Skywalka wrote:Frankly - if those things are just "my" needs then you might have missed 9 months of discussion on your own messageboard.
We'll see eventually.
Skywalka wrote:Additionally I don't understand why the API can handle WebAOM request and not those of AoM, but that is simply due to my lack of knowledge of the API. And I also did not notice anybody reporting it here on the forum. The last posting about API problems was 4 weeks ago.
It's quite simple, as exp explained I use the TCP api and WebAOM uses the UDP api. The UDP api is very simple and I even considered adding support for it to aom because it so little work. 90% of AOM has nothing to do with hashing, renaming and adding to mylist. Those are smaller parts that are supported because it's needed. (Well, AOM started out as a file hashing tool.)
A very large part of aom is downloading, parsing and displaying AniDB. I don't know if you've seen the 0.6 -105% done version but it shows where I want the client to go. If I wanted it to do only what WebAoM does I could chunk out a version over the weekend but thankfully I don't have to since Epoximator made WebAoM.
Skywalka wrote:Anyway. I simply wanted to point out the fact that somebody was able to put something together that is working and that you should maybe think about the fact that you have been working on your new AoM version for such a long time now that you should maybe think about just stopping.
WebAOM has been around quite a long time, AOM does what it does for me without me even touching it and since I have a decent amount of ram and a HT processor AOM doesn't pose a problem for me under any circumstances. For me it sits in the background doing what WebAOM does without me noticing until I want to.
WebAOM is great and I checked it out thoroughly when it was released and I check it now and then but it lacks most of the things I use aom for.
Skywalka wrote:I got the feeling that you try to put together a complete offline version of AniDB and that seems to be either too much work or too much to ask for or a combination of both. You should think about focusing on your real life. There are a limited number of people on this earth that really need your program and numerous features you are trying to put in for them, and in the end you won't even be asking for money for it. I simply feel that it is wrong to ask you for that.
Aom 0.6 has been an extreme learning experience for me. I've focused on fixing EVERYTHING that was wrong with 0.5, every little complaint about 0.5 has been thought about when I made 0.6.
The base architecture of the clients are vastly different and 0.6 is simply a way to learn how to cope with large amounts of data in a multithreading client.
Coding is my real life, I spend at least 8 hours a day 5 days a week doing it since that's what I do at work. 0.6 has helped me tremendously at work and as such it was worth it. Time lost or not, I use aom 0.5 every day and it has so far probably hashed, verified and added over 11000 files to my mylist. I can't even imagine doing that manually.
AoM also autocreqs, that's something WebAOM doesn't as I understand it. don't have any exact numbers but I'm fairly certain most md4 and sha1 checksums come from AoM.
Take that as my small contribution to AniDB.
Skywalka wrote:AoM in it's current state was a good way to add files to AniDB but it always had this major problem of eating up an enormous amount of RAM and on the other hand it always ends up beeing totally fu**ed up. After at least three months you need to delete all of the files and re-start with a fresh installation (or just delete all the files in the kowai folder).
The latest version does not have this problem from what I've seen. The whole need to restart after X months should be a thing of the past.
The problems now seem to be corruption of the datafiles due to API instability. I can live with that, redownloading the dump files overnight is never something I really found to be a problem.
Skywalka wrote:I always thought the only thing I would want from a new version was what the old one did without those two problems and when you look at the current date you will find that you now have worked on that new version for at least 9 months if not longer, without getting to a state where it does that.
I work on it on spare time with no help, even when people have offered to help they haven't followed through very far to this date. It's all neat you make demands on speed but I do this at my own pace as it's only me working on it.
0.6 doesn't have autocreq and stuff because I don't trust it enough yet. The client itself has been far better than 0.5 for a very long time.
Skywalka wrote:So now somebody else published that and I simply informed you that I don't need you working on the next version of AoM anymore. I don't need it. You DON'T NEED TO WORK TO SATISFY MY NEEDS. That is ESPECIALLY what I tried to inform you about. You must have felt pressured by me and others in the past and I simply wanted to let you know IN TIME that you don't have that pressure from me anymore.
Please realize that as I've stated a couple of times people asking for stuff only makes me take longer releasing it. The more a pain in the but they are the less likely it's to be released.
Any pressure there's been about releasing 0.6 is due to me being annoyed with lack of features in 0.5, end of story.
Skywalka wrote:That might suck, and you might feel offended that I won't pressure you anymore, that you put so much work into something that now some people won't want to use anymore but what would've been the better thing to do?
Please realize that it's neat that people use the client, I'm flattered some find it useful and I'm even more flattered that people actually idle in an irc channel dedicated to it. But as stated, aom is created purely for my own needs. All the features in 0.5 that I don't use were created by BennieB and he used those.
Skywalka wrote:Wait another six or whatever months it will take you to put together the thing you think is the next big thing and then just tell you "Well I never needed it anyway anymore because I already started using that WebAoM thing months ago"? Or simply shutting up and not telling you about it? Yeah I guess you would've liked that more.
If WebAOM does everything you need it to do you never really understood what my main goal with AoM was.
Skywalka wrote:Come on. Be honest to yourself. You worked on this thing for so long now it must tire you. To be frank I think the way you responded speaks volumes, and I simply knew that you would respond this way. You are fed up with the way we have been pushing you, admit it, especially me. Now I'm off your back so what are you angry about? That you tried to put something together that has so many features I never needed and didn't finish that in time? I doubt it. Again - what are you angry about? All those people who wait for the stuff you put into the next AoM will still be waiting.
I spend most my time doing other stuff. If I truly focused on 0.6 it would have been out more 7-8 months ago. But 0.5 works, it does most of what I need so I work on 0.6 when I feel like it.
And what I'm angry about is whining and making outrageous exaggerations. I don't mind you saying omg where's the 0.6, I mind you whining about stuff that's been fixed and stuff I have no control over.
A recent version of 0.5 uses about 200mb ram, very little of this is actually leaked memory. The main ram use in aom is the treeviews, which have been replaced with something far better in 0.6.
Skywalka wrote:I simply felt that somebody should be so blunt and hit you in the head with the fact that you might be trying to get something out the door that is what we in germany call an "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" which you could translate into "egg laying milk giving whool pig", while all that is needed might be a plain and simple sheep.
I think I've beaten on that statement enough already to comment further on it.
Skywalka wrote:I would never ask you to work during any vacation for me. It's quite the contrary. I want you to have more fun in your real life and maybe just stop putting so much time into something that in the end might not even be appreciated by everybody.
Like me now.
Why thank you, might it not have occured to you that I WANTED to work on it because it was fun and taught me stuff I wanted to know?
I don't expect AoM to please everyone, I expect it to please me.
Skywalka wrote:And look at your reaction. I knew you would be pissed. But simply imagine how much you would be pissed if in the end only five to ten people pat you on the back because they feel they have to because of all the work you had (honestly I thought that in the meantime next to your reply I would've gotten at least three others from people who scold me for "attacking" you), while silently thinking something else. Like "man I waited all this time and now it doesn't even do what the last version did" or "Man I thought it would have this and that" or, worst case scenario "Great, more features, but buggy like the last version". Or whatever.
If only 5 people said neat that'd wouldn't be far from how many people have said neat about 0.5, that's maybe 10 or 15 people.
Skywalka wrote:Look at the joke egg made in the other thread about the 1.0 version. He said that one would be out maybe around 2010.
And so will Longhorn.
Skywalka wrote:Call me an ass, but don't you think you might want to either scale down the stuff you want to put in the next version and simply shove something out the door or simply stop altogether and work on stuff that would bring you forward in real life?
0.5 was shoved out the door, it's working and doing what it's intended to do. There's no real need for 0.6.
Skywalka wrote:Or even better: wouldn't it have been better not to tell anybody about a new version without first documenting the old one?
The wiki is there, if you want documentation on 0.5 create it.
I don't need the documentation, you do, I created the wiki because I hope others will help with it. Which they did.
But wait a minute, here's someone whining about ME not creating documentation for 0.5. So please, as you're such a fan of WebAoM create a link on the front page of the wiki for that please. Go out to the world and preach brother! Preach the greatness of WebAOM for adding stuff to your mylist. (For honestly, if that's all you need it's GREAT! Epoximator did a great work with it.)
Skywalka wrote:Interim faq, interim wiki, and all the time it's because "the new version is on the way", which induces a need for that version. Everytime I asked, you told me "there is a new version out, it does more than the last one" while the new AoM _never ever_ did as much as the old one did, which _never ever_ made me use that new version. I installed it six times now, everytime a new version, and every time I found out it does not do what I need it to do.
Then don't use it.
Skywalka wrote:Now telling me that you won't cater to "YOUR (my) needs" is almost funny, because you should know what I want, and every time I asked for the new AoM you told me to try it out, and every time I found it not doing what I need it to do - which makes it useless. The current AoM always had it's flaws, but that "new" thing was _always_ useless for me, and you kept referring me to it. I mean come on. Look at the "AoM Lonhaul" thread. I started that countdown in OCTOBER of last year, and that was when people already knew for about 4 months that there would be a 0.6 version.
And I agree, 0.6 is useless, but people testing it nails out bugs. People have helped translating it to a few other languages which helped me in testing.
Oh yeah, we knew there would be a Longhorn pretty soon after XP too.
Skywalka wrote:So you might want to light a candle on a small cake for one year of AoM 0.6 vaporware.
Thanks!
Skywalka wrote:Oh, and if AoM would crash everytime I log on with my username I maybe would
- feel special because you did all that just for me
or
- think that all the work you put in for that feature might have delayed AoM 0.6 for another year and it was all "MY fault".
or
- might not notice the difference
We'll see, it would after all only take 10 seconds or so to add.
