105 replies to this topic

[pscEx]

With WB 081 RC1 there seems to be a STOP in development introduced.

Current reason: LiveXP development does not want to adapt to new functionality.

As explained by Steve6375, XP PEs are dying.

Let's continue with 'Actual' PEs

In order not to offer a 'homemade nativeEX???' project, I use JonF's VistaPE to demonstrate.

You may test:

• Download VistaPE
• Define the source CD path
• Define the WAIK
• Uncheck 'Avira' ( starts a download which may confuse time compare)
• Uncheck SpyBot' ( starts a download which may confuse time compare)
• Uncheck '7Z' ( brings errors I did not try to fix)
• Fix API bug: Change "%reg%\ to %reg%

Build the project with downloadable WinBuider 080 and my "nightly" from http://nativeex.exec.../WinBuilder.Zip
Compare the builds.

My result:


When you subtract the imagex time in postconfig of around 2 minutes, you have a REAL project of 080 time with 3:00 minutes and 081 with 1:30 minutes.

Peter

[Lancelot]

psc

STOP LIE,

is it ever possible !!!!

With WB 081 RC1 there seems to be a STOP in development introduced.

Decision Made by Nuno, neither me nor Galapo ask for such thing. Oppositely, Galapo asked for wb080rev4 after Nuno's decsion.

After a long time passed from Nuno's decision, you already start distributing winbuilder tomathos from your website. Why complain, ask Nuno if you want a release an official version, which seems to me Nuno is the only one who take such decisions..

Current reason: LiveXP development does not want to adapt to new functionality.

Splitting 2,
I clearly do not take ANY part of wb developing after release of wb080 where a set of LIES and eventually Post Games popup like a muson rain.
And after my name used for some post gaming actions by psc, I RE-Write here I do not care.
Galapo took some part, but could not get any answer to his questions in relevant topics . Galapo's last ununswared post about this matter here (links in posts are only examples):

Truely I think WinBuilder is becoming a nativeEx builder. Time and again script developers have asked to be involved in the decision to alter script syntax, especially as it relates to backwards compatibility. Agreements that were reached regarding 080 (and which were agreed upon again after 081rc1 was failing) have now again been reversed. Testing with the latest version which was released with PEF.zip shows that crucial decisions have been made causing massive lack of backwards compatibility -- and yet still no involvement of script developers in this and only nativeEx can support the new WinBuilder. As such, I think WinBuilder is becoming a nativeEx builder.

I for one am tired of having to go through an entire project to update scripts for changed syntax in order to support a new WB, especially when reasons for altered syntax are crucially not supplied. For example:

http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=100516
http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=102564
http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=100600

This just drives project developers into just picking a WB version and sticking with it and no longer supporting newer versions. This is the case with LiveXP, where supported versions are 077rc2 and 080 with no plans to support a new version unless backwards compatibility is retained and/or script developers are involved in decisions relating to changing script syntax (unless another developer steps forward to take over the project, which I asked for but no one has come forward). In practical terms then WinBuilder is becoming a nativeEx builder.

Regards,
Galapo.

When you subtract the imagex time in postconfig of around 2 minutes,

No surprise from LiveXP Development, LiveXP Development is the only development which raised VOICE highly knowing and saying winbuilder engine is the reason of slow down on builds (one of exampe here).

The priority as far as I can tell should therefore be with winbuilder.exe itself rather than work-arounds to the real problem which is a slowdown with winbuilder.exe script processing.

Even than LIES came from both from Nuno and psc saying capi and scripts are responsible. It is nice seeing another CLEAR example of admiting LIE.

ps: well I can not take quotes of my posts, simple reason, I did not take any part about winbuilder development after wb080 release lies, I hope not having any post around proves this fact. Besides It also proves Galapo more optimistic than me .

Shortly:
STOP LIES, LiveXP and its developers NEVER take a part in any winbuilder release decision.

If you want to release a new version officially, ASK Nuno.

Or better, why asking anyone, put your website saying it is new release. Even with another new name, winbuilderex.exe or exbuilder.exe or nativeexbuilder or... . I personally do not care and have no will to reply your posts unless any lie or postgames releated LiveXP or me. (which clearly written mannnnnny times before)

[Galapo]

Current reason: LiveXP development does not want to adapt to new functionality.

Hi Peter,

Seems you still like to stir the pot!

Let me simply make a correction to your erroneous statement above. LiveXP development is not opposed to new functionality, nor adapting to new functionality. As stated plenty of times previously, we are opposed to the situation where fundamental script syntax is changed on a whim and where script developers are neither consulted for their views about the fundamental script syntax changes and not adequately informed about the reasoning.

For LiveXP development, it's never been a question of new functionality -- evidenced by the fact that it has been the sole project apart from nativeEx which has kept strict pace with WB development. However, this has all changed when we have grown tired of having to update the project constantly due to fundamental syntax being repeatedly altered (note: not new functionality, as LiveXP has always been in favour of the introduction of new functions), not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place. As such, the most popular WB project (incredibly, about 10,000 downloads of just the archived project this month, not taking into account project downloads through the WB Download Centre) is currently supporting WB 077rc2 and 080, with no plans for following the WB update train any further.

As mentioned previously elsewhere, LiveXP development is happy to hand over development of the LiveXP project to someone who does want to follow the WB update train into the future. We're happy to just let WB essentially be a nativeEx-builder from now on.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Brito]

With all due respect I agree with your perspective that wb development should move forward but deciding to use either LiveXP, VistaPE, Win7PE or any other projects in the future is similar to a cat chasing his own tail.

That's not going forward, it's repeating what has been done for XP and at this rate will continue on being done over and over again.



For example, would a wb 080 or 081 do anything that wouldn't already be possible with wb 050?

So, winbuilder.exe hasn't stopped because of LiveXP developers. It stopped because we failed on what was most important: listening to the community.

We need stability, we don't need to rewrite projects and scripts at each new release of wb.

What advantages come from developing an engine that only works for a couple of people?

With that said. Let's take a time of rest on winbuilder.exe development. Listen to requests, think on what the next steps for the future should be.

No more chasing tails please.



In the diagram above I propose a change in project paradigm.

Instead of creating a project for each platform, I would suggest creating a project that would build a boot disk based on the provided windows source. No need to fight over which platform is better, they all have advantages and we'd be better served with the option to choose according to our needs (or available sources).

[Wonko the Sane]

Just to stir a bit the pot.

The problem has been finally explicited/accepted :

For example, would a wb 080 or 081 do anything that wouldn't already be possible with wb 050?

So, winbuilder.exe hasn't stopped because of LiveXP developers. It stopped because we failed on what was most important: listening to the community.

We need stability, we don't need to rewrite projects and scripts at each new release of wb.

What the average user needs is to build successfully the whatever project he wants to try/experiment with.

If the build is successful and does what he/she expects, he/she will have NO need to re-build another one after 5 minutes.

Right now the average experience is:

• download winbuilder
• download project files
• build
• fail
• change something
• build
• fail
• post on the forum a (normally undocumented) request for help
• wait for a reply/advice (normally well above the average level)
• assume to have understood the reply (that normally is not)
• build
• fail
• post again on the forum (normally this time providing a log)
• get a proper reply/answer (normally concerning a setting that is in the Winbuilder interface either hidden, or "unnatural" or not intuitive)
• this time understand what to do
• build
• fail
• loop to #13 a few times
  and finally:
• build
• succeed

If this is the intended way , since the actual build is repeated AT LEAST 5 (five) times, it does make a lot of sense to have it happen in half the time.

BUT
if the average experience becomes:

• download winbuilder
• download project files
• build
• succeed

it doesn't make much sense, and there are several other things NEEDED to get to this "model".


Wonko

[Brito]

Would be nice to see a simple project.

Just pick a source, go.

[Lancelot]

Would be nice to see a simple project.

Just pick a source, click go.

Today: LiveXP, VistaPE-Capi, Multi7PE-SE, Win7PE-SE, BB-7PE, Win98livecd, + New Leopard coming soon. If you have ever practiced, you could see yourself.

Tomorrow: check current topic, figure out the picture.

[Wonko the Sane]

Would be nice to see a simple project.

Just pick a source, click go.

Well, NO.

That would amount to UBCD4WIN or Amalux "frozen builds".

We already have them.

What the user expects/wants to do is to customize his/her build, but this has to be carried EASILY, meaning that you shouldn't be able (unless really wanting to) to create conflicts that prevent a successful build.

Also, an easy, well documented mechanism to "repeat" builds or create "pre-made" builds is missing, AFAIK.

In other words, Winbuilder projects/builds have a zillion options (this is good), BUT some are completely crazy, some others are forcefully imposed on the user, often badly integrated/intertwined, and the result is very often a failure in the build, but the reason is not because of the too many options, it is because they are very often badly or unclearly organized, with no or unuseful help/hints or even if they are terribly worded or unlikely to be understood (but there is a nice image in the interface - completely unuseful of course).

Now, it is well possible to combine flexibility with "safe builds", all it is needed is some organization and a number of pre-made,tested and mantained projects .ini (or whatever it is now used).

Every time I see on the board (and it happens more often than you may think) one of the Winbuilder main contributors suggesting "delete and re-download" I find it a clear sign that the complexity of the projects have gone far beyond usability for the average user.

Additionally the number of broken links to projects and .scripts, abandoned or semi-abandoned projects and unmantained .scripts, the lack of a CONSTANTLY updated "Project table", are all factors that turn the "Winbuilder experience" in a nightmare for most users.


Wonko

[Brito]

Having a frozen package is not a bad idea.

What I mean is having one project that is agnostic in terms of source used.

[Wonko the Sane]

Having a frozen package is not a bad idea.

What I mean is having one project that is agnostic in terms of source used.

Sure, why not.

Let's see the logic in it:
SINCE the problem at hand is the complexity (or better the created complexity) of the interaction/conflicts of the zillion possibilities available with a single given source, THEN it would be nice to have a single project that can build on *any* source, THUS, due to the ADDED needed complexity, making the possibility of an unssuccesful first time build raise from the current say 50% to a nice 99,99% (certainty).

I am sure that a man can dream , but from time to time touching ground with his feet wouldn't be a bad idea.

I presume that the next logical step would be to add to:
http://www.sys32.org/projects

a "www.ergonomics.org" forum, a "www.howtodesignaui.org" and possibly also a "www.ifaintbrokendontfixit.org" so that these topics can be discussed in an appropriate space (and nothing to actually fix the issues be done).


Wonko

[Brito]

You're right. Better do nothing in that case.

[Galapo]

Just pick a source, go.

Currently, that's the case with any project -- just that not every source is compatible.

You're never going to be able to have a project which supports an unlimited number of sources as it is unrealistic: XPsp2 English, XPsp2 German, XPsp2 Russian, XPsp2 Chinese, XPsp3 English, XPsp3 German, XPsp3 Russian, XPsp3 Chinese, XPsp2 English with hotfixes added, XPsp2 German with hotfixes added, XPsp2 Russian with hotfixes added, XPsp2 Chinese with hotfixes added, 2k3sp1 English, ..., Vista SP0 Engish, ...., Win7sp0 English, w2k8sp0 English, ..., WAIK 2, WAIK 3. A more stable result can be produced if a project is focussed on a particular or limited source.

However, maybe you're up for a real challenge yourself? Keep us informed how you go.

Regards,
Galapo.

[billonious]

What the user expects/wants to do is to customize his/her build, but this has to be carried EASILY, meaning that you shouldn't be able (unless really wanting to) to create conflicts that prevent a successful build.

....

Additionally the number of broken links to projects and .scripts, abandoned or semi-abandoned projects and unmantained .scripts, the lack of a CONSTANTLY updated "Project table", are all factors that turn the "Winbuilder experience" in a nightmare for most users.


Wonko

As long as:
1. you are the #3 oldest member in hierarchy
2. you were an administrator
3. you have proved your rhetorical abilities and your sharp view
3. Nuno was too busy with his own affairs to do the peacemaker of bootland
4. Peter was somehow lost in his feelings that being threaten by Galapo & Lancelot
5. Lancelot and Galapo were under creative estrus making projects somehow chaotic for the most of users

I think you should have mentioned these problems one/ two years ago, when members's relationships could get soften, when you could have shown the right way to younger members, preventing so many members' breakaways. Instead of, you spent all your energy in your crusade against warez, when you could afford some of your time teaching to some men how to co-operate.

Your conclusions about users' nightmares are so true but too late.

[Brito]

You're never going to be able to have a project which supports an unlimited number of sources as it is unrealistic: XPsp2 English, XPsp2 German, XPsp2 Russian, XPsp2 Chinese, XPsp3 English, XPsp3 German, XPsp3 Russian, XPsp3 Chinese, XPsp2 English with hotfixes added, XPsp2 German with hotfixes added, XPsp2 Russian with hotfixes added, XPsp2 Chinese with hotfixes added, 2k3sp1 English, ..., Vista SP0 Engish, ...., Win7sp0 English, w2k8sp0 English, ..., WAIK 2, WAIK 3. A more stable result can be produced if a project is focussed on a particular or limited source.

I would actually like to add Windows 9x, Windows 2000 and ReactOS to the list but then it would be a bit exotic (but doesn't wb already builds them as well?).

x64 versions are also not covered on your list and they are important nowadays.

Let's see the logic in it:
SINCE the problem at hand is the complexity (or better the created complexity) of the interaction/conflicts of the zillion possibilities available with a single given source,

Let's use facts:
- WinBuilder builds boot disks from the sources Galapo mentioned;
- Most of the projects for each mentioned platform support app scripts;
- If a given functionality is not available for a platform then it is not available.


Now let's use logic:
- Jaclaz doesn't code winbuilder projects;
- Galapo and Lancelot are stuck to XP;
- PSC keeps on adding understandable changes on winbuilder.exe

So, what type of wb development do any of you four really expect for the future?

If you look closely. For good or for worse, WinBuilder.exe will not change so soon at the stable version. This is plenty of time to focus on your projects or in new projects instead of just being aggressive an unpleasant to one another.

Just keep on doing what you like but I'd suggest that you also think on new users that would really appreciate the extra effort to make such project available.

Thank you.

[Lancelot]

Hi Nuno,

I was waiting a post to get clear view, now I get, thanks taking short time.

Now let's use logic:
- Jaclaz doesn't code winbuilder projects;
- Galapo and Lancelot are stuck to XP;
- PSC keeps on adding understandable changes on winbuilder.exe

No, it is "bending the logic" . I like calling "Socrates games"
- ...
- NO, we maintaning a PE1 project does not mean we stuck to NT5x based project. I am active on all levels of pe2/3 projects even was very active on w98 project, I do not need to maintain another one. Galapo indireclty helping pe2/3 projects by helping me when I stuck on some cases about pe2/3. From your perpective, everyone should be creating a new project instead of using or contributing others.
With this perpective, An introduction to bootland header will be nice:
"Well come to boot-land, we provide exbuilder to make your own project but advice you never use anyother project, to name what you do as 'project' you must support all sources Nuno likes, and never complain about compatibility of exbuilder, we assure you at least in 3 releases your project will fail, you are welcomed" .
but to give more right impression better write in exbuilder way:
#$qWell#$scome#$sto#$sboot-land#$c#$swe#$sprovide#$sexbuilder#$sto#$smake#$syour#$sown
#$sproject#$sbut#$sadvice#$syou#$snever#$suse#$sanyother#$sproject#$c#$sto#$sname#$swhat
#$syou#$sdo#$sas#$s'project'#$syou#$smust#$ssupport#$sall#$ssources#$sNuno#$slikes#$c#$sand
#$snever#$scomplain#$sabout#$scompatibility#$sof#$sexbuilder#$c#$swe#$sassure#$syou#$sat
#$sleast#$sin#$s3#$sreleases#$syour#$sproject#$swill#$sfail#$c#$syou#$sare#$swelcomed"

- only you understand since you have the secret hand shaking, none of others can even understand since none knows.

as written above and before and before, rerererewriting:

...
I for one am tired of having to go through an entire project to update scripts for changed syntax in order to support a new WB, especially when reasons for altered syntax are crucially not supplied. For example:

http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=100516
http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=102564
http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=100600

This just drives project developers into just picking a WB version and sticking with it and no longer supporting newer versions. This is the case with LiveXP, where supported versions are 077rc2 and 080 with no plans to support a new version unless backwards compatibility is retained


I for one am tired of having to go through an entire project to update scripts for changed syntax in order to support a new WB, especially when reasons for altered syntax are crucially not supplied.
....

Since your last post clears what your final decision:

It stopped because we failed on what was most important: listening to the community.

and you decide continuing deaf. Well done, I am fine with that. I already learned this fact when wb080 released and never had hope for a change.

We need stability, we don't need to rewrite projects and scripts at each new release of wb.

and you decide no need stability, Well done, I am fine again with that.

With final decisions, I am guessing new wb release coming very soon. Maybe tonight or even in some minutes

Usual final words: I do not have a request from nb development about exbuilder, only stop writing LIES and POST GAMES pointing/implying Lancelot and/or LiveXP (any method). I will be much more happy not spending time on answering these Socrates games .

edit: "enters" added to exbuilder type writing due to malfunctions of boot-land, some incorrect words fixed.

[Brito]

Changes on winbuilder.exe stopped since there have already been too many changes. Regardless of defects, the way it works right now is already better than what we had 4 years ago and that didn't stopped us back then.

This an opportunity to focus on new projects or improving the current ones.

I suggest focusing on a single project that handles multiple sources instead of keeping several projects that grow difficult to maintain and end up forgotten.

[Wonko the Sane]

I think you should have mentioned these problems one/ two years ago, when members's relationships could get soften, when you could have shown the right way to younger members, preventing so many members' breakaways. Instead of, you spent all your energy in your crusade against warez, when you could afford some of your time teaching to some men how to co-operate.

Your conclusions about users' nightmares are so true but too late.

Well, maybe you missed a large part of my suggestions (they are always the same, made at the right time, rest assured - or at least as soon as I were able to think them).

Just a few:
http://www.boot-land...;showtopic=5281
http://www.boot-land...?...=6956&st=74
http://www.boot-land...?...=8980&st=12
this latter ones gives some dates too:

I won't re-state what has been said and re-said, this deja-vu feeling is depressing me.

If anyone is interested:
January 2008:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=3851

February 2009:
http://www.boot-land...?...=6956&st=74

April 2009:
http://www.boot-land...?...=7795&st=12

July 2009:
http://www.boot-land...?...=8238&st=12

I have been repeating the SAME things, since a lot of time, but who am I to pretend that anyone will try and follow the "common sense" (there is nothing more actually) that you can find in them?

The exceptional growth of Winbuilder and Boot-Land has created what is expected without a proper background, organization and "standards", that is perfectly normal, but please don't come here saying I didn't say it as soon as I saw it coming, as it is simply NOT true.

About the known psc/Lancelot issues, I tried, and tried again, and again. and failed each time, finally I had to quit, as any and all attempts have proven vain.

BTW, it is to me one serious reason for grief.

@Nuno
There are REASONS why jaclaz doesn't code write his half a§§ed scripts in Winbuilder language, one of the many is because such a language has not been EVER properly defined, let alone documented, (and billonious please don't come around telling I didn't say this a number of times)

I would like (and mind you this is a suggestion from the Outside - both of the Board staff AND as a non-winbuilder .script developer), again just common sense:

• stability of the engine (STOP changing syntax every §@ç#ing release)
• documentation (both of the syntax AND with examples one can follow)
• stability of projects ( STOP this §@ç#ing featuritis)
• organize and KEEP organised the various projects (with the ONLY exception of LiveXP and a few "frozen things, EVERYTHING is either a mess, or has changed name, or it's not anymore where it should be or is where it should be but there is NO way to know that is there because of broken links, moved servers, outdated pages and what not).
  I have said this from the start as I foresaw that Winbuilder projects would have soon become like BartPE plug-ins (scattered all around the internet, 1/3 expired on hosting sites, 1/3 on expired sites, and 1/6 more or less accessible on 911Cd, the remaing 1/6 "somewhere else)
• finally move forward ALL together, i.e:
  
  
• improvement of the user interface
• improve the portability of single .scripts among the different projects

Please note how #1 to #4 form a virtuous circle, stability of the Engine allows for documentation, proper documentation allows for more people capable (or willing) to write .scripts, more .scripts (organized) form both examples (that allow for a loop to #2) and more contributions to the .scripts database, then once first 4 are "syncronous" and "well oiled", nothing prevents for a (single) rotation (or step ahead) at a time.

More than all the above:

• a few clear, univocal and definite decisions on your part

This is - sorry to say this - the ONLY senceful, clear, and univocal statement I read from you on a long time:

For example, would a wb 080 or 081 do anything that wouldn't already be possible with wb 050?

So, winbuilder.exe hasn't stopped because of LiveXP developers. It stopped because we failed on what was most important: listening to the community.

We need stability, we don't need to rewrite projects and scripts at each new release of wb.

What advantages come from developing an engine that only works for a couple of people?

With that said. Let's take a time of rest on winbuilder.exe development. Listen to requests, think on what the next steps for the future should be.

But soon after, you go for a tangent, fantasizing about a one-size-fits-all-do-everything project.

A tree needs SOLID roots to grow in height, a project is in no way different.


Wonko

[Lancelot]

About the known psc/Lancelot issues, I tried, and tried again, and again. and failed each time, finally I had to quit, as any and all attempts have proven vain.

you did nothing.

PSC/Dramastic issue:Dramastic left
PSC/vvurat issue: vvurat left for a long while, luckly back, active.
PSC/allanf issue: allanf left (this is the only case I regret a looot of my actions supporting psc; Alanf, accept my apology)
PSC/JFX issue: JFX left
PSC/Lancelot issue: Lancelot stayed, had 2 or 3 ww with some peaces and getting apology from psc (which I never trusted ). Lancelot do not contribute any development psc involves for months but psc keep attacking, and nobody doing anything!!!.
I only have issue with "PSC and his follower", followers act friendly when PSC decide peace, act wildly when PSC decide attack, which totally makes me smile reading human creativity developing new methods, only sadly cause time and boring topics.
PSC/Galapo issue: Galapo constantly ignored.

Maybe you miss a large part of my suggestion jaclaz which has parallels with your suggestions. You are also constantly ignored. Following your methodology of interpereting this can called as PSC/Jaclaz issue or Nuno/Jaclaz issue,

I do not know and can not remember how many more members left after an Issue with PSC. Besides nobody can know the ones that did not publickly have issue on topic but left silently.

I hope picture clear.

Thanks for causing me spending time for another post (<--sarcasm)

[Brito]

@Nuno
There are REASONS why jaclaz doesn't code write his half a§§ed scripts in Winbuilder language, one of the many is because such a language has not been EVER properly defined, let alone documented, (and billonious please don't come around telling I didn't say this a number of times

Documentation:
http://winbuilder.ne...ipt_syntax.html

Still, nowhere perfect. We lack people to help and I would suggest moving this help to the forums where any developer can edit and add tidybits of information but this was also criticized. It's a pity because in php.net it works well and wouldn't be difficult to do the same.

I have been repeating the SAME things, since a lot of time, but who am I to pretend that anyone will try and follow the "common sense" (there is nothing more actually) that you can find in them?

I know my friend. You've also tried in past to organize volunteers onto something productive but gathering a task force to help solving the issues you mention is nowhere easy.

[Galapo]

I suggest focusing on a single project that handles multiple sources instead of keeping several projects that grow difficult to maintain and end up forgotten.

As I said previously: maybe you're up for a real challenge yourself? Keep us informed how you go.

For me I see a real advantage in maintaining a project focussed on particular sources thus producing predictable and stable results, not multiple sources which introduce vast unpredicatiblity and more than likely unstable results.

Maybe you could release a pilot or test project for us to better assess the viability of your proposal?

Regards,
Galapo.

[Wonko the Sane]

Following your methodology of interpereting this can called as PSC/Jaclaz issue or Nuno/Jaclaz issue,

NO , AFAIK there is no actual issue between jaclaz and psc or Nuno, i.e. nothing personal of any kind.

It's simply the eternal and never ending fight between order and chaos.

Sometimes the force will win, sometimes the dark side will prevail..... that's life.

Mind you , noone is saying who is on which side of the force, roles are often inverted or exchanged ....

The main thing that should be avoided ( and unfortunately from time to time it is NOT ) is the breaking of Rule #12, as I see it the most important one:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=9101

12. SMILE! Life is tough, we all know that, when you enter this board, it will be appreciated that you leave your personal problems behind, asking and replyinq questions or however exchanging informations with a "positive" attitude, TAKE IT EASY and enjoy your stay here.

Wonko

[Brito]

Maybe you could release a pilot or test project for us to better assess the viability of your proposal?

Unfortunately I can't, sorry..

My family already spends too little time with me and after December I'll need to fight in other fields.

Someone else would have to step forward and lead the development.

I can help gathering volunteers through the newsletters and also help with the testing part but I won't be here from start to delivery of the project or otherwise I'd happily work on a pilot-project.

[Galapo]

Hi Nuno,

Wonko and I have already explained why your suggestion is unworkable and would undoubtedly produce unwanted side effects.

Without a pilot project you won't be able to convince us to change our opinion because as far as we can see our opinion is grounded in the evidence of reality.

If you want to see the dream of "build from any selected source files" become a reality, it'll have to start with you, because for us we think it's a waste of time for the reasons already outlined. Or I guess find someone else who also believes your dream to head up development.

Anyway, this is all off-topic with regards to the original post. The first post suggested that WB development has stoped due to LiveXP developers not wanting to adapt to new functionality. This was shown to be a baseless claim as LiveXP developers have never resisted new functionality being introduced into WB. What we are against is fundamental syntax being repeatedly altered, script developers not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place.

The question is really what do you think about this? Are you in favour of the current development practice which is producing the situation where at every WB release entire projects need to be updated to syntax rules which have been altered for reasons not provided and without consultation? If not, can you please do something about this?

Regards,
Galapo.

[sanbarrow]

Stupid question:
can anyone explain why the one-tool-for-all-sources is regarded as desirable here ?

I find the approach that Wimb uses for his PE3 is way more clever.
Here the building system and the source are the same - this solves so many problems that it is way easier to maintain it.

And in the several years that I now maintain the 2k3-sp2 build nobody ever complained that it can't be build with Vista or 2000 or whatever ....

Maybe the intellectual beauty of a one-tool-fits-all-sources idea was more important then the practical terms ...

If a noob-user compares the results ... Wimbs PE3 95% success on first build, MOA 95% success on first build , Winbuilder 5% on first build - guess what he will use ?

[Brito]

The question is really what do you think about this? Are you in favour of the current development practice which is producing the situation where at every WB release entire projects need to be updated to syntax rules which have been altered for reasons not provided and without consultation? If not, can you please do something about this?

I already did something about this:
- Proposed a test project to ensure correct functioning of available commands across versions.
- Suggested a release schedule and phases that would be simple to follow and prevent major changes between versions;
- Tried that focus would be given on winbuilder projects instead of winbuilder.exe features;
- Moved the old bugtracker to a more public location;
- Suggested that api.script was optimized along with projects since the building is not efficient;
- Suggested that the documentation moved to a place where members can edit it.

As result, most of these suggestions got bashed (heavily). And I'm not the only one, sbaeder, Jaclaz and many others also did the same but the criticism is so bad that nothing ever gets done.

Now don't complain and request a better development model. Perhaps now you understand better that those were attempts to bring some organization. Thank you for helping.

If you want to see the dream of "build from any selected source files" become a reality, it'll have to start with you, because for us we think it's a waste of time for the reasons already outlined. Or I guess find someone else who also believes your dream to head up development.

Yes, I've heard that story before and remember comments such as:
- Winbuilder (why reinvent the wheel if there is already bartPE?)
- LiveXP (why can't we use static hives? use native language of the source?)
- Boot Land (why creating another boot disk forum that will just be left empty?)
- App scripts (impossible! you can't write a script that works on two different projects)

If I could, I'd surely like sit down one more time and prove that with enough magic and effort we can achieve a simple, small and efficient solution. But right now I need to devote time onto other things.

If I did returned to wb development, would likely change things far more than Peter ever did. You're lucky because Peter was there over the years to patch the code, handle bug reports and add functionality in the scripting that you and Lancelot many times requested in several hundreds topics per thread that nobody else would request or understand.

Don't complain to me about over-complexity or ever changing functionality, I'm in a favor of over-simplicity and never voted to see LiveXP to become so overly complex as it is today.