GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Someone just sent me this link : MPA3 + NaughtyBank

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Someone just sent me this link : MPA3 + NaughtyBank (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=601061)

http://www.alaska.net/~jamcar/img/!WOW-TRE.JPG

quattro, cinque, sei... - :)

2hp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Due

Not sure if this is correct or not, but I think when a MP3 is installed, what is done is first copying or renaming ALL old tables into new tables. From Mpa2 to Mpa3
To speed up that process, you first do the rename / copy part, verify data is handled correct and THEN you "drop unused" fields.
Setup process is usually done through scripts, like the SQL script (did not see the code, was 404), since they had a lot of old customers wanted to upgrade, and most likely a lot of new customers because of the version update, then I could suspect they delay the "boring part", wich is writing new install scripts.
As they would already have a install script for Mpa2, and they already have the database converter script it is most likely a lot faster setting up the DB for Mpa2 and then do the upgrade to Mpa3.
Then you dont need "2 sets of install scripts", 2 sets of install scripts is also bad, especially after a version update since you need to change same data 2 places, giving higher riscs for errors whenever a bug is detected.
I do have a server with a Mpa3 copy installed, no longer active, as a programmer I ofcourse spend a lot of time going through all the files (many are encoded though) and also spend alot of time going through the database structure, and there was absolutely nothing showing evidence of any kind of shaving mechanism build into mpa3.
Oystein your office is a long way away from Denmark, can you just E-mail me the full source instead?? :pimp

souinds reasonable , but as a program owner i certainly wouldn't want an outdated script that was rumoured to be untrustworthy installed first.. then the "good" version installed over it.. seems to me if they want to make a fresh start they shouldnt begin by installing the "questionable" version first , wouldnt want any part of the "questionable" script on my server because it reflects poorly upon me when things like this happen
------------------
for those having trouble following along he is saying instead of installing mpa3 to new clients they basically install mpa2 then upgrade it.. ( or his theory anyways, but sound plausible )

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I am going to go back to the Windows analogy.

So, if you had Windows 95, you would not use the upgrade disk to install 98?

I don't think the (mpa) software itself was questionable, just the use of some of the available features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I understand your point , like i said its completely plausible ,

but because of the previous " problems " associated with the previous version , i would expect a fresh start not an upgrade with names like "shave" that may be percieved to be "shady" by potential clients..

The 95 - 98 analogy isnt exactly the best analogy..

If bill gates had built a component into windows 95 that allowed your i.s.p. to steal money from you, then you can be DAMN sure i wouldn't use an upgraded version of it when i paid for 98 and never used the 95.. :2 cents:

This being said , all that matter is consumer confidence , and although this is more than likely nothing more than what was explained by oystein, it sure helps when your more transparent about things..:thumbsup

You guys think to 2 dimensionally... software isn't generally written in two stages, it's written in one.

They don't write an "install" script and an "upgrade" script... they write both into "one script."

Hense, if you buy mpa3 (at least in the beginning of it's release), you would receive a script that would either A) install if no mpa2 is present... or B) upgrade from mpa2 if present.

Why would that be there if they didn't have mpa2 first? Because that's just how the script was written!

Why would they send 2 different sets of scripts off to customers based on what their previous systems were when they can just send one script that does it all?

Yah... hmm.. this really causes me concern.

no matter how you look at it - everytime this pops up its bad rep, removing stuff that was totally ok, features that arent there but still need to be added in the command line and page long replies that its all ok now.

Well, lets look at one thing.

If they really wanted to shave why switch to mpa3? Why not stay with mp2?

Thread closed.

^ thats mpa2 above, stupid typo :disgust

... sette, otto, nove...

http://pornacre.com/images/images/170.jpg

2hp

** Things that go bump in the night........