peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/21/85)
You mention that most people trying rogue 5.5 will change back to hack. Well, maybe. Some of us don't have access to rogue 5.5, or want something nice for a PC. Speaking of which, isn't it about time for another HACK distribution?
hachong@watmath.UUCP (Herb Chong) (09/26/85)
In article <222@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >You mention that most people trying rogue 5.5 will change back to hack. Well, >maybe. Some of us don't have access to rogue 5.5, or want something nice for >a PC. Speaking of which, isn't it about time for another HACK distribution? i might mention that ksl@hou2e is refering to advanced rogue 5.5, which is not the same as rogue 5.4, though they trace back to some version of rogue of 3.6 vintage or earlier. the version number alone is not sufficient. the version name is also required. PC rogue is sort of like rogue 5.2 or 5.3 that is distributed with 4.x bsd. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... (will disappear September 30) UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!hachong CSNET: hachong%watmath@waterloo.csnet ARPA: hachong%watmath%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) (10/03/85)
In article <222@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>You mention that most people trying rogue 5.5 will change back to hack. Well, >>maybe. Some of us don't have access to rogue 5.5, or want something nice for >>a PC. Speaking of which, isn't it about time for another HACK distribution? > >i might mention that ksl@hou2e is refering to advanced rogue 5.5, which >is not the same as rogue 5.4, though they trace back to some version >of rogue of 3.6 vintage or earlier. the version number alone is not >sufficient. the version name is also required. PC rogue is sort of like >rogue 5.2 or 5.3 that is distributed with 4.x bsd. > >Herb Chong... I agree. Also, I would like to point out that PC Rogue is NOT the only version available for an IBM PC. Also, Advanced Rogue 5.5 is a descendant of version 4.5 (4.9 also), and 5.4 is a 5.3 descendant. Also, you say that I said that, "... most people trying rogue 5.5 will change back to hack. ..." This is not anywhere near the correct quote I used. In fact, it's the EXACT opposite. I said that hack players trying 5.5 will return to playing rogue. You say that "... time for another HACK distribution?" Hack 1.0.3 was posted but a few weeks ago. I seriously doubt that ANYONE could make such drastic changes to a game such as hack so quickly. Not only that, HACK is public-domain. ($$ games will be changed quicker for a profit) It seems that you have a very small idea of what the game "Hack", "Advanced Rogue", and "Rogue" are. hou2e!ksl
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (10/04/85)
[]
"Not only that, HACK is public-domain."
Hack is NOT in the public domain. That is a legal term which means
that anyone make do anything with it, even sell it for a profit. Hack
is copyrighted, and the authors have generously granted to the public
limited rights to use it. See the distribution for details.
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]ptraynor@bbnccv.UUCP (Patrick Traynor) (10/06/85)
In article <706@hou2e.UUCP> ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) writes: >In article <222@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>You mention that most people trying rogue 5.5 will change back to hack. Well, >>>maybe. Some of us don't have access to rogue 5.5, or want something nice for >>>a PC. Speaking of which, isn't it about time for another HACK distribution? >> >>Herb Chong... > >You say that "... time for another HACK distribution?" Hack 1.0.3 was >posted but a few weeks ago. I seriously doubt that ANYONE could make >such drastic changes to a game such as hack so quickly. Not only that, >HACK is public-domain. ($$ games will be changed quicker for a profit) > >hou2e!ksl I've been faithfully subscribing to net.sources.games since June and I've only seen 'patches' for Hack. I agree with Herb Chong, It's time for a formal distribution of the latest version so that we can all be talking about the same thing. If, somehow, 100k of code slipped past my screen without me seeing it, I'll humbly eat my words. Perhaps he who posted the last distribution should make this decision. --pat traynor-- |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| "Scotty, how long will it take to make the repairs?" "It'll take eight weeks, but you don't have eight weeks, so I'll do it in two!" ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (10/13/85)
In article <706@hou2e.UUCP> ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) writes: >I agree. Also, I would like to point out that PC Rogue is NOT the only >version available for an IBM PC. Also, Advanced Rogue 5.5 is a descendant >of version 4.5 (4.9 also), and 5.4 is a 5.3 descendant. yes, i know, i have two versions, AI Systems, and Epyx. they are both OK as far as rogue versions go, but compared to what is available now, there are a lot better. >Also, you say that I said that, > "... most people trying rogue 5.5 will change back to hack. ..." > >This is not anywhere near the correct quote I used. In fact, it's the >EXACT opposite. I said that hack players trying 5.5 will return to playing >rogue. did i say that? mental short circuit. >You say that "... time for another HACK distribution?" Hack 1.0.3 was >posted but a few weeks ago. I seriously doubt that ANYONE could make >such drastic changes to a game such as hack so quickly. Not only that, >HACK is public-domain. ($$ games will be changed quicker for a profit) that wasn't a distribution, that was an update to an existing version. i'm sure that there are a whole bunch of people with 1.0.2 that are still trying to figure out how to upgrade to 1.0.3. a complete distribution of 1.0.3 by someone would make sense, even if it does take up a fair amount of space. >It seems that you have a very small idea of what the game "Hack", >"Advanced Rogue", and "Rogue" are. >hou2e!ksl considering i have at least three versions of each of the above, i think i do understand. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... New net address -- VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa