Sadly timezone differences mean I wasn't able to respond last night (for me) but here goes.
Lets go back and address your edited post in the Dwarf Therapist - DFHack Edition - Updated *v0.0.5* thread.
Many people are obviously in the mistaken belief that:
1. You are the author of DT
2. This is an official DT release.
You may wish to put some nice red text at the beginning clarifying your post is not official.
Edit: Removed accusatory tone. Should be more careful with my words. Sorry bout that.
Here's a summary of the unique posts prior to yours:
Users who did not explicitly state knowledge that DT:DFHE is a fork: (7)
Taritus, KaelGotDwarves, niche, happydog23, Djohaal, LoopyDood, Spectral
Users who explicityly state knowledge that DT:DFHE is a fork: (7)
Slink, Buddybud, Implaer[WrG], Grath, peterix, HideousBeing, Hugo_The_Dwarf
So 50:50 split at worst. However, Taritus, KaelGotDwarves and niche registered at least 6+ months ago. I would be willing to stake a bet that, although they did not explicity state it, they are aware of DT:DFHE being a fork. Further more Spectral is and was clearly aware that he was dealing with a fork. Certainly I
think that a proportion of people would not feel the need to say "nice fork" or "interesting modification" before posting a query. But on the basis of registration date I'd would revise the above to:
Users who are likely to be unaware that DT:DFHE is a fork: (3)
happydog23, Djohaal, LoopyDood
Users who are likely to be aware that DT:DFHE is a fork: (3)
Taritus, KaelGotDwarves, niche
Users who are aware that DT:DFHE is a fork: (
Slink, Buddybud, Implaer[WrG], Grath, peterix, HideousBeing, Spectral, Hugo_The_Dwarf
Edit: Although quoted correctly above, I incorrectly stated that Profit used the word
most which he clearly didn't from the quote above. Original text is spoilered.
I would still argue the case that 3 users could still not be considered as many, in this case it is quite literally, a few.
Based on this it is clear only 21% of users are likely to be unaware of what DT:DFHE really is and who it is by. Avoid useage of the word "most", its unquantitative and sadly too often used by people who can't be bothered to check their facts.
1. I never said he was a malware writer, I stated that fact mutliple times. He simply used things accidently or on pourpose that many malware writers do use. However you just completely proved my point that people never carefully read things.
No you never explicitly stated it, however it is clearly implied in the language you use.
Maybe it really was all accidental... but everything basically looks like it was taken from a page of how to get people to download malware instead of their intended program.... *not saying it is Malware, just that the same types of trickery they use to get people to download their crap instead of legitimate applications was used for that*
Still that kind of trickery is something used by malware writers, even when it is obviously not the correct version when you compare the numbers side by side, alot of humans only remember the final set of numbers not the entire thing and malware writers prey upon that.
The only thing in question is if it was intentional or not.. I suppose it could have been an honest mistake, it just does not appear like that to me.
#2. Wall of text is valid, because you misstated what I did already. If you feel you are fairly intelligent and miss read what I posted, in small posts, how can you expect someone of normal intelligence to catch little things in a huge post.
~40% of the first post refers to the alternative version. With several clear and explicit references which I have quoted previously. They are not little things.
It is also clear from this that Belal has made it a priority to avoid confusion.
Incidentally, in my role as a web-dev, we tried 32pt red text about 12 years ago to minimise the number of people who didn't understand what to put in to a field described by the text "Enter your name as it appears on your credit card." We only experienced a drop of 10% in the number of Mr Mastercards and Ms Visas shopping on our site. We ended up having to use field validation to prevent it.
#3. (looking for tech support argument) They may well have been using his modded version. Actually I am certain they were... But to me it looked like they believed it to be an official next version since they refered to it as Dwarf Therepist.. Maybe one of those people was using it for shorthand rather than calling it +Dfhack but I am betting most were not. From what I see most of the problems look were caused by the melding of the two programs but you are right, perhaps he could have provided tech support somehow, but I contend this is more likely a case of mistaken identity than a legitimate tech support request.
Edit:
Clearly, as only 3 people may have been unaware this does not apply.
Again your incorrect usage of "most".To recap:
It is clear to anyone of moderate intelligence that DT:DFHE is not DT.
Belal has clearly made a great effort to make this clear by dedicating at ~40% of the first post to making it clear, including making it clear in the title.
Edit:
Only 3 posters may have not have been aware that DT:DFHE was a fork.
57% of posters, up to your intial message, were clear about the above. 21% probably were. 21% might not have been.
I suspect your job is tainting your perceptions, I know it certainly is with me. Essentially I now assume that the general public are of sub-average intelligence coupled with no commonsense and that everybody is out to hack our websites and network.
Feel free to PM me if you want to carry on the debate.
Author
Topic: Dwarf Therapist (LATEST 0.5.7 7/13/10 see first post) (Read 624993 times)