If you encounter an unknown parameter -- just ignore it
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Faxmachinen said:
Ah, so that's how I get 90+ on metacritic.
What the fuck are you talking about? You can't just type random sentences, you have to somehow relate them to something else in the thread.
What the fuck makes you think he's saying anything random? The problem is that you apparently didn't even pay attention to your comment to which he was responding:@blakeyrat said:
Basically, it's not your job as a [game] developer to decide what the network administrator may or may not do with your software. Your job is to make your software compatible with his tools, so he can do his job.
...and so his point is obviously that AD compliant games are about the least thing that game devs need to worry about. Why is that so hard to understand? I think I only know what "metacritic" is from oblique references around this forum, and I figured it out.
-
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Faxmachinen said:
Ah, so that's how I get 90+ on metacritic.
What the fuck are you talking about? You can't just type random sentences, you have to somehow relate them to something else in the thread.
What the fuck makes you think he's saying anything random? The problem is that you apparently didn't even pay attention to your comment to which he was responding:@blakeyrat said:
Basically, it's not your job as a [game] developer to decide what the network administrator may or may not do with your software. Your job is to make your software compatible with his tools, so he can do his job.
...and so his point is obviously that AD compliant games are about the least thing that game devs need to worry about. Why is that so hard to understand? I think I only know what "metacritic" is from oblique references around this forum, and I figured it out.If that was what he wanted to say, he should have said it. Also I didn't notice when I wrote my first reply that he edited the quote to shove words in my mouth, if I had I probably would have ranted on that shitty shittiness for a few minutes, piece of shit.
In any case, while he's right that AD compliance probably doesn't contribute to metacritic score*, it's still a good idea to put in your software. For one thing, it's brain-dead easy to do the bare minimum and just expose your settings in the Registry, and it could vastly increase the appeal of your game towards network administrators. Especially for kid-friendly games that might be put on school networks.
Will *most* customers notice? No. Just like most customers don't notice when a program is accessible to screen-readers for the blind. But it's still a good idea.
*) I guess the big mystery to me is the implication that a game's use of the Registry would show up on a metacritic score-- why would anybody think that? Fuck, Assassin's Creed didn't even have fucking SUBTITLES and it didn't seem to affect its score.
-
This argument is eerily similar to the last time I tried explaining to a developer why 64-bit versions of an application might be a good thing.On one side, well-reasoned argument about an issue affecting only a small portion of the userbase that's easy to fix. On the other, a bunch of god damned bullshit about how 'people don't like it that way' and 'but this is how we've always done it'.
Double-exposure of your settings is actually a really good idea. A whole buttload of software already does this - it reads from a global configuration file first, and then a user configuration file, overlaying them together to create an effective configuration. Just add a registry step. You don't even need to write into the registry with any of your configurators - sysadmins will take care of that on their own. Just document that the feature exists.
As for why users shouldn't be allowed to have their user settings all to themselves, lets take Firefox. Lets say a company has deployed it sitewide. Joebob Crunchychair in Accounting decides to set his Firefox "persona" to one involving titties. Not only is this wholly unprofessional and against company policy anyway, but Maryjane Tightpants from the Audit office sees it and sues the company for sexual harassment.The company settles for half a million dollars, fires Joebob Crunchychair, spends another million on more sexual harassment training for everybody, and tasks IT with 'making this never happen again'. This last bit means one of two things: Either remove Firefox, or make it so idiots can't set personas.
-
@Weng said:
Lets say
No. If you're going to play the example card, you must use a plausible and/or real one, not fictional hyperbole.
-
@dhromed said:
Fine. Firefailure again. I want to set the bloody homepage for every bloody user (to intranet.example.org) and make it stay that way. The rest is self-explanatory.@Weng said:
Lets say
No. If you're going to play the example card, you must use a plausible and/or real one, not fictional hyperbole.
What kind of fool can't enjoy a good sexual harassment hyperbolic example on a Friday?
-
@Weng said:
What kind of fool can't enjoy a good sexual harassment hyperbolic example on a Friday?
I totally enjoy them!
But we're talking about a real issue here, and I'm genuinely interested in how people see because it appears that I may have something lose:easy backups for when I format/replace my PC.
@Weng said:
I want to set the bloody homepage for every bloody user (to intranet.example.org) and make it stay that way.
Our syadmin runs a script on startup for every computer in the domain. It's a little annoying.
What that means:
- I keep having to adda few extra drivemaps on boot because the script deletes them all before re-adding the standard rudimentary ones.
- It keeps setting my email signature ( "- W" ) to our company's ebullient signature with all de purdy logos and bars and colorz.But that's it, really. I could script the personal extra drivemaps, and changing my sig for every email is quickly done.
...
Hey, is there a scriptable way of setting my own Outlook sig as the default?
-
@dhromed said:
Our syadmin runs a script on startup for every computer in the domain. It's a little annoying.
How do you script a homepage change for Firefox? Considering FF profiles are basically GUIDs, I imagine that's a ball of WTF right there...
Oh yeah, one more thing on the "not to do" list: don't create your own fucking multi-user system in an application running on an OS that already has a multi-user system. This is the source of many, many, many WTFs. Whatsisname was talking about the Inner-System Effect-- that's a much clearer example of that anti-pattern than anything I've been saying in this thread.
Fortunately, the whole Firefox profile system is pretty much vestigial at this point.
-
@dhromed said:
Startup scripts are a pretty common deal. Oddly enough, Outlook shouldn't need to be scripted like that - it has full Group Policy support. Also, with Server 2008R2, I'm pretty sure they added the ability to map drives via group policy. You can do printers now, too.Our syadmin runs a script on startup for every computer in the domain. It's a little annoying.
What that means:
- I keep having to adda few extra drivemaps on boot because the script deletes them all before re-adding the standard rudimentary ones.
- It keeps setting my email signature ( "- W" ) to our company's ebullient signature with all de purdy logos and bars and colorz.The problem is that startup scripts are fucking broken. Users will cancel them, and sometimes they just won't fucking run (network down at boot, etc.). They're also hard to do change management on.
And yes, group policy works even when the network is down. Every machine caches the last copy it applied.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
You're saying it should actually be
int result = PerformAnotherOperation();
if(result == ERROR_INVALID_FUNCTION || result == ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND || result == ERROR_PATH_NOT_FOUND
|| result == ERROR_TOO_MANY_OPEN_FILES || result == ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED || result == ERROR_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY
|| result == ERROR_BAD_ENVIRONMENT || result == ERROR_BAD_FORMAT || result == ERROR_INVALID_BLOCK
/* snip 1000 more lines like that. these are win32 error codes and not HRESULTs, but who cares */
{
PrintErrorMessage(result);
/* abort whatever this is trying to do */;No. You use the code
if(!IS_SUCCESS_CODE(result)) { abort(); }This way you only succeed on the one value you want, and don't care whatever nonsense is generated. People really need to learn how to avoid "not" requirements (as in, "the widget shall not freem if condition A" should be "the widget shall freem only if condition B").
But 000C2428 (or whatever it was) is a success code.
-
@blakeyrat said:
A) The inner-system effect is, basically, "adding a configuration option for every single operation the program can possibly do, so that configuring the program takes almost as long as writing a new program to perform the same task."
B) I'm saying, "put your configuration options in the OS-defined place to put configuration options."
Now, tell me, how the fucking shit does A relate to B?
What you wrote was basically "your program should be flexible like a programming language". But let's assume you're not very good at using paragraphs, and you actually meant the aforementioned in the context of configuration options, somehow.
Anyway, with the clarification you so gracefully provided in the follow-up, I can see your point. But I disagree that it applies to all games, let alone every program ever. As you already admitted, the amount of people who would care are not likely to justify the effort. Educational software would be an exception, ofcourse.
-
@Faxmachinen said:
What you wrote was basically "your program should be flexible like a programming language". But let's assume you're not very good at using paragraphs, and you actually meant the aforementioned in the context of configuration options, somehow.
Translation: "I skimmed around the thread a bit, read that post out-of-context, then assumed I knew what you were referring to when really I didn't at all. But I'm still going to blame you for my stupid post."
@Faxmachinen said:
But I disagree that it applies to all games, let alone every program ever.
I can't think of a single class of program, nor genre of game, it does not apply to.
But think about it a second... it doesn't harm anything, right? And it could potentially help, right? And it generally takes zero, or near-zero, additional development time, right? So why would you NOT do it?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Translation: "I skimmed around the thread a bit, read that post out-of-context, then assumed I knew what you were referring to when really I didn't at all. But I'm still going to blame you for my stupid post."
Yeah! Good thing you didn't do anything like that! Someone else might even have pointed out how stupid you are! Phew!@blakeyrat said:
But think about it a second... it doesn't harm anything, right? And it could potentially help, right? And it generally takes zero, or near-zero, additional development time, right? So why would you NOT do it?
I was genuinely going to answer this, but I realized that extracting a coherent opinion out of your posts, just to make sure we're on the same page, is not worth the effort (see first quote). Insert your favourite ad-hominem here instead.
-
@Weng said:
I thought it's the only way to have user-specific signatures pre Exchange 2010?@dhromed said:
Startup scripts are a pretty common deal. Oddly enough, Outlook shouldn't need to be scripted like that - it has full Group Policy support.Our syadmin runs a script on startup for every computer in the domain. It's a little annoying.
What that means:
- I keep having to adda few extra drivemaps on boot because the script deletes them all before re-adding the standard rudimentary ones.
- It keeps setting my email signature ( "- W" ) to our company's ebullient signature with all de purdy logos and bars and colorz.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@dhromed said:
Our syadmin runs a script on startup for every computer in the domain. It's a little annoying.
How do you script a homepage change for Firefox? Considering FF profiles are basically GUIDs, I imagine that's a ball of WTF right there...
Oh yeah, one more thing on the "not to do" list: don't create your own fucking multi-user system in an application running on an OS that already has a multi-user system. This is the source of many, many, many WTFs. Whatsisname was talking about the Inner-System Effect-- that's a much clearer example of that anti-pattern than anything I've been saying in this thread.
Fortunately, the whole Firefox profile system is pretty much vestigial at this point.
Question: How do you set the default homepage of Firefox to something else? I tried to do that for a LiveCD I created (with a showcase of my web application using Rails and PostgreSQL) and simply could not figure out how.
I was able to customize my LiveCD to include Rails. I was able to customize my LiveCD to include Postgres. I was able to modify the user rights properly. I was able to have it boot up both the application and the SQL server at start.
But I was not able to figure out where the hell Firefox stores the default profile which defines the start page. And I looked everywhere. I stumbled across a number of options which I all tried out - to no avail.
In the end I threw up my hands in disgust and told the users: "type in http://localhost to access the application."
-
@Rhywden said:
How do you set the default homepage of Firefox to something else?
Apply Locking Preferences to browser.startup.* as required. Call defaultPref() instead if users should be allowed to change these settings. The related buzzword is Mission Control Desktop I think.
