse; showing me by letting me do it with a GUI but showing me what I could have done, so that next time I know what I could have entered instead etc. to save time.
Even things like the ingame console in FPS games back in the day (thinking Quake etc.) kinda got it right that while some things can be driven by a menu, other things are better suited to typing. That will always be the case, but if we can find a way they support each other seamlessly that would be a good place to be.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Robbbert]
#353280 - 04/20/16 03:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: MooglyGuy]
#353281 - 04/20/16 03:49 AM
|
|
|
I was only taking that as an example, when FireHawke replied he didn't seem to see for what reason I would miss MT if it's broken, so I replied that broken or not it was doing the job for what it was intended for in GM.
Anyway what does that have to do with me helping or not ? I don't even understand why you'd ask that. Of course I can't help in any case, nor understand the implications, I'm no developer, I don't understand what's going on, I can only see the surface, I'm just concerned about the features I'm attached to: just an user.
@Haze: your idea of a gui/console 'mix': I love it.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353282 - 04/20/16 03:50 AM
|
|
|
> I've never mentioned stuff like RA or HyperSpin really.
> But actually said using mame.ini at least is good, I just don't get why it's no
> longer included by default/automatically.
>
> Of course I also think it's better if ultimately everything can be controlled via the
> new default UI/MEWUI. For me something like QMC2 is more time and trouble to get
> everything to be like I want to, I really don't see the point of it, if I wanted a
> Win UI, I'd chose MAMEUI or another UI build period, I'm confident most users would.
>
> Command line, I think it's useless to tell again how it's perceived by people with
> barely any computer skills. It's obvious none of you save maybe Haze realize how bad
> it is.
>
> But the reactions mostly, demonstrate what I'm saying about how user criticism and
> therefore requests are received by devs: almost every point gets dismissed,
> ridiculed.
>
> User experience, degree of useability IMHO should be measured with petty normal users
> in mind, humans as Haze says, without assuming too much of what they think/want and
> can do. When you produce a software or anything else that'll be used by millions,
> whose's skill level matters first ?
>
> [/rant]
What do you not like about the current command line interface? Is it the way configuration options are passed?
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353283 - 04/20/16 04:18 AM
|
|
|
I'm not sure I even understand your question, it's a black box where I have to type entire lines using acronyms and symbols, and where I have to know all terms and paths in advance, and am not allowed to make any mistakes... when with a UI/GUI it's a simple click or pressing a button on the gamepad.
Why would I have to do something so unpractical for such simple tasks ? It feels like going back to computer stone age to me and a huge waste of time and energy when I actually plan to game.
EDIT: worse, people who only speak in command line assume you know what they're talking about, and they give you bits that don't work because it's slightly different on your own computer, and slightly different means: error.
Reminds me about when a pal tried to convince me that Linux is so much better than Windows, and I had to open a console and learn to type all kinds of cryptic jargon just for moving files from one folder to another.
After spending a week trying to make my computer work entirely and how to do in 1h what I could have done in 5mn with Windows, I killed my cat and my neighbour, then reinstalled Windows.
Glad real computer geeks like that sort of stuff, but it's not for the common people.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353284 - 04/20/16 04:51 AM
|
|
|
My question has to do with usability, because, believe it or not, some of my experience is in making command-line programs more useable. That's part of it. The other part are things you can't do in the current screen UI, that you can do on the command line. For example you can just start MAME and run a game. You don't need the command line at all for that, but to get HLSL sliders to save you need to do some initial configuration setup. That is something that might be put in the UI somehow.
My point is that complaining about general ideas, esp. ones some people are really, really fond of, like the command line, is a waste of time because it doesn't tell us what you really want. It's like going to a car dealership and complaining because you can't drive. You should be specific about your complaints. What are the specific scenarios that give you grievance?
Let me approach this from a different point-of-view. What about the emulation of old computers? If you want to play Ultima or Wizardry with the Apple II emulator, are you going to complain about having to use that command line? You can, but it'd be fruitless. You will have to use the command line to get those games running. Playing certain games will require a certain knowledge of the system they run on. Likewise, using MAME requires a certain knowledge of the CLI. It's very basic knowledge that I believe anyone who can read can learn. Devs can do their best to make things as accessible and simple as possible by providing good docs and up-to-date information, but at the end of the day there is a minimum amount of computer knowledge you'll need to have in order to use stock MAME.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: anikom15]
#353288 - 04/20/16 06:04 AM
|
|
|
> My question has to do with usability, because, believe it or not, some of my
> experience is in making command-line programs more useable. That's part of it. The
> other part are things you can't do in the current screen UI, that you can do on the
> command line. For example you can just start MAME and run a game. You don't need the
> command line at all for that, but to get HLSL sliders to save you need to do some
> initial configuration setup. That is something that might be put in the UI somehow.
>
> My point is that complaining about general ideas, esp. ones some people are really,
> really fond of, like the command line, is a waste of time because it doesn't tell us
> what you really want. It's like going to a car dealership and complaining because you
> can't drive. You should be specific about your complaints. What are the specific
> scenarios that give you grievance?
>
> Let me approach this from a different point-of-view. What about the emulation of old
> computers? If you want to play Ultima or Wizardry with the Apple II emulator, are you
> going to complain about having to use that command line? You can, but it'd be
> fruitless. You will have to use the command line to get those games running. Playing
> certain games will require a certain knowledge of the system they run on. Likewise,
> using MAME requires a certain knowledge of the CLI. It's very basic knowledge that I
> believe anyone who can read can learn. Devs can do their best to make things as
> accessible and simple as possible by providing good docs and up-to-date information,
> but at the end of the day there is a minimum amount of computer knowledge you'll need
> to have in order to use stock MAME.
I'm sorry don't take that the wrong way, but you seem to be typically the kind of very knowledgeable person who doesn't realize he's talking about a minority when he's talking about the people who love command line.
I don't know in which tech and computer-savvy environment you're living, but I'd believe you know well it's a rather closed elite world.
(in the perspective of today's standards, I hope you're following me on that)
Most people in the world who can use a computer today don't know anything about how computer programs work, they've barely touched anything before XP and broadband.
Command line is the past, some people still use that for work of course, but are we talking about work ? It's leisure, entertainment, hobby, not tech and computer knowledge - that - is essential to the developers only, not the users who are far away from those unneccessary things.
It doesn't make sense also in my eyes that part of something could be done via UI but only continued, completed via command line, it's like trying to deal with un unfinished thing, you have to stop in the middle and finish the task manually. Like driving only halfaway to your home, stop, and walk the rest of the way.
What most normal peole really want can't be more clear I believe: not having to do that, be able to drive all the way.
So now just don't get me wrong: here personally I'm not making any demands for a complete UI fully supporting everything and made at he hands of mamedev, just stating things as I believe they really are, because you guys really give the vibe that you actually can't see how huge the gap is, between people on your level, or even just reasonably knowledgeable users, and the vast majority of the people. Blame Microsoft, or even Google, not the average modern computer user.
So in my opinion, instead of not giving people any choice but to use command line for some tasks at some point, you'd really do a much better choice with a sort of hybrid solution like Haze suggests indeed, or just ensure that everyone has direct access to a fully useable mame.ini, if the former is too much of a problem to put in place in my eyes the latter will do to increase accessibility by a few steps already.
Editing a text file is considerably more accessible to the common than command line will ever be, but whatever the case, yes, I believe whatever it is that allows to avoid using command line completely in the end will always be better.
PS: sorry again I don't play old computer games, I've always been into arcades and consoles, up until the 2000's computers were kind of too expensive and really not all that necessary in my everyday life. Where I live it's only really with the rise of the internet and broadband that home computers have become a common thing, before that time they were things for people who used them at work, and the minority who had the money an time to have personal one(s) at home for games were really the minority.
|
|
|
| B2K24 |
|
MAME @ 15 kHz Sony Trinitron CRT user
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 10/25/10
|
|
Posts: 2663
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Robbbert]
#353289 - 04/20/16 06:18 AM
|
|
|
> Do you mind?? Anyone who browses the various forums would be under the impression
> that you are a full-time paid salesman for QMC2.
>
> I gave it a fair trial, asked questions, decided it didn't suit me, end of story.
> What's wrong with that?
Not that it really matters or counts for anything, but I specifically remember you saying in IRC "I tried QMC2 and found it was too difficult to use"
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: B2K24]
#353290 - 04/20/16 06:20 AM
|
|
|
FWIW, I, too, found QMC2 to be too difficult to use. Not difficult as in hard, but difficult as in an ex.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353298 - 04/20/16 11:04 AM
|
|
|
Hi Lens,
> I'll just take an example of something that matters to me in particular: since
> multithreading was removed GroovyMAME has been down in the mud.
Just stumbled upon this. This is simply not true. The reasons for the stall are rather mundane. Lots at work at this part of the year, and the very little free time I have for this has gone into adding a few things into baseline. Stalls like this have happened in the past but now it's more obvious due to MAME's update schedule. Some of us have very standard lives with kids and stuff and just create nicks like this to release the nerd in us.
It's true that when some important overhaul happens in baseline, I need to stop, take perspective and decide how to follow. The new licensing, the BGFX renderer, and more importantly the possibility to merge GM, these are big events that need careful reflection.
If -mt was so fundamental to GM I'd have raised some objections to removing it. In fact I've been one of the critics of old -mt, you can see it if you dig in BYOAC. GM used a different implementation all the time, so now what I've done is to make it independent of baseline -mt, that's all.
Finally, with regards to command line etc., please learn command line my friend, don't blame other people. That said, I don't see why mame.ini couldn't be just packed in the zip like anything else.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: LensLarque]
#353302 - 04/20/16 01:10 PM
|
|
|
> > I believe whatever it is that allows to
> avoid using command line completely in the end will always be better.
You can try as hard as you can, but you can't replicate with a menu the flexibility of command line.
That's partly why moderns OS works well in normal use, but are a nightmare as soon as you encounter an non trivial problem (not giving you even the tools to diagnose it).
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Calamity]
#353306 - 04/20/16 03:25 PM
|
|
|
Thanks for the update Calamity, I didn't want to make it look like I was whining about that, again I took that particular event as an example to illustrate what I was saying (that it's absolutely great that MAME evolves but when it breaks stuff that was only in alt builds and people really care about it's natural they would turn to baseline and come ask 'why, Gods why' ^^).
Thank for your hard work as always of course.
(PS: why not skip the public release of GM 0.172 if you're too busy? I think people would totally understand)
Going back to the topic of useability and command line, I understand that it's better, more powerful, that you guys like it for that.
But again that's from your perspective as computer-savvy people, even genuine experts for many of you I believe.
I'll remain convinced your experience is clouding your perception of how normal people deal with that, as a whole command line I'm still sure of it is a no-no, it is not the kind of controls means the majority will expect and you won't change them without a strong engagement to do so (translation: more trouble/work for you whether it's through development or support).
And again I don't blame you (you devs are too quick to think users think ill of you, as much as they think you think ill of them maybe, it's really like two different cultures struggling to communicate), I just think you have a strong IT crowd perception and you don't realize how different you are from people who are not from this world and where they're led to by the market as common users, customers, workers, whatever.
In yet other words, something like command line is diametrically opposed to people's tech reality, you can't tell them it's their fault. Call that a culture of ignorance if you want, you're the only ones judging if you have to adpat to it, or oppose it.
It's your baby, but would you make a poll call for anyone to tell what they think about command line vs. UI or .ini as means to control MAME, I would bet the results to be quite predictable.
No need anyway since you've stated that things would eventually move to UI in the future. 
Please don't give what I'm saying more meaning/weight than necessary (I don't think you would anyway) I believe I'm right on that particular point, but of course I'm only one individual user stating his personal opinion and babbling of course, with an unhealthy amount of redundancy because he's also trying to explain his point to several different people who know better.
|
|
|
|
Re: I like to know the date....
[Re: MooglyGuy]
#353512 - 04/26/16 09:37 AM
|
|
|
> > For all that I think 'history could be destroyed' (that's a play on Boulez' comment in his early days), since we aren't destroying it....ahm, yet.....I like to know when things were done.
> Perfect, then you can look up the relevant tag on github and see exactly when it was done.
That's an effort that goes beyond my station.
|
|
|
|
Re: MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#353513 - 04/26/16 09:38 AM
|
|
|
> Well that's funny, because NOT A SINGLE PERSON I know in real life wants their games/movies stretched to the wrong aspect ratio. I have a big pool non-technical people on my wife's side of the family, so it's not just that I don't know anyone who isn't a geek.
Maybe you don't know anyone really stupid. Congratulations.
|
|
|
|
Re: MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: LensLarque]
#353514 - 04/26/16 09:40 AM
|
|
|
> Anyway what does that have to do with me helping or not ? I don't even understand why you'd ask that.
Dude, it was said twice here that Cal was added on. Be glad of that and go back to your knitting.
|
|
|
|
Re: MT was never right to begin with.
[Re: Traso]
#353522 - 04/26/16 12:52 PM
|
|
|
> Dude, it was said twice here that Cal was added on. Be glad of that and go back to
> your knitting.
Another one missing my point. Not surprised, it's easier to pick on someone who doesn't know shit being just a lowly user who only comes with questions and criticism, than actually try to get what he's about. I bet that makes people feel comfortable with themselves.
I just find funny that you'd start another thread with one of my own questions.
PS: what's your size I'm knitting you a MAME sweater for this summer. See ? I can help too.
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
MAME.exe no longer showing compile date?
Reply
[Re: 
