Galapo & Lancelot Questions and Answers

Now we are doing something about the current state of affairs and you can either help or keep complaining about the past.

Nuno, please show me where I'm complaining about the past. All I've been trying to discuss the last day is the present state of WB scripting syntax. The agreement, which was made in the past, true, has been discovered to have been silently rejected now in the present. I'm not complaining about the past, I'm raising the real issues of the present. Truely, I don't know what to do. script syntax is again up for grabs, what was agreed to has not been implemented. Is it going to be? Is it not going to be? I've asked this but just get silence. I ask again and it's taken as complaining and ranting and now get threats of posts being removed. Nuno, remember that Lancelot and I are invested in this project too. For goodness sake, we are even forum moderators together with you and can remove posts on our whim too!

Like I've said, the test project will confirm the findings we have today. Whether we find the bugs via the test project or in our current project differs little: they're still bugs however they're found. The reports have been made and WB development can either take up the issues raised, or keep doing the dance of side-stepping.

Regards,
Galapo.

now get threats of posts being removed.

O M G.
I have not notice this. Where is ?
And from Nuno's point of view are we again guilty for this ?????????
Is Nuno thirsty to our blood ?????
or are we thirsty to have ignorance and deserve badly repeated posts which has NOTHING to do with what we report ????


I have not seen neither Nuno nor PSC have a "SINGLE" comment on what we asked so far yet. Do we really deserve this ?????

I have not notice this. Where is ?

Post above mine:

If your replies continue the rant, they'll be moved to the community forum so that we can do some productive work and discuss a path to improve things while you guys can continue talking about your past adventures.

Woops, sorry Nuno! You didn't say delete, only moved.

Comment though implies that what has been raised has been unproductive. But I still really do think that inconsistent syntax brings a state of unproductivity. But it's a viscious cycle: I start to raise the issue of inconsistent syntax/unproductivity which just then gets viewed as unproductive chatter. From my end, it certainly seems to be unproductive to raise the issue and then it's either sidestepped or ignored. Was I just raising this for the fun of it? Or because I just wanted to be unproductive? All I was hoping for was for clarification as to the syntax agreement and why the silent rejection. But still there's silence and I don't know why. Why was the agreement rejected? Do you just want me to give up in this because it's making all of us look silly and petty? It makes us look silly because we have to keep asking it and it makes WB development look silly because they keep ignoring the issue. No body wins. It makes me feel sad. I guess I'm forced to drop the issue.

Regards,
Galapo.

You didn't say delete, only moved

Yes, said move because there is a lot of work to be done and discussions must be kept on topic. I wouldn't delete your topics, never did and won't start now.

However, chit-chat and off-topics make threads too long, too tiring and too unproductive:

And from Nuno's point of view are we again guilty for this ?????????

My time is a scarce resource just like yours. We are changing things and there are no perfect answers but rather a long way awaits ahead of us to improve our working methods around here.

I can try to answer all questions but if they turn into long drama topics it will just take so much time for me to try write a proper answer. It's best if we have these long talks on the community forum or elsewhere to keep these small topics focused on what is asked by the topic authors.

Thank you.

I can try to answer all questions but if they turn into long drama topics it will just take so much time for me to try write a proper answer.

We are easy people to go along with Nuno.
You never answered the question asked here
http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665
neither psc did.

We are not responsible of long topics. We ask clear questions to solve a clearly defined issue.

We get no answer ??????? Is this productive ??????

We only replied to your replies that has NO relations to what we ask which turn topic to a soap opera.

Lets make a fresh begining,
History of the issue well defined here post 1 with heading here
http://www.boot-land...?...c=10658&hl=

***) TOP TOP TOP MOSt important

question is clear and well defined here
http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665

Now lets see if we can get a clear reply from at least you to topic of Galapo
http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665

edit: forgotten link added

I wouldn't delete your topics, never did and won't start now.

Thanks, Nuno. Please know that I am sorry I initially took your comment the wrong way. I really do not want to misrepresent you.

However, chit-chat and off-topics make threads too long, too tiring and too unproductive:

Agreed. Which is why I was a bit annoyed in my own topic where the issue raised was side-stepped. Sure, a test project will be good to implement some needed checks, but the topic was about inconsistent syntax due to an agreement being silently rejected.

I can try to answer all questions but if they turn into long drama topics it will just take so much time for me to try write a proper answer.

Thanks! Please address the concerns of my topic here: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665

Particuarly, why is it that scripting syntax is inconsistent due to the agreement on scripting syntax having been silently rejected by WB development? And is it going to remain this way? Or can we look forward to the agreement being implemented into WB?

Thanks indeed,
Galapo.

Hi Nuno,

I've been checking back here over the last couple of days expecting and hoping that you may have written back the answer we're waiting for.

Just wondering what's happening. I don't want keep checking back here if you've decided not to answer.

Thanks,
Galapo.

The topic we see here at the title is:"Access to test versions" which was answered.

I believe that the question to which you're referring to is "WB scripting unpredictability" to which I also answered several times right from reply number 3:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=93789

However, if you're question is:

Particuarly, why is it that scripting syntax is inconsistent due to the agreement on scripting syntax having been silently rejected by WB development? And is it going to remain this way? Or can we look forward to the agreement being implemented into WB?

My previous reply was:

keep these small topics focused on what is asked by the topic authors.

Repeating once again, please start a new topic with your questions. If possible, please, please, please, please, please, please, (pretty) please re-read all my replies in your inconsistency topic and save me some time because I'm getting so tired of repeating the same things over and over again just for you and Lancelot in these tiresome and long drama stories.. thank you very much!

I believe that the question to which you're referring to is "WB scripting unpredictability" to which I also answered several times right from reply number 3:
http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=93789

Yes, both Lancelot and I directly referred you there to answer the question which arises from that topic:

Particuarly, why is it that scripting syntax is inconsistent due to the agreement on scripting syntax having been silently rejected by WB development? And is it going to remain this way? Or can we look forward to the agreement being implemented into WB?

If you are inclined to answer, answer here (now that we're going), in in my topic, or Lancelot's topic with similar things mentioned, or start a new one. I'd really just like to know where .script developers stand with regards to the issue of WB script syntax and the agreement that was reached on it but has been silently rejected by WB development. For two years now script syntax has been in a state of flux and we now thought the issue was settled. .script developers have a right to know where they stand so that we can bring some certainty back into .script development so that what is coded today will work with the WB of tomorrow.

Thanks,
Galapo.

because I'm getting so tired of repeating the same things over and over again just for you and Lancelot in these tiresome and long drama stories.. thank you very much!

Nuno, we're getting tired too! Here's what I wrote a number of days ago on the same issue -- also sadly unresponded too: http://www.boot-land...amp;#entry93910

Well, I must say that the silence from development with regard to issues of syntax and violation of agreement reached is deafening. As is the the same silence to actually deal with same matters raised here: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665.

Why avoid the real issues? Why create diversions? Lancelot and I are project maintainers so we know WB well and have put in countless hours trying to improve WB. But to have to keep hounding for improvement with regard to acceptable script syntax etc. is really quite demoralising. It looks bad for WB development and it looks bad for the guys who keep trying to report the issues. You're putting some of your best WB testers offside. We feel like giving up. We feel like no longer following the WB update train, just sticking with one WB version we know, just using workarounds for issues as they arise, no longer making reports or suggestions. Certainly easier for us from our perspective. I just cannot understand why WB development is creating this situation where this is arising. I'm at a loss here.

Please will someone from WB development answer the questions so .script developers and project maintainers know where the stand with regard to scripting syntax and the issue of the silent rejection of the syntax agreement which was reached.

Thanks again,
Galapo.

I'd really just like to know where .script developers stand with regards to the issue of WB script syntax and the agreement that was reached on it but has been silently rejected by WB development.

So, this is a question for .script developers.

Which agreement has been made between .script developers and WB development?

For two years now script syntax has been in a state of flux and we now thought the issue was settled. .script developers have a right to know where they stand so that we can bring some certainty back into .script development so that what is coded today will work with the WB of tomorrow.

Use app scripts.

- Abstract the scripts from depending on winbuilder.exe whenever possible (app scripts)
- Keep scripts simple, avoid complex syntax usage
- Use only stable wb versions.

This is the reason why "which agreement was made?" because I only see you and Lancelot refusing to use stable versions.

There is something that needs to be made clear. Bugs will always exists. We release a winbuilder.exe in the hope that most bugs are addressed but this will never happen and the sooner you understand, the better we will be prepared to handle it.

winbuilder.exe will no longer be delayed due to bug fixing. This was a mistake as it caused a huge gap between stable versions.

On your own projects, use a stable version. If you're not using a stable, don't come here complaining that you want to see bugs fixed or some syntax corrected because we are working with the resources that are available.

--------------------------------

If you really want to help as a .script developer I think it would be more helpful if you do research.

Explore other projects, do more boot disks, move to WinPE 3.0 and so forth. We'll keep on improving winbuilder.exe but we'll be doing it at our own pace. No longer will a wb be released just because it works on LiveXP.

We are creating the foundation to ensure that winbuilder can actually work across projects and be better tested before a stable is released.

This includes selecting the bugs that get fixed on each release. The syntax is preferably kept equal between releases but sometimes changes and improvements will occur, that's life. If you use abstraction and keep your scripts simple then it shouldn't impact your past work.

Keep the questions rollin'

First of all, Lancelot, Galapo could you please stop complaining. It's really annoying to come here and have to read every day through your endless drivel. The release of 80 was over a month ago. Get a grip and move on.

Now to the other nutcase.

- Abstract the scripts from depending on winbuilder.exe whenever possible (app scripts)

It's not a good idea to shift responsibility for compatibility from WB to the 'pach.script' i.e. CAPI. Especialy since the 'patch script' is not maintained anymore, so there will be no new patches to make old app scripts compatible to newer WB versions.

- Keep scripts simple, avoid complex syntax usage

Generally a good idea. Just bears the question, why waste time to implement non functioning or not allowed to use features in WB?

There is something that needs to be made clear. Bugs will always exists. We release a winbuilder.exe in the hope that most bugs are addressed but this will never happen and the sooner you understand, the better we will be prepared to handle it.

winbuilder.exe will no longer be delayed due to bug fixing. This was a mistake as it caused a huge gap between stable versions.

With other words: "In the future there will be every 3 months a WB with the postfix stable attached, don't pay attention to it, we won't eighter.

The syntax is preferably kept equal between releases but sometimes changes and improvements will occur, that's life. If you use abstraction and keep your scripts simple then it shouldn't impact your past work.

1. Improvements that break compatibilty should never just happen. I know that you're in huge favor of the chaos develoment model, but it's just as much a waste of time as telling you this.
2. Abstraktion. So i should not depend on WB, but on, i guess, CAPI. Wonder what pedrole will abstract his CAPI from?
3. If only simple commands can be used in WB, stop wasting time including complicated one!

If only simple commands can be used in WB, stop wasting time including complicated one!

I fully subscribe your opinion.

We waste too much time with a complicated syntax that is not understandable to the largest majority of .script developers and even more complicated to debug.

The problem is that the people that drive the requests for increased complexity (macros, whatever) will then be first people to point the fact that the syntax is not coherent.

I also vote for simplicity.

Not quite what i had in mind, but works for me too.

We are easy people to go along with Nuno.
You never answered the question asked here
http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665
neither psc did.

I cannot answer for Nuno, I can only answer for me.

On every question put to me I can decide whether to answer or not. Nobody has the right to force me to answer.

Peter

First of all, Lancelot, Galapo could you please stop complaining. It's really annoying to come here and have to read every day through your endless drivel. The release of 80 was over a month ago. Get a grip and move on.

Because you do not read.
A question asked and never answered here post 1.
http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665

Current posts moved here by someone from another topic.

We do not complain, we ask 1 single clear question, that is all.

It is the price we get, spending a lot of time to test winbuilders, supporting psc for his goals and in the end we learn "lies told to us" and we can not get answer to our question by being accused to irralevant things.

Because you do not read.
A question asked and never answered here post 1.
http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10665

The question is not answered, because in my feeling for me it is wasted time.
The post where this question is based on, is answered, and the issue is fixed.

Sorry that I do nor spread answers in evey topic mentioning the same issue.

Peter

On every question put to me I can decide whether to answer or not. Nobody has the right to force me to answer.

You're right, nobody has the right to force you. But it is unpolite to not at least acknowledge the question and thereby the questioner in some way.

Hey peeps, we can alwas get back to BATCH.

At least we know the syntax and noone will change it.

And you cannot do complex things anyway.



Wonko

it is not answered.
1- you only wrote fixed to a topic, did not give any details. Nobody knows the meaning of it !
2- question never answered on Galapo's topic, Galapo use the issue as an example for his question.
3- your writing "fixed" to a topic lost his meaning since you have not anwered the question.

The whole point of this topic is that the present unpredicatability/inconsistency is due to the agreement being silently rejected by WB development: http://www.boot-land...showtopic=10658. That is why I've called this "unpredictability", because we all thought an agreement had been reached and had been implemented in WB080, but in fact this has not occurred. We can't write scripts using syntax which was agreed to, which generates unpredicatability and the need to look for workarounds. WB development is silent on this issue so we are in a state of unpredicatability about whether the agreement will actually be adhered to or rejection of agreement will still be (silently?) maintained.

because in my feeling for me it is wasted time.

Yep, we share same feelings. That is the reason I do not write anything about wb bugs anymore. Have fun.

Hey peeps, we can alwas get back to BATCH.

At least we know the syntax and noone will change it.

And you cannot do complex things anyway.



Wonko

You're right, nobody has the right to force you. But it is unpolite to not at least acknowledge the question and thereby the questioner in some way.

In "standard cases" I agree.
But when the question contains personal agression like the often used "lie", please allow me just to ignore.

Peter

In "standard cases" I agree.
But when the question contains personal agression like the often used "lie", please allow me just to ignore.

Peter

If,lie,proved,Set,fact,lie
If,psc,read,topics,set,lie,fact
Else,set,falseexcuse,positive
If,psc,read,topics,If,psc,wants,falseexcuse,set,falseexcuse,positive
Echo,falseexcuse

I already write some of the required links to prove with chronological order, more links can be provided to give more details on relevant topic , but since nobody finds something wrong with my proof, than fact is confirmed.

Well, in the end we've never get an answer, and wb remains unpredictable with reasons very well written with good english by Galapo.
Also one can remember (if wants) jaclaz's comments about this unpredictablity too. (and again with good english )


I believe Wonko the Sane is totally right
or are you lieing Wonko the Sane, can really noone change batch syntax ?

In "standard cases" I agree.
But when the question contains personal agression like the often used "lie", please allow me just to ignore.

Yes Lancelots tone of voice is less than acceptable. But try to handle it like a man. Kick him against the shin, so that we all got something from it.

I prefer to work on development for the other (about) 34000 members.

Peter