Battler wrote:

It seems to me, leileilol, that you seem to be a fanboy of Sarah's PCem and refuse to tolerate anyone disagree with you or Sarah the slightest. You've been going around attacking me and my emulator in multiple places, here, PCem forum, Reddit... and you even have a tendency of posting snide remark about anything you don't care about.

That's quite ironic, given your own history with regards to myself and PCem. You really have no self-awareness, do you?

SarahWalker wrote:

Alegend45 wrote:

Plus, there's also the issue of Sarah sometimes completely mangling code she adds from elsewhere, such as the PCjr sound chip basically being a complete and utter mess.

That's really quite offensive.

That's quite ironic, given your own history with regards to myself and PCem. You really have no self-awareness, do you?

(long time pcem stalker, had to speak up here.)

To be frank, your attitude by itself is rather unwieldy, isn't it? Just because you're doing this for free doesn't mean you're entitled to go about acting like you've got the biggest ego of the lot, all things considered. You take code from other sources, which is perfectly legal, if not a bit unethical, you change it a bit, and completely obfuscate it to the point where it can't really be read easily anymore. I can attest to this on numerous occasions in your emulator.

Nobody here is exactly King of the Popular Crowd, and should stop acting like it; as it isn't like you lot are all solving world hunger, you're developing an x86 emulator. So I would honestly recommend everybody here grow right the bloody hell up and stop acting like pre-teen Americans kicking sand in each other's faces just to feel a sense of superiority.

Battler's emulator has merits, as does your original. Neither one is better than the other because both have glaringly obvious bugs and problems that will need to be rectified. Battler's ideas on floppy disk controller emulation were different than yours, so he decided to fork; nothing he did was unethical or amoral in the process, all things considered. You're coding free software, open source software; at any time, any John, Tom or Dick can come along and fork it. At least Battler is doing something with the code and adding his own improvements, instead of letting it rot; it could have been far worse, at least he's intelligent about it.

This is the nature of FOSS; you're gonna have people who are going to disagree with how you do things, they're gonna do it their way, but you can't act like yours is better just because it's the original source of all things; Debian is awful, Ubuntu is awful, and Mint is one of the best distributions of Linux I've seen in quite some time; and yet Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu, whom is a derivative of Debian. The nature of FOSS is to evolve, and expand, and if your fundamental views of the "road ahead" for pcem are not what others want, those others will eventually forge their own path.

- F2nbp: Yes, I'm from the Magicball network. :p

- SarahWalker: My own history? Yes, sure, I've had some episodes of bad behavior, I will admit that and I think I apologized several times already. It's interesting that you still cling to those even though I have even contributed patches to the original PCem, and did a lot of work on my fork.
Also, I don't remember ever going everywhere to insult the original PCem, on the contrary, I've been recommending it for years for running stuff like Windows 1.0. And I certainly always tolerated disagreement. Now, yes, I did express intolerance for "I'm working for free therefore I don't care" since the culture I have grown up in is incompatible with that. I do apologize for that, though you do have to understand that cultural differences do exist and do affect how someone perceives a statement.

PCEm - now with accurate drama emulation!

yeah. who'd have thought making a reproducable bug report thread would trigger such a reaction!

listFoes++; I don't really have much to say when the words speak for themselves 🙄. at least i'm honest about my fake cyrix 6x86 emulation being fake.

- leileilol: Thank you for proving my point. I did not attack you in any way, I simpley came here to correct your disinformation and insults, and in response you add me to your foes list.

Also, let me post counterexamples to your examples:
1. This report on the VGA DOS grabbing bug in Windows 3.1, with how to reproduce (run Windows 3.1, start MS-DOS Prompt, press ALT+ENTER to switch to Window mode), Sarah even reproduced the bug herself, but so far it still hasn't been fixed;
2. This post reporting a problem with LBA1 freezing when run for the second time using VIDE-CDD.SYS as the CD-ROM drive, the post even has instructions on how to fix the issue. The fix hasn't made it to Sarah's code.

- Scali: I would like an explanation for this logic that a blatant ad hominem attack is normal behavior but attempting to counter said attack with valid point is drama.

Edit: My 686 emulation isn't fake. Sure, it's not accurate and is at best preliminary, but all the i686 instructions are there, in fact I have spent a few sleepless night testing Windows XP on the emulated Pentium II to make sure the i686 instructions behaved correctly (and XP Setup would BSoD until they did). Neither I nor anyone else who helps with PCem-X has ever called our i686 emulation anything other than basic and preliminary. In fact, I even agreed with Sarah on the PCem forum that accurate i686 timings are going to be impossible to attain with the emulator as it is right now. Yes, Alegend45 was a bit too aggressive, and I'm going to talk to him about it, but I myself have called a spade a spade and agreed with Sarah, because she *WAS* right. So I don't see where the dishonesty was on our part about the 686, except for your own for putting words into people's mouths and spewing accusations without even looking at the code or at what they actually said on the matter.

Moderator take: The way this is gonna go is PCem-X discussion will be split into its own thread, and the whole deal sanitized. You're all now warned. 😉
(It's gonna take a bit of doing)

R_chan101 wrote:

To be frank, your attitude by itself is rather unwieldy, isn't it? Just because you're doing this for free doesn't mean you're entitled to go about acting like you've got the biggest ego of the lot, all things considered. You take code from other sources, which is perfectly legal, if not a bit unethical, you change it a bit, and completely obfuscate it to the point where it can't really be read easily anymore. I can attest to this on numerous occasions in your emulator.

That's quite an accusation. Please point out some examples of code from other emulators, other than :
* The DOSBox OPL emulator (which is in the dosbox directory, to highlight that I didn't write it)
* The reSid-FP emulator, sourced from VICE from memory (in the resid-fp directory, to highlight that I didn't write id)
* fdi2raw.c which was contributed to by various people, but mainly from WinUAE I think
* Some tables in the Sound Blaster emulation (mainly ADPCM), sourced from DOSBox
* The SN76489 emulator used for Tandy 1000 / PCJr, which came from B-em (which was infact written by me anyway)
* Patches from other people, mainly the Windows keyboard handling from Battler, the 3dfx filter from leileilol, some XT clone drivers from various people, and one or two other bits.
I'm pretty certain I wrote everything else, and if you want to accuse me of lying I want to see some evidence.

Battler's ideas on floppy disk controller emulation were different than yours, so he decided to fork

I should point out that Battler never mentioned that he was going to do anything with the FDC emulation before he forked. If he had then things might have been different.

Scali wrote:

PCEm - now with accurate drama emulation!

We aim to deliver. Unfortunately the timing is still ~3.75% off.

Battler wrote:

Also, I don't remember ever going everywhere to insult the original PCem

I wasn't accusing you of that, more that there are numerous occasions of you flying off the handle over pretty trivial issues; if you could stop doing that we'd get along a lot better. Also if you could be a bit less over-sensitive to criticism, it is only an emulator after all.

Now, yes, I did express intolerance for "I'm working for free therefore I don't care" since the culture I have grown up in is incompatible with that. I do apologize for that, though you do have to understand that cultural differences do exist and do affect how someone perceives a statement.

My flippant attitude to this sort of thing is partly a reaction to the sheer number of stupid feature requests I've had in the past (though since I opened the forum this reduced massively), and partly at attempt to have a pragmatic approach to developing this emulator. If I worried about every single little minor detail of every component, including all the stuff no software uses, then I'd never get anything released.

- SarahWalker: Well yeah, I do sometimes do that. And once again I apologize that. And I'm not really sensitive to criticism, more to insult. If leilei came with an open mind with legitimate criticism, I would have been all ears. But instead, he/she resorted to outright accusations and ad hominem attacks, mostly based on a way outdated binary. And please understand that I have OCD so I sometimes freak out if I feel something is wrong, as I get this innate feeling that I *MUST* correct it. I know it's a bad thing to do and I try to keep it under control but sometimes it just creeps out. :p

And well I guess it the end it boils down to everyone having a different approach to things. And I know how bad it is when people annoy you with stupid requests, I've experienced that myself now, have had people requesting pretty stupid things and even saying the emulator is <insert expletive here> unless I add the feature in. And yeah, I agree that obsessing over stuff nothing uses is a bad thing and a waste of time. :p I just have a different list of software I prioritize when developing an emulator than you, and there's people with yet different list. It's a subjective thing. :p

So I apologize if I might have appeared confrontational, that wasn't my intention at all. I would love if it we could all get along, and I would love for my work to get into mainline PCem, and I'll see what I can do after I wrap up the work on it for this year, as then my work might be stable enough to be able to be turned into proper patches. :p

Battler wrote:

Yes, Alegend45 was a bit too aggressive, and I'm going to talk to him about it, but I myself have called a spade a spade and agreed with Sarah, because she *WAS* right. So I don't see where the dishonesty was on our part about the 686, except for your own for putting words into people's mouths and spewing accusations without even looking at the code or at what they actually said on the matter.

Well, I am autistic, so sometimes, I may react a little inappropriately, and for that I apologize.

I checked the software repository and found that the entire development website isn't displaying anything at all. It appears to be down, but for how long? 🙁

Nonsense. Please do not register just to spread wrong rumors...

The other day facebook was down. Didn't mean Twitter owns it now...

Togepi wrote:

404
PCem development site
its a fact

Wow. That 404 is a fact.

Also, the official site ( http://pcem-emulator.co.uk/ ) is up, and the author is posting new patches on the forums. That's another fact. And that programmer does know (see it on the forums) that development server is down and is waiting it to go online again. Another fact.

IMHO, it would be strange that the project programmer publish patches AFTER the project is dead or has handled it over to another person. Or maybe the project is NOT dead and some people aroun internet are drawing the wrong conclusions? That's my opinion, not a fact.

I have not discontinued the project or handed it off to anyone else. I will get the repository sorted out again once v10 is out.

Thanks.
I have no idea why the Pcem-x fans are behaving toxic like that. Contrary to what it seems their aim is, they give Pcem-x a very bad reputation.

- Dominus: Because it's totally the project's fault if some people are being too overzealous about it. Base your opinion on the project itself, not its fans. There are several fans of Queen around that are idiot, that doesn't give Queen a bad reputation though, as what's important is their work...

If Queen fans were as toxic, Quenn would be known as the band with the toxic fans. That's what those trolls are doing to Pcem-x. I didn't say it's Pcem-x' fault, I wondered why it attracts those - huge difference.
(And if Queen had that kind of fans, you could bet that Queen were very outspoken against those fans instead of arguing with those that point at the trolls).

Let's get back to topic and speak about Pcem instead! 😉

Further Queen and Pcem-x fan discussions per private message please... Or a moderator can split the topic!