magazines

Hello Dmitry !

Tuesday March 04 1997 17:46, Dmitry Grigoryev ─── Evgeny Milun:

DG> [missed...]

EM>> Yes-ah-ah. I’m reading here and I’m still amazed. This means that if I said something against you, then I simply _OBLIGATED_ to “point a finger.” But if you -
EM>> then “let them read it themselves.” You know, this is starting to smell bad.

DG> Okay, I’ll point a finger, but not a lot, so as not to add fuel to the fire:

DG> Read your “educational program”, did you miss anything between the 5th and 6th points?
I read it.

DG> “PROGRAMMERS are not an academic title or profession, it’s
DG> POSITION..."
What do you disagree with? This is really a position. I have not yet seen a single person whose diploma said “programmer engineer.”

DG> “In addition, in OCEAN CONQUEROR... we had to re-develop
DG> the program architecture in order to “hang” our resident menu there.”
Again, what do you disagree with? We really had to make a new architecture. Okay though. I don’t want to argue about it - until you get into it, you most likely won’t understand, let it be 1:0 in your favor.

DG> “And you don’t have to worry about the authors - for them a program like “UFO-2” or
DG> “PRINCE” does not bringless than 500 thousand, if not more, “purely.”
Is this not so?

DG> “We are very pleased to know that we have nevertheless achieved our goal - we have created
DG> a magazine that, in terms of quality and objectivity of information, has left behind even
DG> “SPECTROFON”, although it lags behind it in design.”
You know, letters still come to us. This is practically a quote from one of them.

DG> And this is in the second issue, which, as I said, is quite literate.
DG> And I’m just not going to talk about the first, it’s all a gem :)
About the first - did I really argue? And what do you want from the first issue, which
besides, we created together?

DG> [missed...]

DG>>> Secondly (I’m talking about the letter to me personally), I don’t conduct any preliminary
DG>>> negotiations before publishing the materials sent to me
DG>>> (except for cases when I myself requested the material) - or print or
DG>>> no.
EM>> Dmitry, this is definitely starting to stink! accompanied by insults - that's where the smell is.
Interesting thing. And where, let me ask, am Iinsulted you?

EM>>>> I repeat again. The topic of “who is more professional” was developed by the SPF, we mentioned it in passing.
DG>>> I advise you to re-read all the “materials” on the case again - at the same time,
DG>>> we kindly ask you not to attribute to the SPF the letter written by
DG>>> reader Glushkov and my review online.
EM>> How are you feeling in general? Normal?
DG> Better than you ;-)
How do you know? Maybe I'm "fresh and full of energy"? ;)
EM>> Something is invisible. In a word, do you want to rip out everything that you
EM>> said about us, and consider only our words??? Well, well. :(((

DG> What does Glushkov’s letter and my review in my newspaper have to do with Step?
DG> The question is rhetorical. Although, whatever you want, it won’t add points to you...
Exactly, the question is purely rhetorical. I’m repeating hoarsely that Glushkov’s letter in itself has no meaning - what matters is the absence of a comment, despite its lameness.
And about your newspaper. Don’t consider me naive. I already wrote: the same person is involved in the creation of
SPF and Online. Well, guess who I’m talking about.

Good luck! Evgeny.

Hello Sergei !

Friday March 07 1997 00:38, Sergei Novikov ─── Evgeny Milun:

DG>>>>> by expression they claim that their work is superb and they have invested in
DG>>>>> it
DG>>>>> well, a lot of work (but in fact the work is no different from

EM>> Unfortunately, I have to “jump out” again with my diploma.
SN> I shouldn’t at all.
Let’s see. ;)

EM>> So, during the defense of a diploma project, the most insidious and most
EM>> time-consuming question is “how does your development differ from
[.....]
EM>> times noticeable only at work. But, you don’t get to work!
SN> Do you think anyone is interested in reading in the Spectrum echo??
What, the Spectrum is no longer a computer? Everything that
concerns programs for other computers is no longer applicable to it?

[.....]
EM>> and therefore it’s time to put things in order.
SN> You couldn’t answer me, how, did you forget???
Yes, I haven’t forgotten. But the answer is still the same - stop pretending that all this
doesn’t exist. Popular wisdom says: “stop keeping silent about the problem - you’ll already half solve it.” It’s just that bad programs will not receive wide distribution, and the authors will have to worry about quality.

EM>> 2. Published insome kind of SPF (2SN: this is not an attack on SPF ;)))
EM>> the programs of my fellow countryman Penzin are useless programs for calculating
EM>> the positions of celestial bodies, the initial mass of rockets, ... However, they are beautifully designed.
SN> It is necessary to fill up the free space on the disk, and not leave a third disk
SN> is empty, as in OBR.
What's wrong with that? (By the way, Oberon is packed ;)) )
There is less chance that someone will not be able to read something written on the last tracks. And why, in fact, should the magazine take up the entire floppy disk?

EM>> 3. ANIMATION package - beautiful design and complete uselessness.
SN> Do you know the best animation package for 1993??? At the moment -
SN> partially yes... But... (c)1993 Chelyabinsk by the Velichutins.
On the 93rd ??? But now it’s 97!!! What, nothing better has been done in four years? It seems like a bunch.

DG>>> Isn’t someone who knows BASIC well a programmer?
EM>> Yeah. And a person who knows how to ride a moped is a bus driver.
SN> You are wrong.
Why? Both here and there require knowledge, experience, etc. Actually, I have always said this, I say it, and I will say it.

EM>>>> But, seriously, you’re already sick of me with these. Who would SPF
EM>>>> be and how “popular” would it be if IFC had not taken it “under its wing”?
[.....]
SN> Ha ha! In this case, half of the users should not know about SPF, on the pages
SN> of which ON-LINE was mentioned more than once.
But here you are “on point”.
- Half of the users have never known and are not going to know anything about SPF,
nor about any other magazine/newspaper.
- For many, the SPF collection is broken. somewhere around the 16th.
- After SPF-15, many not only never saw Online, but even forgot
that they had ever heard this name.
That's it.

Good luck! Evgeny.

SN>> - partly yes... But... (c)1993 Chelyabinsk by the Velichutins.
EM> On the 93rd ??? But now it’s 97!!! What, nothing better has been done in four years? It seems like a lot.

Perhaps, but the program went on distribution somewhere back in 1994.

SN>> In this case, half of the users should not know about SPF, on
SN>> the pages of which ON-LINE was mentioned more than once.

EM> But here you are “on point”.
EM> - Half of the users have never known and are not going to know anything know neither
EM> about SPF, nor about any other magazine/newspaper.

Give evidence about _half_ of the users. You are wrong again.

EM> - For many, the SPF collection ends somewhere around the 16th.

Well, in vain ;) The further - the cooler.

EM> - After SPF-15, many not only never saw Online, but even
EM> forgot that they had once heard this name.

On-line, by the way, is mentioned in both 20 and 21.

Hasta la vista, Evgeny.
With God's blessing, Novikov Sergei
... Dune 2.4 featuring: Deviator 2, Fremen Bazookers, Ornizopter 2, Sardaukar

SN> You suggest this as if authors are a dime a dozen, and they create their games
SN> only for money. Half of the authors will simply quit and that’s it. All this in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not only, but money is not in the last place.
SN> will ultimately affect the users.
So this is already affecting the users.

SN> Another example: the author gave his program (with n glitches) to IFC, for free.
SN> If everyone trumpets that the program has glitches, less people will buy it, BUT:
SN> 1) the author may not even know about it, 2) it will be worse to buy from IFC, =>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's why I said that someone
should create feedback for the authors. A year ago, I proposed for this role
SPF as a “central” publication.
SN> losses for the IFC. This will not force the author to care about quality at all. You
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "this" - no, but IFK and
acquired "fame" - yes.
SN> you say, IFK shouldn't have taken this program for distribution? In this case
SN> users would suffer, who would not receive a buggy, but extremely
SN> useful program.
Why is it so useful if it is buggy? It’s been a long time since I’ve seen “useful” prices in IFC
prices, mostly consumer goods (in both the best and worst sense).