Free Allegiance Forums

Look closer. The CNET pic is among the endorsements and awards, as it says "Editor's Choice", indicating that Alleg was voted Editor's Choice by CNET (ten years ago). It's not just there to say "hey, a decade-old version of the game is hosted on CNET", because nobody rational gives a crap where it's hosted. I suggest sitting back and taking a deep breath before you continue this crusade, eh?

Umm probably not - cos the code that is on sourceforge.net has a link to allegiancezone.com?

You might find that some of the old reviews point to "them" and not to "us". It was never a problem, since "they" were not active on their domain.

CNET wrote:QUOTE (CNET @ June 2000)CNET Editors' Choice awards recognize computing products of the highest quality, design, and service to users. Products bearing the CNET Editors' Choice graphic have been rigorously tested and carefully evaluated by our panel of expert editors and writers. We are committed to making the CNET Editors' Choice seal the hallmark of good product design, performance, quality, and value.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000613160701/...,0-4077,00.html

Like a lot of other people, I just see Sourceforge and I know there is no trick, that I can usually trust the program. Editor's choice is a picture, with no link. Do you know how long time people spend on a webpage ? Do you expect them to go on the website, search for allegiance and check if it's true?
At least, let's put a link on the "Editor's to prove that otherwise, it means nothing: it could be just a copy of the pic! I wouldn't know anything about Allegiance, I go on the website for the first time and I might think "are those people telling me the truth?" the same tricks that a lot of craps game/softs are using to attract users and players. It's like a phishing. Can I believe when I see if I can't even click on the logos that would tell me it's a good game?

Me too, I can do that I put a crap on a webpage and add a pic.



If you want more, just ask...



Jimen, if like some people here, the success of freeallegiance.org is not your interest any more, just forget this thread. No wonder lots of old sources link to another community...

peet wrote:QUOTE (peet @ Oct 16 2010, 12:55 PM) You might find that some of the old reviews point to "them" and not to "us". It was never a problem, since "they" were not active on their domain.

French_Touch wrote:QUOTE (French_Touch @ Oct 16 2010, 04:56 PM) Jimen, if like some people here, the success of freeallegiance.org is not your interest any more, just forget this thread. No wonder lots of old sources link to another community...

The sf links to AZ because Imago was actively using it to distribute the installer PRIOR to him leaving FAO. He must have switched the Link over to AZ. It is not out of date and has not been for a LONG long time.

French_Touch wrote:QUOTE (French_Touch @ Oct 16 2010, 05:56 PM) I just see Sourceforge and I know there is no trick

... and articles on wikipedia.org are always 100% correct.

French_Touch wrote:QUOTE (French_Touch @ Oct 16 2010, 11:56 AM) Like a lot of other people, I just see Sourceforge and I know there is no trick, that I can usually trust the program.

I don't see what "being on Sourceforge" has to do with "being trustworthy" or "being a good game"?

You should all remember any additions to the source code is not your property -- nor anyone's but Microsoft's . . . doesn't matter who does it. You can still use it.

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Oct 16 2010, 12:58 PM) ... and articles on wikipedia.org are always 100% correct.

Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Oct 16 2010, 04:43 PM) I don't see what "being on Sourceforge" has to do with "being trustworthy" or "being a good game"?

I'm not discussing about that. Don't change the subject.
All I say is: the code is hosted by Sourceforge, we should put something to make it clear. I'll help a lot. I don't care if 100% of the projects are not totally secure as long as I know that its more risky to install any free game you can find on Internet.

Now, both of you, don't waste my/your time to argue about what I exactly say), and just tell me:
"No, French, it's useless to communicate about the code hosted on Sourceforge's website because it won't make any difference".

I don't think you will, of course, it's easier to just argue about how I said things (in english, I would to explain that in french to you, believe me...) and try to prove that it's not 100% correct.

p.s.
And by the way, I don't see you reply to what I said about the links of the "Editor's choice" pictures. Does it mean "It' useless too, there is no need to give the link of that, they just have to believe us. Or they have to search by themselves?"