Slashdot Mirror
Linux Gaming: A Field Report
Christopher "shaithis" Buecheler writes: "GameSpy.com has posted not one, but two articles dealing with the Linux Operating System, and specifically addressing some issues about gaming. Of particular interest to Slashdotters might be the second article, as it will no doubt stir up conflicting opinions.[In] The Linux OS: James Hills talks about the advancement of Linux as a gaming platform. How far has it come, and how far does it have left to go? [And in a]
Linux Gaming Overview: James also takes time to create a ten-section comparison between Linux and MS Windows, checking out the differences between the two in a variety of areas." Quick -- can you name seven gaming companies that have entered the Linux scene in the last year? James can.
You are missing the big picture. Thier filesystem structure. Drive letters have got to go, I can't think of anything more DOS than drive letters, and look, Windows 2000 uses drive letters! Where is the hierarchal file system? Better than unix? Give me a break.
Lars -
poop
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
In terms of real end user support. This is the real world, not the hacking-induced hallucination that was Linux up until recently. Until a year ago, (for gamers anyway) Linux didn't exist. Also, the movement to make Linux competent as a consumer and game OS didn't really start until recently either.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Wasn't that the whole point of what he's saying? The things he brought are things that he feels are needed, whether or not it would be possible to implement at this time.
3. Linux doesn't have visio *yet*.
:-(
Microsoft bought Visio, so don't hold your breath
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
stty erase to define the backspace key to be some other key... Use with caution!
:(
I'm sure there's some good advice in there, but unfortunately you went zipping past me. I'll be out and about looking to figure out what you're talking about later on to be sure.
rm "This is a single filename with a lot of spaces in it."
Doh! Ya know something, I actually knew that but had forgotten. I mentioned it in my post because I recall having problems with that. Sortta like I STILL can't seem to remember to add that "./" before a file when I'm in the same dir.
In time you will try to highlight right click, click center click even in NT. and it won't work there
There's already tons of things I get messed up on going between OS's these days. Sometimes it's little things, like trying to use Ctrl-C in Netscape under Linux, or trying to drag a window to a virtual desktop that ain't there on NT. I could write up a very lengthy post with all the little oddities that arise when you constantly bounce back and forth between NT and Linux, with just a smattering of Mac once in a while. I'll spare the viewing audience that rant for now.
Here is a good reason. I hate trying to debug scripts where the same program is referred to as Wipeout, WIPEOUT, wipeout, WipeOut and wipeOut interchangeable. It makes it nearly impossible to find every reference to the command wipeout when I am replacing that script with something else.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not here. It seems that this would be an outstanding argument against case sensitivity, as most Windows based editors allow for search and replace without regard to case. This is probably a bit trickier with a regular expression style of s&r, but I never did get a handle on them darn things anyway.
But it doesn't have too! UNIX has had job control for 25 years now. Instead of typing "xview stars.jpg" type "stars.jpg &" and you will run the GUI command in the background. Quite handy and far beyond the capability of Windows9x.
To find out more about job control run the command "man bash" and look for a section titled JOB CONTROL.
Cool! I'll have to play with that later on here.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
These command line vs. GUI things make me sick. There is a use for both, and YES it is possible to use both transparently. Linux doesn't do it, because a lot of things, like configuring anything or installing RPMS (package managers are yucky! I should just be able to right click and install. Also, stuff like nodeps or replace files gets confusing with the current interfaces.) Windows doesn't do it, because the DOS CLI sucks. So far, of the three OSs that I've used, only BeOS does it. (Not a shameless plug!) Switching between GUI and CLI is wonderfully natural. In things that do work better from a GUI standpoint (configuring stuff) it has GUI tools. However, if I want to copy a bunch of files with a certain attribute or install software via my custom scripts I can just pop up a CLI (bash) and have at it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
That bash for win32 might be fun to play with. I'll give a look around for it as time permits. I should note that I meant my post to illustrate strengths and weaknesses in both CLI's. For the most part, I still feel more comfortable on NT's CLI. Yes, I fully realize this probably has far more to do with prior experience then which one is actually "better".
One thing that just came to mind concerning a comparison of the two CLI's has to do with the help system involved. After playing with the two, I have to say that NT's help at the CLI level is still better than Linux's.
I realize that Linux tends to provide a LOT of depth about each and every command through the use of "man" or "--help". The problem is, it's a LOT of depth. One example here is a paragraph from the "cp --help" command.
"By default, sparse SOURCE files are detected by a crude heuristic and the
corresponding DEST file is made sparse as well. That is the behavior
selected by --sparse=auto. Specify --sparse=always to create a sparse DEST
file whenever the SOURCE file contains a long enough sequence of zero bytes.
Use --sparse=never to inhibit creation of sparse files."
Here I am, the idiot user who wants a file to go from over here to over there. After looking at this I get to thinking that maybe that file is doing hunky dory right where it is. I've been using a variety of computer platforms for over a decade now, and I still have no idea what a "crude heuristic" is or why I should care. I know Linux is international and all that, but where do I go to pick up the version in English?
NT's help system on the other hand tends to be a lot more straight forward to getting the info I need. DOS used to have a help system that resembled the "man" system quite a bit for it's commands. It was actually pretty cool, and it may still be around in Win9x, but I haven't looked for it.
Just to get the disclaimers out of the way here, I know that a *nix CLI is always going to be at some disadvantage to me due to many years of working with DOS (back to before 2.0) and all its variants. Furthermore, I also realize that many of the *nix commands have a lot more capability built into them. Thing is, I still find it far easier to pick up a DOS style command than a *nix style command. This may be due to the above reasoning, but I also believe that the help system plays a very large factor.
Maybe some of the more basic CLI tools need a couple levels of help. "--helpwalk" and "--helprun" kind of approach. Just a thought.
Last bit of a rant here, as a few weeks ago I located what might have been a really useful "How-To" which got into explaining to someone with a DOS background the equivalent actions on Unix. The thing was written like a propaganda sheet for Unix rather than a tutorial. There didn't seem to be a paragraph in the whole thing that didn't include something along the lines of "...and that is why Unix is so much better than DOS...". To make matters worse, the author had several mistakes in his interpertation of DOS commands and what they could do. Mind you, I don't have a great love for DOS beyond the notion that I do understand how to use it pretty well. I just can't stand reading the work of a zealot, even if I agree with them. How can you concentrate on material if the voice in your head keeps screaming, "Bullshit!"
Maybe some day down the road when I actually get to understanding Unix CLI a bit better I'll get into writing my own How-To for this topic. In the mean time, I'll just keep plugging along.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Nothing in Linux is out of box. I'm running kernel 2.4, and it still boinks out on me once in awhile. Also, you have to custom compile your kernel, which isn't an appealing option. Anti-aliasing isn't needed, but it makes those menu's look nicer doncha think?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I agree that SDL would be a nice solution to the common API problem. Why? IMHO because it is and it aims to be be cross-platform. I think that Linux (and other unices) need to have some common API with Windows to ease the development of games to many platform at once. We can't (yet) even dream of a situation where leading-edge games were developed primarily on Linux - now it helps to have some common API with Windows.
There are alternatives, too. I can recall Allegro and Clanlib right now.
1) Most windows drivers are also loadable kernel modules.
2) People shouldn't have to run a shell script, plus, its never that easy is it? To upgrade ALSA I have to do all kinds of scary things (what the hell does lsmod do?) I don't even know where I can go to configure my USB devices. The problem is that Linux treats drivers on a case by case basis. Graphics drivers have special requirements, sound drivers have a different set of installation requirements, etc. People can get the hang of installing drivers in Windows, just like I can get the hang of compiling the kernel. However, I by the time people get the hang of all the different procedures for all the different driver types, they've given up and rebooted.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
With windows, What You See Is -ALL- You Get. It gets aggrivating, which is why I stopped using Windows. Teehee... consider this scenario:
The GUI setup utilities don't have all the options you want. (Linuxconf, Control Panel, etc...)
Linux:
Go online, find documentation, and modify the actual config files. Not particularly hard, provided you have the brains to use a text editor.
Windows:
Regedit. Reboot, to see if it worked. Repeat.
And thus, I rest my case.
to accept the praise of personal wisdom is an affront to the very ideal i hold dear.
Drivers that come with the kernel are not what he's talking about. Drivers in the Windows world get updated often (not because they suck, NVIDIA for example is constantly improving their drivers, (adding features, tweeking speed, etc) even they they are higher quality than 90% of Linux drivers.) There has to be an easy standardized way to install updated drivers. People will not put up with the current driver mess, where often you have to compile the driver, and all the different types of drivers have a different (though usually CLI) installation method.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Gamers are very influential consumers with a lot of clout in the consumer sector. They've got money, and are willing to spend it. What, you think Intel pumps out 1GHz CPUs for accountants? That they added SSE to make Excel run faster? I DO understand it, it seems to me that you haven't studied the demographics of the situation.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Ah, sheesh. Did I just say that out loud? How immature of me. I must have gotten it from my parent.
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
I think a better question is, how far do we want Linux to go towards being an mainstream gaming platform. The issue as I see it is going to mainly come in the form of driver issues. Realistically, I don't think we can expect source drivers for all of the esoteric hardware out there; at best we might get binary drivers for the things we don't write outselves (with a few notable exceptions). So the question arrises, what happens when Linus and Co want to make major changes in the kernel? Do they go ahead and break drivers that allow your mother to play the newest fps? Or do they try to work the changes in via some kludgy hack? Or maybe don't make the changes at all? The same can be said for things like glibc, and many other libraries. What happens when they *need* to change?
Seems to me that Linux is a bit young to have to start worring about being a major gaming platform. Especially with the changes in 2.3.x, new XFree, etc. Maybe we should wait until things settle down a bit before we start thinking about trying to get the best games ported to Linux. How are developers going to feel when they put their time and money into porting some fabulous game, then some major changes role in and break it? They probably won't port another game, making us lose games in the long run.
I think in the future Linux may be a viable gaming platform, but things are moving so fast that we may drive off future ports. Just my opinion anyway.
This sig is false.
Falcon 4.0
Flight Simulator
Flight Unlimited
The Janes series
etc.
Or more generally: sophisticated 3D games, which go beyond the FPS à la Doom/Quake/Unreal.
This is the main reason why I dual boot into Win these days. For actual work, I've found pretty much everything I need on the Linux side (however, once I'm already in Win, it's a lot faster to just fire up word rather than reboot into linux, especially since my personal files are available trough both samba and nfs)
...And I know about flightgear, thank you.
Am I alone here?
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
Why can't a Linux distributor, particularly a highly-paid one like Corel, Caldera or RedHat, implement a simple website which includes up-to-date driver downloads?
;))? No one. They are saying it is gaining ground, but as of yet there hasn't been a major migration or anything, so there really isn't any need for this kind of "rapid windowsization" (Linus is not Stalin afterall ;))
why? because of all the different distributions. Too many things to cover. Maybe condense all into one you say? Too many people would get pissed off and it would just form another distribution... One won't topple all else, we have already seen that (even w/the large support RH gets).
<i>I want support for USB devices like mice out of box. I know this is going to be difficult, but these are areas Windows is flogging Linux in. I can set up a Windows 98 system, plug in a few peripherals, have the system detect them, install the latest DirectX and bam, full support for 99.9% of the best games out there. </i>
even though there is all this support coming in to Linux, who is saying that Linux is the superior gaming platform (minus any radicals out there
The damage many linux 'advocates' are doing cannot be understated. I see many requests to do linux games, and most of them are astoundingly uninformed (and sometimes rude) about any number of things relevant to linux and gaming. The general feeling around here is that the type of people lobbying for linux games aren't the type of people who would then go out and buy those games. It nearly makes me ashamed to be a linux user.
The second thing is economics. Modern games are quite expensive to make, and the developer receives a small to moderate percentage of the retail price, making it quite hard for most developers to turn a profit. In this environment, justifying the cost of multiplatform development (which is much more expensive for games than less performance-oriented applications) becomes extremely hard, and targeting the comparatively small linux market exclusively borders on insanity.
Unless a publisher specifically asks for Linux support before signing a development contract, it is unlikely official Linux support and development will be done by most game development companies.
quick note: if you check linux.org - or any other source, Linux 1.0 was released in 94. I think the first version you could find back in '91 was .02
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I won't even mention my experiences with Debian, but I will say this: you might want to upgrade to DirectX 7a there, pirate. :)
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Well, I'd count it as "different" from 3.11, since Windows 3.11 wasn't an "operating system" but an operating environment. Well, okay, Windows 9x (including ME) still really IS, it just happens that DOS is in the same package now, and microsoft has decided that they are to be tied together, so we say it's an OS unto itself. And as far as the first release of NT goes (NT 3.1) it might've been in '92. I don't remember 100% for sure though, so '93 might be right...
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I think if we're going to package managers, we should standardize what they do
.tar, .gz, .zip, as well as a whole stack of others. As previously stated, a package manager has a lot more to do than just uncompress, but WinZip is
/.
:)
Whole heartedly agree. When I think "standardizing" I tend to be thinking more along the lines of how HTML compares to Word Docs. By
standardizing HTML it allows for a wide variety of applications to view and edit these files, where as Doc files can't. To carry this analogy
further, I never meant to suggest that standardizing meant that only Netscape should be used as a browser. When standards are done properly
and adopted, like with HTML, it actually expands the number of applications that can be built around it rather than stifling them.
WinZip isn't really a good analogy
The only thing I was attempting to illustrate was WinZip's ability to track an application's installation process. You are quite correct in that it
makes for a poor example to directly compare this to what a package manager does. I don't think I illustrated my meaning well enough there.
You know, for the most part, I think the issue is file interoperability between distributions and/or similar software... if dpkg and rpm could use the
same files (successfully!) or if KDE and gnome could use the same files (for example), we'd be in business.
Maybe this conversation could draw more bad analogies to WinZip. For example, what WinZip actually does is front end several types of
compression routines. Heck, it's only the more recent versions that don't rely on having PKZIP around on the system. It'll recognize
.arc,
a fair example of a front end for several back end processes bringing it all together in a pretty decent UI. Unfortunately, I think the problem is far
more complicated by the fact that each package manager is maintaining their own db without regard to what the other is doing.
As far as the Gnome & KDE issue, I'm pretty much able to run KDE apps under Gnome without too much of a glitch. My biggest complaint has to
do with file associations. Since RH installed Gnome by default, the KDE installation I did later didn't pick up any file associations. I was amazed
that something this basic wasn't handled well below the window manager level. Until such a time comes about where I want to spend many an
hour manually creating associations, I can't really use KDE full time whether I like it or not.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I do agree that there is a need for some semblance of standards to not push distributions too far away from each
other, but I think we have to be *very* careful about it.
Your quite welcome. And a return thanks for a reply that reads like a well thought out letter. Just goes to show, folks coming from Linux and NT
backgrounds can have civil conversations. Sometimes easy to forget that point after reading a bit too much
It seems like a lot of the windows-y people coming to linux want to see linux look/feel/act like windows without looking into what linux has for
itself, and where it's going on it's own.
Had a phrase where I worked a long while ago I rather liked. "The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer." The
notion here is that us folks coming from a Windows GUI perspective have certain expectations from an OS. Sometimes these are good things,
other times not so. Despite the rhetoric, Microsoft really does have some very cool UI ideas built into Windows. To date, they are still the only
company to bring an OS to the masses. There is considerable value to Linux in recognizing this as projects such as Gnome and KDE mature.
Huge Disclaimer: Nothing of what I stated above is meant to suggest that Linux should look to clone it's likeness into Windows. Get the good stuff
out of it, then move on.
The only other part of the article(s) that I couldn't stand was the "even your parents, sister, or girlfriend" could use it gem. Excuse me, but my
sister is pretty damn smart, and it is I who teaches my husband about linux. *snort*
Yeah, I work with my ex on various programming projects still yet. She still runs circles around me when it comes to SQL and XML. She's still
very heavily in the realms of MS, as she's making a very nice living knowing how to muck around with Site Server and ASP.
If I had moderator points that I could use, I'd give you a +1 for your contribution.
Okay, I'm a sucker for flattery
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Why would you symlink to things, instead of just putting them in the structure you want them in in the first place?
For NT Workstation I'm kinda doing the same kind of hack that the original poster is talking about. Unlike the 9x flavors of Windows, NT does a pretty fair job of providing a multi-user OS. Perhaps the worst aspect of this is how deep into the Winnt directory you need to go before you actually get to a specific profile.
To get around this, I keep a number of short cuts on my desktop that point to those specific user folders. For example, I've got one called "My Documents" that actually points to the document directory within my profile. When setting up an NT Server, I'll set up short cuts to the short cuts that are in the start menu for the various admin tools, so that service packs and upgrades know where to find the proper path to add their short cuts.
Thing is, even in NT there are certain "expected" directories that just make life easier to leave them be. I have no idea exactly how much havoc you'd cause if you went in and just changed the "System32" directory's name to something else. I sure know it wouldn't be pretty.
I do have to wonder what the true value of having a mutli-user OS is for everyone out there using computers. Heck, even on NT I pretty much use it 100% with "Administrator" (aka root) rights all the time. The multi-user thing starts making a lot more sense to me when you get into talking about servers, and different admins with different rights to it. For workstation use it feels more like a barrier than a feature. The significant difference here being between local and network rights and permissions.
On my Linux set up I pretty much went and did it like I was supposed to. I created a user account with limited rights where I spend the bulk of my time. Thing is, hardly a day goes by where I don't have some reason to "su" my way into control. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing at this point, just an observation. If this were an actual production box I'd probably be a good bit more concerned with the specifics of the setup. As it is, this thing is on a non-routable IP behind a proxy that's on my NT.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
I'm sorry if my post seemed that way, but the user seemed uninformed that the nuts and bolts even existed.
:)), but that's the only potential snag I can think of.
As for putting them together, I'd certainly be willing to help setup an easy LKM install system for people such as the original poster.
Quake 3 for Linux was somewhat easy to install becuase it used a version of a sharchive. It wouldn't be too hard to make a shar that extracts to a tmp dir, checks that the proper major (and minimum required minor) kernel version exists, that a compiler exists, and then compiles, etc.
The file which insmods the kernel file at boot would have to be SysV (it's just easier to modify automagically compared to BSD-style, and Slackware supports SysV stuff out of the box anyway
If you want my help, my contact information is at the bottom of my webpage.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Did anybody ever hear about what the ratios of WinQ3 Vs LinQ3 was?
> fp
Did you mean to post that to the "functional programming" thread?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I have a very selfish reason for being a militant *nix geek at work. We're moving more and more towards having local application servers (our current SPARCs are taken care of off-site) and I want something I can fix. I already run a small linux server with a few services (samba, anon ftp, ps2pdf converter), and I'm looking to expand my own knowledge in this area. If we get NT servers for the new apps, I'll be stuck holding people's hands while they reboot 98SE and calling a contractor for the NT servers for the rest of my life. I don't need to be "indispensable," but I've been feeling a little underutilized...
My own fault ending up with this simple little job I realize, but I don't mind it as long as I've got something to keep me occupied and useful. A little Sun or even Linux server for this new image DB with web extensions should be just about right.
-jpowers
-jpowers
I'd have to agree with what you said. Now, if I only knew what you said! ;-}
(Seriously, I've read this a half dozen times and I don't know what I should comment on, if anything! It sounds good....)
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I agree, currently the Linux kernel isn't very "easy" for people who love the DirectX install routine for being so quick and painless (too bad there's no uninstall routine[!]).
ESR is working on making the Linux Kernel config scripts smarter with his CML2.
I'd personally love to have the equivalent of apsfilter for video and sound cards -- just run SETUP, answer some questions, and all is done for you.
But everything takes time. Linux has had to get to the point where people asked, "hey, can I just slap my new soundcard drivers on this thing?" before the quesition could be answered.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
1. Don't post anything bad about Linux.
;P
2. Don't post anything not-bad about Microsoft.
2. Don't post anything bad about Open Source.
3. Don't post a first post.
Still using that first-gen pentium chip I see...
These are all true, with a condition on the M$ rule (Is that 2 or 2a?). I've found that when I sit and think about something before I post it, I generally get left alone or even modded up. If you moderate your own posts by supporting/clarifying/stating clear conditions under which your points are true, you tend to get treated well, even if you, like me, are not a true computer guru.
-jpowers
-jpowers
These Militant Linux Geeks are a major issue today. While helpful to the development of Linux because they are often programmers who like to go in and hack around in the code, they are also potentially a threat to the OS. These are not people who use Linux because it is better; these are people who use Linux because they like the elitism that Linux gives them. They prefer to understand things that others don't.
This is an excellent point--I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users (I've been using/developing under Linux since '94) but consider themselves "Linux Gods".
The elitist attitude that they spout forth does more to damage the Linux "cause" than they know.
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Interested in the Colorado Lottery or Powerball games?
check out http://colotto.com
You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\
I have Documents and Settings at the same level as my WINNT folder, just FYI. I guess this makes it easier to completely reinstall the operating system without losing user files.
You mention Win2K as using drive letters, and while that's basically true you only really need 1 for the system partition. If you use NTFS you can mount other NTFS partitions into folders and not even bother giving them a drive letter.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like to use Windows for anything more than games, but I wanted to set the record straight.
--
1.You obviously don't have a clue about Linux.I'm a newbie myself but just in case you wonder you DON'T have drivers for Linux in the Microsoft way. Drivers are coming with the kernel and are KERNEL specific.Yes you can built them outside of the kernel as modules but running modules compiled for a difeerent kernel version it's not reliable for more then about 3 kernel revisions-see the Lucent modem driver.
2.It's happening,check the Berlin project.
Why the heck was this moderated as insightfull since the guy doesn't even now how Linux works ???
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
If Blizzard did port Diablo2 to linux, very few people would buy it because if they had really wanted it they would have already have bought the Windows version.
In addition, the usual intelligent arguments about that Blizzard won't/can't anyways. etc.
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
You're making his BS point? Huh?
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
Just for the record, pif stands for Peripheral Interface File.
No Win9x/ME computer is really single-user when you drop it on the Internet. THAT'S your (and Microsoft's) problem: you don't seem to understand that the future is MORE connected, not less connected. Win9x/ME is fine if you can disconnect it from the world and go play Starcraft in a dark closet by yourself. And you wonder why there are so many hacks... ;)
>Why can't these people realise there is more than one way to access a computer -
>and that a command line is often the best for certain jobs, and a GUI for others?
Because as long as those who wish to use only the GUI are forced to also use the command line because the GUI just isn't up to the more technical jobs, then the OS doesn't offer the best for certain jobs, it offers a primitive command line, take it or leave it.
I wouldn't know, perhaps the GUI can cut it (I'm very new to Linux) but that's not the impression I get - could anyone here use Linux without ever so much as touching a command line for an entire year, and not run into major trouble (eg adding new hardware support, software, etc)?
You are absolutely correct in saying that to install new drivers you have to do scary things.. This is not surprising bearing in mind where in the architecture these particular bricks go. This is true for windows as much as it is for linux, the difference being that windows is sufficiently monolithic that they dont need to offer anything but a binary download and an installer - frequently using the built-in progs for updating system components. That "update driver" button does the same scary things (apart from compiling it but I'll address that below) it just puts a pretty progress bar on it and a user-friendly face. If the average windows user knew what was happening under the hood of that driver update they'd probably be too scared to click the button.
But isnt what I just described just as applicable to the process of pulling down an rpm for a redhat box and installing it as it is to pulling down a zipfile, unpacking it and clicking an "update driver" button? I'm not doing the linux evangelist thing here, I use whatever OS will run the apps I need at the time, but this is one of the points made by the author in the article - you want that kind of convenience, it is a factor in which distro you pick. People putting out drivers for their hardware under linux usualy make rpms available, or debs or both as well as source - if you want bleeding edge latest stuff or if you have a so-called "hardcore" distro, or even a highly customised install of an "easier" one then the source is available and you can use it to build a version of the same driver that is optimised for your box. Downloading source and compiling it yourself is not a scary thing to make folks flee the OS, its a way to ensure that no matter how horribly tweaked your linux system is there is a way to get hold of something that will work on it. Its also something you mostly dont have to do unless you want to. Just look at what formats the drivers you want are available in first - just like making the choice of what OS to load based on the apps you want, pick your distro based on how you want to use it.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
The GUI setup utilities don't have all the options you want. (Linuxconf, Control Panel, etc...) [...] Go online, find documentation, and modify the actual config files. Not particularly hard, provided you have the brains to use a text editor.
I think you're mixing up cause and effect here. The Linux configuration tools don't have all the options because the creators of such software know you can always revert back to console tools if you have to. In my opinion, this encourages bad software and interface design.
Sure, many people -- if forced to, and with proper training -- can go in and manually edit a text file to bend the computer to their will, but why? These are types of things that computers are really good at automating. One of the alleged advantages of the computer, in fact, is that it unburdens the human from such menial tasks, and frees us up to question the meaning of the universe and such.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
A note from personal experience on FreeWWWeb: I have used FreeWWWeb before and found it to be very very good. The transfers are quick, the login is quick, everything is perfect, except for one thing. If you own a POP3 account, might as well forget about using it with a local POP3 client. FreeWWWeb is blocking all POP3 calls to servers except for their own. Which, if you don't have a major mailbox that everybody sends to, that's not too bad. (Or if you have a Yahoo account, it can be set up to forward all mail to the FreeWWWeb account. Not sure about any other freebies.) They claim on their website that it is free, unlimited, FULL access to the internet. So, you would think that would allow access to all POP3 servers, right? I emailed them, asking them how they could say that their service allows full access but in reality, one of the most important things is blocked and there's no asterisks or small lawyer writing anywhere. I received no response, as could be expected.
The world (wide web) may never know.
-\ Sentry @ Lightning Flash Studios
To configure the DOS games was sometimes a real pain, involving custom config.sys files, memory managers, etc. They were difficult to configure because so many people had so many different graphic and sound cards, and because DOS was filled to the brim with limitations, that everybody and their great uncle had ways to get around...
Then MS released DirectX, and, pretty soon, games ran better in Windows than they did in DOS...
This seems to kinda be the flow that Linux is taking, with heavy exceptions :)
While configuring games for Linux/X isn't a matter of getting around limitations, it is a matter of getting 'around' a massive filesystem, cnfiguration files, security rights, differing hardware, etc.
We need something along the lines of a DirectX for Linux - no I don't mean something that allows a program to talk directly to hardware through a complicated all encompassing API, I mean, some thing that unites all that is needed to easily and simply allow a game to run (regardless the distribution)
Linux could become the predominant gamming system if this happened. Who would have thought that when clunky Win3.1 was around, that Windows would become the predominant gamming system a few years ago?? Certainly not me...
I'm sort-of a Linux newbie, I spose...but I have no trouble compiling source code, maintaining my Linux system, and moving around the tree editing files. I have no problems at the pompt, etc. I always have at least one shell window open, but (and this is a bigbutt, i'm lazy! I want to put a CD in, and just play!
I hate to hear crap like, "Linux is a SERVER OS!!". No, it's an OS that works good as a server - there's a difference. There is no good reason why Linux can't be great for games. None.
Why do so many of the more zealous people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is trolling?
> Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents
Most Windows users do not use Win2K. Most Windows users, especially end users, use Win9x/ME, and that has the dir structure I outlined. When the 2 OSes, Win2K and the 9x codebase, get merged into one unified OS for both consumer and business desktops, I would expect that they'll go with the 9x/ME dir structure because it's what end users and most business users (non sysadmin types) would prefer. So my point stands and I'll ignore your tangential argument about the NT/2K dir structure, which I repeat will probably be replaced in the next release with a more consumer friendly 9x style since it will be intended for home users too.
> And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system?
No, because I am an end user and not a systems administrator. I don't need to do a damned thing remotely, like 99% of computer users. Don't assume that the average user does stuff like that, they don't, so it's a pointless argument. While I do have more knowledge than the *average* user, and less than an *average sysadmin*, at least I know enough to make arguments and points that are useful and relevant to a discussion about how OSes work for the vast majority of people. The vast majority find the Linux directory structure confusing and too restrictive, with the Windows system making much more sense.
> Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications
Poorly coded ones, I'm sure, however any third party apps made by *real* developers work fine. I did once try that; for fun I installed Win95 on my laptop in a directory called FuckingUseless.
> Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad.
I repeat, start thinking like a user, not like a developer. What percentage of Windows machines used as either workstations or home computers are single-user? I'd bet the vast, vast majority are, in which case customizing the directory structure is fine. Not just fine: PRODUCTIVE. I get things done much faster when the PC is set up with the directories how I like them. And since most Windows boxen are single-user, this means that it's a great feature. Stop thinking like an admin, start thinking like a user.
> I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single
> user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made
No no no no no no no. You don't seem to understand that I'm talking about workstations and home computers, not servers and shared corporate machines. This is the fundamental problem with a faction in the Linux community: some people refuse to start looking at how Linux needs to evolve in order to replace Windows both at the workstation and the home computer levels. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, and I'm not a troll. I use MS operating systems because, for a GUI user like me, who also likes easier-to-use Windows-style apps, I can get things done faster and more efficiently in Windows even when I factor in a daily crash. I don't expect the Linux community to make things more like Windows in order to cater to my personal needs, but the *fact* remains that if you ever want to replace Windows, if you ever want to eradicate MS both from the corporate and home desktops, you have to start thinking about what non-geek and even windoze-geek and mac-geek end users want: ease of use. We don't care about how it works well in a milti-user setup, because most users use single-user workstations and home PCs. MS understands this, and as long as Linux geeks want to continue to write for Linux geeks while ignoring the mass of users, MS will always dominate. I don't want it to, but that's the way it is.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Dreamcast is really best thought of as a WinCE based, Java capable, net console, that also plays some pretty kickass games for a 128bit graphics system with a total of only 24MB of RAM.
Dreamcast is not WinCE-based, it is WinCE-capable. Each piece of software can opt to use WinCE as its operating system, or an alternative. I believe most shipping games use an alternative.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
but is the root still C:\ when you do that?
why can't they just bite the bullet and make a hierarchal filesystem, maybe with drive letters as a backwards compatability option that has to be enabled?
Also you mention folders, I always thought they were directories, of course this comes from a company that forces users to manage thier files with a web browser.
Lars -
I think people realize that Linux is both a consumer platform and a business/server platform. The Windows 98 / Windows NT-2000 platforms are distinctly separate platforms, with each only filling in one of those. Comparing Linux to Windows NT-2000 changes the game radically.
And don't count out forthcoming distros with kernel 2.4.x and XFree 4.x. I think it will level the playing field.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
a brain-damaged version of a
and I hate it when people refer to things as brain-damaged, comparing two things that aren't intended to serve the same purpose.
DOS/command.com is/was a very simplified environment, for use on personal computers, not servers. (over)simplified doesn't mean brain-damaged.
NT has quite a bit better OpenGL performance than Win98 does. In my testing its at least 10 or 15% faster and much smoother. For example, Quake III's best platform is probably NT 4.0. Also, I don't see the NVIDIA drivers getting appreciably faster. Even though the drivers are beta, they are from FINAL code. NVIDIA uses the same exact driver code for all platforms, with a platform specific glue layer for each platform. So continued tweeking may make the driver more stable, but I doubt they're going to get appreciably faster. (After all, how much can you tweek a glue layer?) Win2K is a little weird on the performance front. It seems like it should be really fast, but there are a lot of problems with the OS right now. Before you condem it, wait for Service Pack 1, and see if the glitches are fixed.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
and I hate it when people refer to things as brain-damaged, comparing two things that aren't intended to serve the same purpose.
and I hate pedants. Actually, the dos command line was intended to serve the same purpose as a unix shell. It's not just a matter of being simplified, it really was/is stupid, badly designed and poorly implemented ... in other words: brain-damaged.
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
These are not simple changes, but they are necessary to gaming development on the Linux platform.
For all the good points in this post, this one misses the mark. These kinds of things are going to be needed for ANY use of Linux on the desktop. It's these kinds of innovations that Linux should be pointing at as why it is so much better than Windows. Thing is, at this point it isn't.
1) I'm running RH 6.1 here myself, and at first I really loved the updating agent it had. Oh boy, then did that love ever go sour. Their FTP server they provide without cost is never available, and I have yet to get any of the supposed mirrors to work. To make matters worse, as I got more comfortable where to find the actual updates I discover that the stuff from the RH updater is usually more than a couple of versions back.
<rant val="on">
Just a stupid newbie question here, but couldn't an agent be written that utilizes FreshMeat as a backend? FreshMeat has all the latest stuff, summaries of the changes, usually functional links even. Instead of having a system that relies upon the distributor to keep things up to date, it seems that a 3rd party like FreshMeat would be perfect. Wonder what Andover would think of it?
The biggest problem I see with this is that Linux has just too many package managers. I like variety as much as the next fella, but not in this case. I fully realize the religous aspects to this debate, but this is a huge obstacle on the road to Linux ease of use. Why can't the Linux community bring in the best of RedHat's, Debian's, and even BSD's package management and label it a standard?
In the wild world of MS there's 3 or 4 major installer apps that most folks use. On occasion I do see a few that appear to be custom written, but they are the exception. Thing is, they all pretty much function the same. Boring as that may be, it provides a level of consistancy that is presently lacking on Linux. Oh god, then we could go on a while about the fun of uninstalling apps. Where the heck did that "make install" put everything? ACK! This is the kind of stuff that an OS should be keeping track of for me. Of course, it won't ever be able to until there is some level of standardization to application installation.
<rant val="off">
2) From what little I understand about the architecture X it may need to be replaced to support everything you suggest. There are a couple of projects in their infancy now that are attempting to address this. Thing is, they are VERY much in their infancy, and there is also a huge legacy that comes along with X.
3) To my original point, OpenGL at the OS level would have implications that go beyond gaming. I could envision new GUI technologies being developed around this, not to mention advanced support of graphics editing packages. We would certainly see the impact on the games before anything else though.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Also, you have to custom compile your kernel, which isn't an appealing option.
I don't, I think it's a good thing. First thing i always do on a new machine is tweak the kernel to just include what is needed on that system, why should i waste memory, cpu (well not much but) and hd space for something that will never ever get used?
That to me is beauty of linux.. "if you don't want it, don't include it" not "if you don't want it, well though luck! Kiss those megabytes of hd/memory space goodbye, since we're including it anyway"
The problem (and how Linux cannot fall into the same trap) is that Apple refuses to bend the needs of the OS towards developers' needs. All the standards for UI and UI consistency across apps doesn't do a heap of good when iD is trying to port Quake III Arena to the system, which has its own UI.
I have to admit, I don't really get this point. I don't see how having interface guidelines impeded Quake III development. I also don't see how this situation is signficantly more difficult than the Windows side of things.
Apple has to get off its bandwagon and start positioning OpenGL within the system (as they are doing in MacOS X) NOW to developers, instead of continuting to push stale standards like QuickDraw (Apple's Vietnam, next to OpenDoc).
Ummm, okay.
First, Apple has been pushing OpenGL as the primary Mac 3D API for more than a year and a half. Here is the original press release. It has been standard issue since last October.
And as for QuickDraw being "Apple's Vietnam", QuickDraw is actually the foundation for 2D graphics on all versions of Mac OS prior to X (Mac OS X uses Quartz). Every single Mac application ever created uses it. QuickDraw 3D, however, was a good 3D API. There was no other reasonable alternative when Apple created it. Some Mac developers feel that it is easier to developer for QD3D, but Apple realizes that OpenGL is the standard, so it is (wisely) backing it. And unlike OpenGL, QuickDraw 3D has a standard file format (3DMF).
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
hmm?
1. I sometimes like to play games which aren't available to linux
Also the sole reason most people keep a windows partition.
2. My wife likes to surf the net and hasn't quite got the hang of the linux command line.
hmm!? you don't need to use the command line to login using xdm and use your preferred launcher to start netscape. I use the gnome panel and the QuickLaunch applet myself.
3. Linux doesn't have visio *yet*.
I'm sure this is being worked on. You might however in future want to check that products you lend your money support to have open standards and don't lock you into something.
4. If my wife screws up the computer, at least the damage is contained within the windows partition which doesn't really contain anything valuable anyhow (except perhaps my previous high scores :-))
!!!!
With the total lack of a protection model in Windows, any program can *totally* trash your entire hard drive. What if your wife, while surfing the web, is caught out by one of the sites that uses a bug in IE to trash a system? Now contrast this to her surfing in Linux. The only things she, or the programs she runs, can possibly damage are files owned by her user ID, which should be /home/ and nothing more. The rest of the system is protected from her (and you should be running things as a user, not as root, so if you happen to make a mistake, the worst you'll do is blow away your home directory, which you're backing up, right?)
--
bodyrockj0r, to the beatj0r
Is anyone else sick of Windows people saying "primitive command line"?
Maybe it's because they used to be forced into using the DOS command line - a brain-damaged version of a unix shell.
I recently heard it from a guy who flunked out of a Solaris sysadmin teaching program. Apparently, he couldn't handle having to compile up Apache ... following the instructions was too much for him (how he expected to sysadmin without basic computer knowledge, and why he thought he should be paid £30,000+ is another matter).
Why can't these people realise there is more than one way to access a computer - and that a command line is often the best for certain jobs, and a GUI for others?
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
i know where to get it for $2.50
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
What's the problem ? All apps into "Program files", all system in "Windows" and libs in "Windows\System", all user files into "My Document". Can't get easier than that. If you want to uninstall an app under windows, and don't feel like using the uninstall system (which is cool BTW) you can still just delete its directory and that's pretty much it. All apps configuration is kept into one single hierarchical system (the registry).
On the other most Unixes use several directories for executables (both system commands and extra-apps), several directories for libs, and worst, mixes everything together (ie "all apps binaries in the same dirs" and "all libs into the same dirs"). Configuration itself is done thru independent text files that are also sprayed all over the place. And all this even change between distro ! As far as I'm concerned, the way files are organised (or rather : not organised) in Linux totally sucks. It gets a little better with the *BSD, but still a mess anyway.
Linux, the new kid on the OS block
does anyone else find it exceedingly odd that an OS that's older than 95, 98, and the majority of the NT strain of Winvirus is the new OS on the block?!?!
Wouldn't that make Windows 2000 some sort of embryonic OS???
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I like to do the opposite, and SUBST folders into more drive letters. Just for shits and giggles, you know.
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
1 - I feel that this is very close to a reality. RedHat ( and other distros ) have already created update utility's for their respective packaging systems. Updating a driver isn't all that different from updating your favorite app. Helix-code's update system is the best example. I'm sure it's open source, so perhaps RH, Mandrake, or even slack will wake up and modify it.
2 - I like having a choice in the X server. But it's hard to argue that most people don't use XFree86. As far as X, I'd say it's pretty standard. Antialiasing would be sweet, coming soon? I really have to disagree with your statement about setting up Windows 98 and hardware. Think about it, you have to go find drivers from god knows where, and install them for every goddamned peice of hardware. You have to restart everytime you install a driver. Windows hardware installation is a pain in the ass. I for one feel that hardware installation in linux is much better. Most of your hardware is automatically setup, you may have to hunt around for 1 or 2 drivers. Mostly video. USB support is in the latest kernel, and will probably be in distributions soon. I use Mandrake 7.1 after trying out lots of different distros. It has a hardware detection script that runs at startup that will help you setup your hardware.
3 - The game developers need to be shown that there are standards and that linux is evolving.
From the article:
If these trends continue, Linux will become the center of the computing world, as we move into a more multi-platform industry where console devices are rising in popularity and the Windows dominated PC market faces increased competition from Apple's OS X. Windows on the other hand is hindered in this area and only a few small efforts have been made to add Unix, Mac, or Linux compatibility to Windows.
For those who's only computer is a games console, windows is not important. People will get basic web access through a TV box, or some hybrid game/music/media device, and the wintel illusion that the PC is somehow 'central' to the home network is just not going to happen in the mainstream.
This is because when people shop, they buy a game 'box' and games to play on it. They don't buy [box, os, game], just [box, game] -- there is no space in the mind of the home non-techy consumer for the concept of an OS. This is logical, because the OS is the software environment, and the box is the hardware environment -- both necessary and 'indivisible'.
This is why people say their computer is 'windows' or their software package is 'microsoft'. For the average consumer, the OS is as obscure and embedded as an engine is in a car. Or an electric motor in a toy car. I think this what this part of the article is alluding to... that to live long and prosper, the OS of choice must be happy in an embedded, open and friendly to interoperability context. Exit windows, enter Linux.
An important skill in reading comprehension is understanding who is speaking to whom, and where you fit in relation to that discussion.
The average gamespy audience is not the typical slashdot audience. Is "gamespy" a monolithic corporate voice, or a group of people sharing some common goals with a fair amount of independant expression?
...
Gaming, like porn, could do more than many expect to advance current technology. Especially given that many earthlings next or only computer _may be_ a (game) console device such as a PS2, Indrema, or Dreamcast. After all, going forward the Dreamcast is really best thought of as a WinCE based, Java capable, net console, that also plays some pretty kickass games for a 128bit graphics system with a total of only 24MB of RAM.
Symlinks have their uses, more than you obviously are familliar with. Here are a few, just off the top of my head:
/usr/local/bin/my_app/current while users who want to use a specific version may reference the appropriate directory.
1) Use symlink to point to the latest version of an app:
/usr/local/bin/my_app/v1.0
/usr/local/bin/my_app/v1.1
/usr/local/bin/my_app/current -> v1.1
Users who care to use the latest and greatest only have to set their path to include
2) Some unix applications check for argument 0 upon start-up to determine their behavior:
rlogin - when a symbolic link is created with the name of a remote host, rlogin will connect to that host when the user invokes it via the symbolic link.
3) Sometimes it is more convenient to create a single directory for mount points to remote disks. Using symbolic links from the file system into this mount directory allows you to have the best of both worlds: easy to manage mount directory and a file system that makes sense.
I'm sure most veteran unix/linux users can come up with many more examples.
As a general comment, it seems that what "makes sense" to one person may not make sense to another -- it's a matter of what people are used to. Don't knock a file system just because you don't understand it and have some learning to do. In due time, I'm sure you'll appreciate it as much as the advocates do.
I use linux, and I'm sure a traditional linux user would kill me I have, thanks to symbolic links, /music (mp3's, spread over 2 hard drives but all in this one directory) /floppy (an empty directory that I very occasionaly put my floppy drive in a different computer on, doesnt matter which computer though) /cdrom (hardly used, but my cd rom drive, a symbolic link to mnt/cdrom) /win (my windows partition with my asf's /sg1 (a link to the asf's of stargate sg1) /home/iso (my main directory, also known as "~". /downloads (a symbolic link to /usr/local/downloads (hey I've got a lot of space on that partition!) ~/downloads, ~/dwn, see above /files - symbolic link to ~/ /bin, /lib - system programs and libraries /usr - normal programs, with /usr/local as all non distro. included programs /src - symbolic link to /usr/local/src /src/kernel - symbolic link to /usr/src/whatever it is at the moment /etc - configuration files (I used to have /config, as a, you guessed it, symbolic link!) Basicly I have a load of stuff in my / directory, but its all symbolic links. I can make /quake3 link to /usr/local/games/quake3 if I want, and also link it from ~/quake3 and a hudered other places. links are great Oh yeh, /games --> /usr/local/games Think thats it. Point is, you can make the linux directory structure however you want it.
What is pif you ask? I haven't got the foggiest idea.
Sounds like you just asked. I forget what the letters stand for, but this is a carry over from Win 3.1 that is still in use. Probably in Win2k, but not certain. What this file does is store the attributes of a shortcut. Stuff like where the file is stored, what kind of memory to allocate to it, how it will run, and other stuff like that. Under 3.1 you used to have to go into a seperate application to edit this, or tweak it directly with a text editor. With every version after 95 you edit those files by going into the properties of the shortcut. Roughly the equivalent of setting up symlinks in Unix, but with a bunch of extra stuff tossed in so you can actually get them old DOS apps to run under Windows.
Wow, have to go back 6-7 years to appreciate why those files exist. Now imagine how tough it is for folks like myself just now getting accustomed to Unix having to go back better than 20 years to comprehend why certain things are done in the way they are.
Along these lines, I can appreciate where the original poster is coming from. Being brought up from the world of DOS I'm pretty much used to defining whatever darn directory structure I want. I'm just now beginning to get a feel for where key items are in Linux, but I have no idea WHY they need to be there. I am slowly learning it, but I can fully appreciate exactly how intimidating that directory structure looks to a newbie.
The user shouldn't care how the filesystem is laid out so long as he/she knows how to find that document he wrote.
On this point we are in disagreement. I truly believe that the user should be able to understand what the heck is going on with their directory structure. The often mentioned "Program Files" is actually a great idea, though there are devils in them details to be sure. It sure makes a lot more sense than "/usr/bin" and all it's related cousins. Both Windows and Unix have a lot of legacy they need to bring along with them, so I don't expect either platform to get this truly friendly and/or organized any time soon.
Establish some standards that programmers can use to know where to place files.
Believe it or not, Bill Gates is in agreement with you. The problem here goes back to legacy support. Windows to this day has DOS apps to consider, not to mention how they set up Win 3.1 originally. I believe that if MS had the chance to start over from scratch there would be certain folders set aside that would not allow 3rd party files to be added. As I understand it (never played with it myself) BeOS does something very similar to this. BeOS presently enjoys not having to support a huge legacy of apps like MS and Unix presently have to deal with, so they can define these things without breaking anything.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
When the 2 OSes, Win2K and the 9x codebase, get merged into one unified OS for both consumer and business desktops, I would expect that they'll go with the 9x/ME dir structure because it's what end users and most business users (non sysadmin types) would prefer.
I disagree completely. Talk to the CTO or CIO or GM of IT or whoever makes the purchasing decisions at most companies, and you'll find that ease of management, standard configurations and security are high priorities. It costs a lot of time and money when a machine breaks and it's got a non-standard configuration. The solution at every company I've worked for has been to reimage the windows box from our standard image and tell the user 'tough shit - unsupported means unsupported'
The thing that keeps IT managers from adopting Linux now is app compatibility and the cost of retraining. The IT managers want security and remote management on your workstation. It saves money, they can prove that it saves money -- so the board of directors wants it too.
--Shoeboy
SYes it's flexible, but to tell the truth, why make people who have better things to do than compile their kernel live with a sub-standard kernel? RedHat is particularly bad for this kind of thing, the stock kernels are shit. In other systems (NT or BeOS) if you don't use something, like SCSI or ISDN or all the networking stuff, it's not loaded. However, in most stock linux kernels, everything from firewalling, to NAT, to SCSI and ISDN are loaded. Yes, most of the drivers are compiled as modules but the subsystem is still there. In NT, the entire subsystem is just not loaded if it isn't used.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Because it makes making changes to the system easier. For instance I've got two soundcards installed in my machine, a PCI and a ISA soundcard which both of which I can use under linux. Say I want to change how one of the cards is configured for whatever reason. All I have to do is make a backup copy of config.modules and make the needed changes to the orginal config.modules with a text editor.
Okay, granted, that's a logical reason for you. But do you feel that this is a reasonable approach for the average mainstream consumer/gamer?
Granted, this is a slightly different issue than my original post, but still applies to the overall topic of linux gaming.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Its never that easy:) In all my years of using Linux, I have yet to be able to install a driver off an RPM. ALSA doesn't offer RPMS, the RedHat NVIDIA RPMS don't like me, etc. If it worked, I'd think, OK, Linux has a decent driver interface. Actually, treating everything as a package (from software to drivers) makes even more sense. But even though the capability is there, nobody ever uses it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
My point was that this was a game related article, and had nothing to do with general networking. From a gamer's point of view, Linux has POS networking because it won't work on his modem and/or his ISP.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The "My Documents" directory is a good idea, but only if you're the *only* user on the system. Otherwise, everybody's stuf gets put there automatically. And yes, I used to change the directories in a similar way to what you have done, but I found that this is quite a bad idea, as it makes the system very unstable, windows can't find stuff, programs get conflicts, can't find files etc. While the Linux/Unix file structure is confusing at first, if you've got more than one person on the system, it's a godsend.
Well, first off, If I had wanted to I could have easily created "/music" and "/downloads" and any other directory, same as in windows. I can choose to run as root if I wanted too, but I dont want to accidently corrupt/delete my system files, so they are protected (like with microsofts latest "innovation" - system file protector or something)
/music/rock, and another "shortcut" to /music/pop, as well as to /music.
/msuic to x11amp (or winamp in windows).
I can *choose* to have a windows like structure, I can *choose* to have a linux like structure, but instead I *chose* to have a mixture, and I love symlinking things, much nicer then making a shortcut.
Given your arguement you could say shortcuts are messy too. You have them though dont you?
My file system in windows and in linux has very long paths. Even using a graphical file manager (kfm), I have to click about 20 times to go from one directory to another. On my desktop I have a "shortcut" to
You cant tell me I should put all my new music scattered arround my desktop and copy it to my music folder too because I want it in both places (so I can add directory
Maybe I should keep everything on my desktop, but what about C:\program files
Symlinks are link shortcuts in that way, and you agree shortcuts are good, afterall windows has them.
However, symlinks are much more powerful, when I click "file, open" in staroffice, I can go from my documents directory (/docs) to my downloads directory (/downloads) in one click (well, one double click actualy).
If I'm checking out some of my stuff in my default directory (/home/iso, call it my documents), I can easily reach many other directories in one click, no matter where they are (I have a link to a directory on another computer - my mums actualy - her documents folder, one click away, and that includes in "open" boxes, which you dont get on windows
The best thing about the linux file system is the seemless intergration of network directories and other hard drives. Many people have more then one hard drive, and with linux its easily added. With windows thogh you have all your drive letters scattered about, very annoying, and it leads to more fragmentatino (is it in c:\program files\activision\elite force demo or d:\program files\activision\elite force demo????)
Yes, its on the start menu, but what happens when I go into PSP and want to load up the screenshots?
Under a linux system it would be
double click /
double click "screenshots"
double click "elite force"
I could (if I used it a lot) have it as "/elite force scren shots".
Also, since when is a picture of me vapourising Harry Kim (hurray!) a program file? Maybbe a programme file, but not necesary for a program.
I'd just knock a script in linux that moved all my screenshots from that drive and jpeged them and sto..
Oh hang on, were on directory structures
under windows its
double click c:
double click programfiles
activision
err, not here
d:
program files
activision
elite force
load up the shot.
-- ramble ends, now --
PS. Why does it put "yep" at the bottom of the preview page?
I use linux, and I'm sure a traditional linux user would kill me
This is the best response on this thread that I've seen. Beats mine by a mile.
I don't believe that any 'traditional' linux user would kill you unless he/she had to use/troubleshoot your box. If someone (who doesn't need to use your box frequently) does complain just tell them 'piss off, I'm root, I can do whatever I want'
Symbolic links allow easy and transpanent customization of the sort that Windows users can only dream about.
--Shoeboy
God damm it
:(
/bin/rm)
/usr/local/downloads (hey I've got a lot of space on that partition!)
/lib - system programs and libraries
/usr/local as all non distro. included programs
/usr/local/src
/usr/src/whatever it is at the moment
/config, as a, you guessed it, symbolic link!)
/quake3 link to /usr/local/games/quake3 if I want, and also link it from ~/quake3 and a hudered other places. links are great
/games --> /usr/local/games
Post this as redundant if you want, but it'd be better to do the otherone, forgot it was on html formatting, so lost my lovely line breaks
Oh, in addition.
With windows, I generaly put everything on the desktop, indeed my average desktop size is 4-5GB, with everything except mp3's on there.
I'd love to shift that desktop to another big hard drive, but I install HDD 2, my cd rom stuff doesnt work (I have to reinstall everything as it goes from d:n to e:), I cant move original programs (so I muight have 20GB of free space on d:, but only 50kb on c:), I have to clear out my desktop (noooo!!!)
Oh finaly, when I delete a file, I want it to be deleted, not moved.
(actualy as root, I delete a file it tar's it up as [pwd]/.rmedfiles.tar, unless I specificly run
---- ORIGINAL POST WITH DUMB FORMATTING (THIS ISNT BETTER THOUGH) ----
in linux, a few links and I've seemlessly intergrated my hard drives.
I use linux, and I'm sure a traditional linux user would kill me
I have, thanks to symbolic links,
/music (mp3's, spread over 2 hard drives but all in this one directory)
/floppy (an empty directory that I very occasionaly put my floppy drive in a different computer on, doesnt matter which computer though)
/cdrom (hardly used, but my cd rom drive, a symbolic link to mnt/cdrom)
/win (my windows partition with my asf's
/sg1 (a link to the asf's of stargate sg1)
/home/iso (my main directory, also known as "~".
/downloads (a symbolic link to
~/downloads, ~/dwn, see above
/files - symbolic link to ~/
/bin,
/usr - normal programs, with
/src - symbolic link to
/src/kernel - symbolic link to
/etc - configuration files (I used to have
Basicly I have a load of stuff in my / directory, but its all symbolic links. I can make
Oh yeh,
Think thats it.
Point is, you can make the linux directory structure however you want it.
Linux can institute a number of standards and still allow for a ton of customization. There are a number of areas that should be centralized, to at least agree on what kinds of things are stored where.
1) I mentioned in an earlier post my strong feelings towards standardizing package management. This is a key component to getting software on and off a system. Standardizing this should be able to include compiling from source as well as dealing with binaries. Heck, if WinZip can track where a group of files go why can't Linux?
2) I happen to like KDE for some things, but I end up mostly using Gnome because of how it handles virtual desktops. Bouncing between the two of them there's a couple of things I just don't get. Why can't these two managers actually see eachothers "Start" (for lack of a better term) menu? Why are the file associations mutually exclusive between the two? There's quite a bit that could be done here to standardize things without impacting the unique features each bring to the game.
3) The article did get into specifying some of the problems that lack of certain standards has had. Stuff like having to figure out which version of X, glibc, Gnome, KDE, kernel, etc. you happen to be running. Unless you did the building Linux From Scratch route, you're most likely going to have to scramble about your system to figure this stuff out. For a newbie, their going to have to spend a couple of hours researching how to go about scrambling through their system. I don't know if simply stating what components are to be standard is the solution, but there is definitely a problem here that needs addressed.
4) I remember the issue of distros coming together or fading away from eachother talked about over a year ago. On one hand, if they start coming together too closely they can no longer differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Going the other way, we end up down the road that split the Unix world in the past. It's a delicate balancing act that all the distros are playing.
5) I fully agree, "let's be like windows" is a poor way to go about things. Linux should be looking to grab the good stuff that is in Windows and move beyond. I think we're still in the grabbing stage for the most part (when talking about UI) and now is definitely the time to encourage setting the stage for moving beyond.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Hold the phone there, pal. I was saying that Windows was better than Linux at gaming, not that it couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't be used. Hell, I check out linuxgames.com every day, and I can't wait for Parsec to come out. But face facts: Windows is better at gaming than Linux. How that sentiment is "militant Linux attitude", I don't know. Seems more "militant Win32", if anything.
I was mainly just saying that the article was pointless. When I'm booted into Linux (on the one machine I have that is actually fast enough to even play games, and the only one with a Win32 partition), I don't think of Gamespy as being a particularly helpful resource. Their client won't work in Linux and they have little to say that can help me, this article included.
I'm well aware of issues like driver support, standards, etc. It didn't stop me from getting X 4.01 and V3 drivers running, and I didn't need Gamepsy to tell me anything about them. I was already in a position to be aware of the issues. Again, that isn't being militant about Linux. All I'm saying is that anyone bent on getting their Linux box into gaming shape doesn't need Gamespy articles which point out the obvious for them. Gamespy and Linux have about as much to do with each other as shellfish and pr0n.
And anything I post should never be construed as YOU MUST do this and you MUST do that. I'm too much of an idiot to bear that burden... :-) And anything I post doesn't change the fact that Windows makes for better gaming that Linux. At least for now.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
The gentleman who said that WindowsUpdate doesn't update drivers is not in tune with Windows entirely. Going to the WindowsUpdate site will only update critical system components, you are right. But going into Device Manager, selecting a piece of hardware and telling Windows to search the WindowsUpdate site for "updated drivers" is what I'm talking about. I was able to download the "proper" Voodoo 3000 AGP drivers (1.0.4 WQHL). Windows was able to identify the beta I was using and flag it as a potential problem.
Anyone who thinks that modules isn't the future of driver development on Linux is fooling themselves. Yes, having specific devices imbedded into the kernel itself is nice (and speeds driver load time), but what about all the drivers that *don't* need to be in there, such as the amateur radio drivers compiled into the kernel up until a few years ago? The ability to remove, update, and add new drivers at will is a strength of the Windows platform, and should be copied (or at least emulated) on Linux. Call them what you will (Windows calls them drivers, Mac calls them extensions, Linux calls them modules) they are fully needed.
The view that Linux cannot be a gaming platform is clearly amateurish. If it cannot, why are companies like Loki even bothering? Why do most distributions include Gnome and KDE games out of box, even when the install is set to "server" mode? Clearly there is a need, albiet a small one at present, to have entertainment on the Linux platform. You can turn this stuff off if you like, but when DeCSS makes such a dent on news sites regarding Linux, it's clear that *someone* must be viewing the platform outside the bounds of "workstation-only".
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
acdc rocks. Also NBA Live 2000 is cool. Where do you stick it in?
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
Seems like Gamespy has a bad case of a certian disorder.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I'm surprised they didn't address more in the way of development issues, especially regarding sound and video.
Gee, maybe what they are saying is that a teletype terminal emulator, which is what a VT100 terminal is, is not the best way to access your computer. Maybe you should change your myopic point of view, and realize that just because it can do some things better than windows (which at 20 years old, is also an arcance interface) does not mean that it isn't a primitive interface. We are running computers that are much more powerful than when UNIX was designed, yet we still are using a communication system that is based on a QWERTY keyboard (about 100+ years old) and line printer emulator (yourmonitor) which is about 50+ years old. But, I guess like you are saying, it's not primitive, whatever. The biggest bottleneck in modern technology today isn't your RAM or your hard drive, it's the primitive interface, which not only fails to use the power of the computer effeciently, it also fails to take advantage of the most powerful computer in the room, you, by forcing you to do the things that you are bad at in order to communicate with the machine. What are humans bad at? 1. Remmembering facts that don't have a context. i.e. command lines switches, the spellings of certain commands, directory structure, etc. 2. Translating ideas into a language, the essence of the idea is often lost, and many times quite a bit of work goes into translating an idea correctly. what are we good at? 1. Remembering ideas that have a context. Think about it, you have memorized every object in your house, about 5,000 separate items, and you can locate most of them without any effort, because your brain is very good at visualizing and is a powerful, context sensitive computer. 2. Forming connections and associations between ideas. The less arbitrary the OS design, and the more intuitive it is, the easier it will be to learn. We have a long way to go. Hopefully someday, a machine will be able to tap into the part of my brain that forms images, and rather than having to say something, I will remember what it looked like, or rememeber a diagram, and the machine will guess at what I am thinking, this will bypass the QUERTY keyboard, and allow me to think in a more pictoral, context senstive way. At the least, the computer could be programmed to intelligently interpret natural language, which we have already invest years of our lives in learning, and would make us use more precise descriptions only when necessary, instead of always having to tell it EXACTLY what we want it to do, and how to do it. But hey, if you like UNIX, don't let me stop you. I think the power and transparency are nice, the cryptic interface has to go.
You could wrap something pretty effortlessly around apt. Yesterday, to check if my gnapster was the newest (and if not, get a newer one) I typed ;>
;>
apt-get install gnapster and it did it all for me
Debian is fantastic
Also, "upstart Linux operating system" or even the "plucky OS that could." 10 years old (in present guise, count backwards as you like to the invention of UNIX, the invention of the telegraph, the invention of fire, etc) and millions of users may be a small slice of the pie, but it's not an "upstart" and it's plucky the way Lou Albino is plucky.
;)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I've never had Windows Update update any drivers, and i'm not sure it's supposed to.
Nonetheless, there should be a GLSetup-like thing for *nix, which configures your system such you don't have to go to some irc channel or obscure web page for the working driver, which makes sure your configuration is how it's supposed to be. But have it be not just for OpenGL, but for all drivers required, such as joysticks, sound cards, etc.
USB support out of the box is coming in 2.4. It takes a bit to get the backport to 2.2 working but after you do it's quite nice.
Antialiased fonts are not needed for games. Full screen anti-aliasing (implemented right now by at least nVidia) solves this problem.
A little aside: has anyone got the q3a mouse acceleration working in Linux as it does in the Windows version? Like, no acceleration?
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that), a \Program Files folder for applications, a \Recycle Bin for trashed files, and a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
;-)
/usr /usr/local /lib /usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.
But the most important thing about Windows is that you don't even have to use its directory structure at all. You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want--and because the information about which folder does what is stored in the Registry, almost all installation routines will still work properly, and if they don't automatically pick the right folder a few clicks will point them to the right one.
Of course, there's little reason to completely change most system folder names, but the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." For example, my root directory looks like this:
Desktop - I like to use an open folder for my main workspace, and keep the "real desktop" clear.
Downloads - I put all my downloaded stuff here, subdivided into \Documents \Installers \Icons \Pictures and several other types.
Games - All my game programs, because I prefer them separate from the rest of my apps and adding them to a subdir in \Program Files doesn't seem as useful as giving them their own dir.
Girls - Well, pictures of girls, mostly porn, further subdirectoried into \Amateurs \Bestiality \BJs \Bondage \Cartoons \Cheerleaders \Facials, and many others.
MP3s - Since I have so many, and use them so often, they deserve their own root folder instead of being in Downloads.
My Documents- I use this folder only for documents I myself write and pictures and mpegs I myself scan and capture, not for all user stuff.
Program Files- Duh, all the non-game programs
Temp - I prefer my Temp dir in the root of the drive, not in \Windows, so I changed it.
Toolbars - I use two big toolbars on my desktop, which is one of the reasons I work in a window called Desktop instead of putting documents and icons and shortcuts on the real desktop--the Left and Right toolbars list all the shortcuts I ever use, and put everything just 1-click away. So, the folders full of shortcuts which I use in the toolbars are here.
Windows - The system files.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with. In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration. And what the Hell is up with
As for your question about how the directory structure under C:\Progam Files\ should be, the answer is "whatever you like it to be." I find it amusing how Linux users like to be able to customize their window managers and desktops, but say woe to the man who customizes his directory structure... Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming or anything, I'm just saying that Windows *does* make sense in its directory structure, more so than Linux because customizing that structure is easy and you aren't expected to always stay within a rigid hierarchy. For example, in my ow \Program Files directory, I subdivide by type of application, like \CD Burners \Compression \DVD Utils \Graphics \HTML Editors \Internet \Office Apps \System Utils and a few other directories. It makes perfect sense and makes me able to navigate quickly and easily.
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
DOH! It's my signiture It must be because its 5AM...
Well, the fact of it is this. Windows NT, of which Win 2000 is a descendent, officially began as a joint project between IBM and MS in (I believe) 1988. When the project fell apart, IBM had OS/2 and MS had WinNT. This is one example. Win95 still uses alot of old DOS legacy code and hence is even older. If you wish to compare them by basis of Version number, Win 95, 98, etc... Then Linux still loses. Our Kernel 2.0 could be considered to coincide with Win95, and 2.2 with Win 98. I know that this is a poor comparison, but your comparison of Win 2000 as a "new" OS and Linux as an "old" OS is similarily flawed.
If indeed Win 2000 is a new kid on the block, I would have to congratulate M$ on the ability to put out such a good OS in such a short amount of time. As it stands, they have had at least 3 years more to come up with something that they have to run flawed benchmarks on to compete with a "new" OS.
Also, a comparison between the original 1991 Linux and the modern OS is a crock. I believe that Linus' own words were "It could run GCC and sh, and that was about it" (paraphrased, I don't feel like looking it up.)
If we keep bellowing the cry that Linux is so much older, it undermines the power of Open Source. Also, in a few years, M$ will be yacking about why use something "old" like Linux when we have the newer, better Win2003! Microsoft FUD has alredy gone in that direction with their criticism of *nix and it's derivitaves.
Are we new?? You bet ya! (And M$ is the one that's lemon scented.)
Rave on cats he cried!
HamNRye
Was it Niklaus Wirth who said
or someone else?I don't think it'll be all that difficult. Developers themselves seem to love linux. Why? Well, if your job involved pushing your hardware to its limits to squeeze out more frames per second, with lots of low level device access in there, you'd really like a system with sensible memory protection.
There's even actual documentation out there for linux! That's not the case for a lot of consoles. And if you find a bug in your devkit, you might even be allowed to fix it!
The people who still need convincing are the money men who stand behind the game developers and pay them their (pitiful) salaries. Now that linux is getting a sizeable user base, money is beginning to trickle in.
Disclaimer: I'm not a game developer, but the man who fills my hot water bottles is.
It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
According to this article:
/ ut93_bench2.shtml
http://www.evil3d.net/articles/linux/ut93_bench
Seems that NVIDIA is faster at most resolutions/texture depths when running UT. Imagine that.
This kinda tells me that you are wrong...
-- Never make a general statement.
Unless D: is the second partition, and it's a logical drive. Then it becomes E: when you add a new HD, and fucks everything up. :)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
But it does do drivers.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
In all my years of using Linux, I have yet to be able to install a driver off an RPM
I'd have to say you were unlucky - I use mainly 2 linux distros, RH & slackware - (and NO I do not think either is "better" than the other so all you distro evangelists dont bother to flame me ;) ) If I want slackware drivers I usually build them from source, for RH I use RPMs if they are around. So far they have been in about 80% of the cases. I HAVE had problems with a few of them - usually the driver rpm has not kept step with others and fails the dependency checks. When this happens I can get away with jamming it in using --nodeps about half the time, the only places it is guaranteed to fail is where backwards compatibility breaks from one version of a lib to the other. Yes, these situations do exist but maybe I've just been lucky not to encounter them because I havent run into them that often. In fact I've run into similar problems with win* "driver updates" that broke more than they fixed just about as often so I suspect the playing field on this one is a little more level than it is perceived to be.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
I repeat, the next consumer release of Windows will be a merging of the Win2K and WinME codebases, as will the next workstation release. Now, there are 2 possibilities: either there'll be a separate "home" and "professional" version for each segment, or there will be a home/workstation combined purpose release. In either event, I'd be willing to wager heavily that the directory structure of the next consumer release of Windows will be based on the Win9x/ME dir structure.
Now a little bit of analysis will let you realize that it's most economically feasible for MS to release one version for both home and workstation, and it also fits well with their overall strategy. It's most economically feasible because they can make one disc design and one packaging design instead of two, cutting down production costs. Further, they can price the new OS higher than the current consumer release of WinME, but lower than the current workstation release of Win2K Pro, and still be making as much or more money as they would by having the 2 price points due to the increased/combined volume; the bean counters will doubtless come up with the perfect compromise figure to maximize profitability. Also, bringing the stability (relative to Win9x, that is) of Win2K to the home user, but keeping a separate corporate workstation version, wouldn't make sense because many businesses would just purchase the cheaper consumer version.
As for it fitting within their overall strategy to do so, both MS's continued PR and leaked builds confirm that the merging of Win2K/WinME is going on; but, MS is pushing server-centric computing, and for that there's going to be, of course, the Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server versions of the next-gen Windows OS. For the corporate desktop, MS will push client/server business models based around the Server family of Windows OSes executing all apps remotely for thin clients. THAT is what will satisfy sysadmins, and corporate IT gurus, and make it damn near impossible for a schmuck who doesn't know what he's doing to hose the system. Forget the outdated notion you mentioned of sysadmins imaging standardized workstation setups for fat-client workstation computers: it'll be dead within a few years. Thin-client solutions are more cost effective for almost all workstation needs; the remaining sorts of workstation users, who will require fat clients with local processing power, will be power-users who can be expected to customize their machines and tweak their systems to fit their own needs. Non-power-users will just get thin clients plugged into powerful iron. It makes more sense for MS to do this, too, because they can raise the price of Server licenses and seat licenses in order to offset the lessened sales of the workstation release--and they won't even have to stamp CDs and box them, just sell electronically transferrable licenses. I like this idea for business use: it lowers IT costs. But I dread the push for server-centric computing at home, because remotely-hosted apps and files means software is less free and privacy is nonexistent.
So, think ahead, the landscape is changing, and like I said, it makes more sense for the next consumer/fat-workstation release of Windows to have a dir structure like that in Win9x, while most actual corporate workstations will be thin clients with Windows Server taking the lead and reducing IT costs. Not that I don't want Linux to succeed there, mind you, it's just that we were talking specifically about Windows.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Have you tried apt under debian?
download install restart and reconfigures if required of any and all apps.
I just loaded an interesting role-play/action game called Hopkins FBI. It touts itself as the "first commercial Linux Game"... I think there were others(I'm not a big gamer...) anyhow you may want to check it out at www.hopkinsfbi.com.
regards.
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
1) Linux drivers are not at all like Windows drivers. We have loadable modules, not VxDs. You could setup a system let people download a Makefile + source + shell script to auto compile, copy to /lib/modules/{kernel}, and insmod/add to /etc/rc.d structure very easily. Which would address your point.
:)). The only missing glue is the input API. Perasonally, I wouldn't mind it if SDL became standard. It works on almost everything now.
/usr/local/bin or /usr/local/games with the data files in /usr/local/games/lib/{game name} is an accepted standard.
2) I fail to see why you are saying this. DRI does this now. Linux 2.4.x-pre supports your USB devices now (and will be released RSN
3) I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Putting game binaries in
Btw: OpenDoc is Corba, and is alive and well in Gnome, etc. Please keep your facts straight.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
There are a few of these around. I suspect that a large percentage of them are former Amiga owners (Which holds a special place in my heart as a truly magnificent machine). I have always been amused to see these folk arguing "My OS is harder to use than your OS so I'm superior so nyaaah".
I've also never quite understood the BSD/Linux and Linux distribution controversies. It really doesn't matter to me which distribution of Linux or whether BSD ends up taking over the largest marketshare as long as some Linux derivative is out there competing effectively with Microsoft.
To me, it's all unix. I tend to select my distributions based on who has the biggest marketshare not because I favor one over the other, but because I want to support a move for consolidation among the distributions and because I haven't seen enough difference between the distributions to really care (I've used RedHat, Mandrake and Slackware). I use my system to do real work and from my viewpoint each distribution enables me to do it remarkably well.
On the other hand, I have a windows partition because
The Linux mantra nowdays consists of "World Domination", but the Linux militants seem to want to keep it within the fold of the hardcore unix geeks. Sorry guys, you can't have your cake and eat it too. World domination comes hand in hand with user friendliness.
-- Good judgement comes with experience. -- Experience comes with bad judgement.
My problem with the article is the talk of "standards". In section 3 (standards), he says:
Many people are working to create standards today such as the Linux Standards Board or LSB. This group is working to create standards for how Linux operates. While the lack of standards is an area that threatens to kill Linux right now, it is changing dramatically as the OS becomes more mainstream.
Later, in section #10 (distributions and open sourcce), he says:
You have no options as to how Windows 98 will look, act, or what applications will be included.
and
With Linux however, that product can be specialized to give your customers EXACTLY what you or they want. Furthermore, you are never stuck with a single vendor.
So, because windows has so many "standards", it's light years ahead of linux in that department. But because of those "standards", you are stuck buying from one vendor. Hello.
When we start to have "standards" aren't we erasing the choices that many of us make that make our systems different but also make them *ours*? I don't like KDE and I don't like enlightenment, but somehow these have become "standard" to new users as to what a window manager and a desktop environment are. They never got to make the choice. Some people are the same way with their feelings about bash, but it's the majority of default shells on linux distributions.
I think the LSB and others that have standards goals need to be more specific as to what these standards are. Are they something like "a distribution must contain these applications and use these environments" or "a desktop environment must have these features"?
I think "standards" can go too far. I don't *want* a unified linux. I don't want to be forced to use something I can't stand. I want to be able to choose the look and feel of my computer from numerous different vendors.
I don't think the "let's be like windows" solution is a good one.
-nicole
With AOL interest in Linux and Netscape they will turn linux into the next gaming platform so they can sell more accounts.
This isn't two stories; it's one story. They just broke it up to make more ad money.
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
I'm curious what kind of hardware you're using. I tend to be on the bleeding edge (I'm stupid, right now I'm running Mandrake 7.1 with kernel 2.4, ReiserFS, the beta NVIDIA drivers, and KDE2 Beta 2. It's surprising the bloody thing boots.) Windows tends to handle modern hardware a LOT better. Also the quality of the HW company matters. I usually stick with Matrox, NVIDIA, Creative, Diamond, etc. If you're using anything from ATI, then good luck to you.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
From a gamer's point of view, Linux has POS networking because it won't work on his modem and/or his ISP.
Ya know, be-fan, you've gone downhill. You at least used to bring some interesting discussion and some useful sanity checks to the Linux lovefests we usually get around here.
Modems
Like a gammer who is really concerned about performance is going to use a sucky, crappy, fart eating, slug loving software-driven winmodem! They suck! Even on Windows machines with the latest hardware and software, they suck! When I upgrade a Windows machine with a Winmodem in it, the first thing I do is rip it out and bash it up with a hammer, and then burn it.
ISPs
Your average ISP works very well with Linux, than you very much. Often better, in fact. Sometimes Linux is even optimized, because the ISP is often running Linux, too.
True, some of your "free" ISPs don't work well with Linux, but a hardcore gammer isn't going to be using a sucky free ISP with a bogged pipe and ad software to steal bandwidth and CPU cycles, is he?
A friend of mine just got a DSL connection. Their game performance actually increased when we put them behind a Linux firewall on an old Pentium! That's how kooky Windows's IP stack is!
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
My initial point was that to be on the real bleeding edge you are going to need driver source. If you're on stable releases and not quite on that edge THEN you have the option of binary installs and those are as simple as the "update driver" button. If manufacturers were as quick to put out linux drivers for their hardware as they are for windows then guys with setups like yours would have that option too but at present you dont, not really.
I use linux both at home and at work and at work it doesnt have to be on the edge but it DOES have to work. I have this mental list of hardware that works or gives problems with which distros - For example the only distro that seems to have rpm drivers that work reliably with compaqs older proprietary net cards is redhat - so on a compaq machine I'll usually reach for my RH cds. Systems with no fancy hardware that just need to keep plugging and do one or two jobs well I usually install slackware, workstations where I want the bells and whistles, its back to redhat again. So far I've successfully installed or updated drivers from rpm for 3com, compaq and intel network cards, matrox, 3dfx, older ATIs and compaqs proprietary S3 video cards, Creative sound cards. This is on systems with whatever was the most recent stable kernel release at the time. On test machines or at home where I dont mind breaking it then I tend to use the latest kernel I can get my hands on provided only that its been developed far enough that it will actually compile :). On those machines forget packaged drivers, its either get the source or accept that you have to use the previous generation of peripherals.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
I had a
...the part about linux having poor driver support and not supporting standards.
these comments are not true in every case, and are becoming less of an issue rapidly.
example: linux uses the openGL *standard*. MS does not. if anything, MS should have gotten a "0" and Linux a "10" for this *standards* issue alone.
example: both debian and redhat derived systems use package managers that greatly simplify driver installation. in many cases, there is no "build" at all -- only an install. And XFree86 4.0.1 takes care of the driver issues for the most part -- it's all there!
So, my take on the article is:
Overall : 5
Standards commentary : 0
Driver Commentary : 2
...i had to stop reading after the driver and standards section; they were just too wrong.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The Bears.
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
Linux had a monolithic kernel back when it was version 1.1.13. But it has had a modular kernel since development version 1.3.x about 6 years ago.
In case you didn't know, loadable modules mean that I can update my sound drivers from the internet, reload my sound drivers and immeadiately begin using the new sound drivers _without_ rebooting my machine. Something that Windows _can't_ do...
Which is the more primitive again?
He he he.
-- Never make a general statement.
And why do they talk about driver issues and "user support" differences in the OS'es? Please. Linux ain't windows, never will be. I figure that anyone who wants to get Linux running their Nvidia, SB Live, Athlon Big Gaming Box Bad Boy probably doesn't give a rat's ass about how to get drivers installed. They could probably actually figure it out without Gamespy bothering to mention it to them. Gamespy's article doesn't really break any new ground, does it? I mean, it's not like the Linux gaming issues are big secrets, right? Two points to Gamespy for stating the obvious.
People just don't use Linux for gaming that much -- it's still best as a server and a rock-solid workstation. Yeah, it's nice to play Q3 sometimes, but not crucial. Windows is still better at gaming, probably because MS gives hard/software developers one place to aim. I know a lot of people that dual-boot just to play games. To me and them, windows is the console of the computing world: we use Linux to get stuff done and windows as a game machine. Another point and a half to Gamespy for much ado about gaming nothing.
Although I might be talking out my ass, though. Once I can run both Eudora and Tribes2 on my Linux partition, that windows drive I've got is in serious jeopardy...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
look up the slashdot artcle on win98 openGL speed verses Linux. Linux hit 97% of Win98 in some of the tests -- the tests using the NVidia cards and drivers.
This is actually kind of suprising, since Linux is a true multitasking, multiuser machine, and Win98 is still kinda dos-based underneath. Win98 should have been much faster than Linux in every case, if your suppositions were true.
Win2K? NT? not exactly the ideal gaming platforms, last time I checked.
Perhaps you are posting about DirectX performance under Linux. I admit, that ain't working so well.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
depends what side you're on, doesn't it?
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
1) debian : apt-get update.
2) XFree4.0.1 has accelerated GL built in when you use a supported card.
3) rapid advances are being made to do the updates more cleanly on the redhat side.
4) I have seen plenty of Windows 98 machines lock hard, with the latest DX6, and the latest drivers, while Linux just keeps on running under OpenGL.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Come on, the whole concept of symlinks to do this sort of customization is a clumsy hack. Why would you symlink to things, instead of just putting them in the structure you want them in in the first place? So, that just creates a *more* confusing file structure than anything Windows does. A link to a folder here, and then the real folder there. Bah. Messy, messy, messy. Just put the files where they belong in the first place, if you're not on a multiple user machine.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Linux - 3 / 10 (promoted / actual)
Windows 98 - 10 / 8
For general networking, Linux is amazing.
Having said that, there is one area for ISP support that Linux isn't as good as Windows; free ISPs. Most free services either require Windows or are hostile to non-Windows systems, including Macintosh and BSD.
On top of that, some free ISPs are thwarting attempts to login using anything except for the Windows-only tools they provide. The reason is simple; a Linux system connecting to these services doesn't use the ad-laden login tools, so the free services can't justify allowing these freeloaders on thier systems!
I think getting a free ISP for the cost of some advertising is a fine exchange...but the ISPs are not doing anything to get thier ads on the 'un-supported' systems. Catch-22? You decide.
So, while many free ISPs can be made to work with Linux, fewer support it and a few are actively making it harder to use thier services.
Because of the minimal support by free ISPs for anything that isn't IE under MS Windows 98, I'd can't give Linux a 10 out of 10 in this category.
In a blatent attempt to get people to tell me something I don't know, here's what I do know so far.
First off, this month Juno -- a free ISP that hasn't supported Linux in the past -- has bought both FreeWWW and Worldspy -- two ISPs that have had support for Linux. Some people have complained that Juno's free service can't use Netscape or other browsers and requires IE...though I'd like to know if that's the case or not. Supposedly there's a way around this.
Free ISPs that can be used with Linux;
www.freewwweb.com
Freeweb Linux link; read the notes on Juno's buy out of Freewww
Worldspy - Bought out by Juno
www.freei.net
www.netzero.com- first have to set up in Windows to get encrypted password/ID, then put in login under Linux
www.freedsl.com - I know nothing; some Linux users. See this link to a Usenet post
Notes on how to use different free ISPs; I'd give attribution for the information below but I didn't keep it when I first grabbed it!
[Most of this is from Deja and Google from 2 months ago; I didn't write it, I'm just passing it along.]
-----
A very good success story. If you and your friend are looking for a backup to freewwweb, Worldspy does work (with a little effort) but you need to setup and run the process from Windows in order to obtain the DNS info along with the cryptic user name. That means that if your username you signed up with is Ron123 then your Linux name to key into kppp will be something like: nvnet.asdfasdf@microportal.com . Trust me it does work and several others on this NG have made it happen as well. Good luck. blariz
--------
Better go to http://autoreg.freewwweb.com/ for a fast registration without downloading those huge browsers.
-----------
Well, that sort of depends on the definition of 'is'! :-)
I had noticed two mentioned, FREEWWWEB and DIAL4LIFE. I went to the web site for freewwweb to get an access number, but they all end with XXXX, which doesn't work. So I then went to dial4life and looked up their access numbers. It turned out to be the same list of towns and numbers except this one had the last 4 digits posted correctly. I followed the link to their instructions, and lo and behold, I was back at freewwweb!
So, I ended up installing freewwweb using the dial number I found at dial4life. And it WORKED! That little bit of good luck was my payback for putting in two solid weeks of hell trying to get linux installed at all!
BTW, I wasn't asked for a credit card at all.
-----------
I just called worldspy's tech support and asked about Linux and he said "you could try it, but they don't support it". I then asked if they used pap authentication and the support guy had no idea what I was talking about. I had tried it briefly this morning before going to work and got the connect, but immediately pppd died (I'm assuming because of the username/password authentication). I don't know whether that's because they don't use PAP or whether my account that I had just signed up for 30 minutes earlier hadn't been activated yet.
------
Actually I had to do a little hacking but didn't have any problem. I use Win95's dialer when in Win95. After installing worldspy.net and getting frustrated with all the windows that are used just to log on, I decided to find a way around them. Checking the DUN file it created for dialing I found that my user name was relaced with a code that looks like a wierd email address. Then I created a new dialer and copied the code to it and used my normal password. It worked! I logged on without going through all the BS they give you. Next I switched to Linux and set up ppp the same way and it works too. Now I have a FREE ISP with none of the BS, not even their home page. Try it, you'll like it.
-----
The ticket is to get a bogus account set up under Win98, then run RASSpy or a logging program to get the user/password strings (which are usually encrypted or modified by their software) required for a straight logon, then just configure a standard call-up profile with this info in whatever program you're using, then throw away all the FISP's software. Works for any platform or O/S.
Instant raw ISP!
Naturally, you get rid of all their ads, timeouts, spyware and other crap in the bargain.
Some FISPs have gotten wise to this hack and have blocked logging in their DUN profiles or made it impossible to run RASSpy, but at least 2/3 are still hackable using this workaround.
NetZero, which is otherwise pretty high-quality access, has made this impossible in v.3, but if you can get an earlier version of the software you can run the hack and use the info for a clean login.
Juno, Freei, Bluelight and a whole bunch more are currently easy to do this with. I get faster connects with NetZero and NZ is less congested than the other FISPs I've tried, but this may vary from user to user.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
And I still don't know when to use /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/X11/bin.. The Windows directory structure is far from perfect, but so is the unix structure.
Nope, the fundamental difference is that Linux is a multi-user OS and Windows single user. And therefore your descriptive directory structure should be in your home directory and not in root as there is only one root. Nice piece though.
--
Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
The windows dir structure makes sense? When did that happen? I suspect you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway -- I like trolls.
/home//docs?
/bin. You can convince me otherwise by explaining why I have a \WINNT\system and a \WINNT\system32? And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system? Here's what happens, you mount the \\server\admin$ share, you cd to tasks, suddenly there's the tasks folder on your own box! There's no way to open that folder on a remote box through the GUI. There's also no tool supplied to edit them through the command line and no remote management tool. To top it all off, the scheduled tasks component REPLACES the reasonably functional AT service that NT has been shipping with forever.
/usr /usr/local /lib /usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that)
Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\ How does that compare with
\Program Files folder for applications
Which, incidentally, you need to have on each drive if you're committed to putting apps in that folder. Since drives get mounted under an individual letter, there's no way to have a coherent filesystem hierarchy on a system with multiple drives.
a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
\WINNT on real MS operating systems. I object to the assertion that this makes more sense than
You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want
Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications. Broke a lot of in house apps too, and I was working at MS at the time. Even a lot of older MS applications couldn't handle it.
the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad. Your files go in %windir%\profiles\username on NT. In linux they go in ~username. Only castrated systems that don't support multiple users make it easy to pollute the top level directory.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with.
If you ever work on a shared system, you'll lose this freedom in a hurry.
In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration.
No one has ever cracked my linux box and criticized my filesystem layout. I doubt it's happened to you. You can fuck with the filesystem all you want as long as you're using it as a single user box.
And what the Hell is up with
So what's in \WINNT\Driver Cache and how does it differ from \WINNT\System32\DLLCache and how does this differ from \WINNT\System32\Cache? It seems that the details are always a bit fuzzy. And how do I know if a dll is in \Program Files\Common or \Program Files\Office?
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made to keep one user from mucking with anothers files. NT makes a lot of those tradeoffs too.
--Shoeboy
Where you see \\ as in "have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\", it should read \\.
--Shoeboy
Lets say I have a file/program/whatever and it's called "pif". Then where should that be put in the windows hiearchy. Where is the metaphorical dwelling place of this lonely filename. It turns out that "pif" would go in c:\windows\pif. What is pif you ask? I haven't got the foggiest idea. I haven't got the slightlest clue as to why it goes in c:\windows\ directory. But it does. Along with about 260 other programs/files/whatever.
/home and /etc.
/bin or /usr/bin it's under /usr/local/ssl/bin/bin-sun5/bash How horrible is that? Thousands of innocent student endure Solaris /bin/sh each year because only about 5 people know where to find bash.
I found ironic how glibbly you said "Windows - The system files." If you take a minute to actually browse around in here I think that you'll find it is a complete and utter mess. This is the point the author was trying to make.
On the other hand the fact that you didn't have a similar attitude about linux system files shows that something is amiss. With a good linux distribution (say debian) you should never have to look at system files either. They only place you should really have to worry about is
Here is my $HOME
526~.$ ls
Mail bin data etc images progs sounds tmp var writings www
data is stuff I'm archiving.
bin is scripts and programs that I wrote.
etc is some setup stuff.
var is where is keep tar.gz files if i download them.
www is where my webpage is stored.
all the rest are fairly self explanatory.
I rarely go into the system files. I used to before I installed a good distribution. If I need to install something then i type "apt-cache search program_name" and "apt-get install program_name"
In windows the GUI organization is tied to the filesystem but in Linux this is rarely the case. The Debian menu is organised into catagories based on the type of application (in enlightenment you bring this menu up with your middle finger). However, I generally use my own shorter menu of applications that I bring up by clicking on the desktop with my index finger.
This is means that 95% of the time I'm within 2 mouse clicks of the application I need. And I never thought about it until now but I'd be willing to wager that with a very little bit of practise I could start any of these aplications blindfolded.
What windows needs to do IMHO is take a page out of Debians book.
1] Seperate the GUI from the underlying filesystem.
2] Seperate the programer interface from the user interface. The user shouldn't care how the filesystem is laid out so long as he/she knows how to find that document he wrote. If their computer crashes and they don't know where to find the backup that the wordprocessor has been making every 5 minutes it doesn't do them a lot of good does it? You wouldn't believe the number of people who have exactly that problem.
3] Establish some standards that programmers can use to know where to place files. From the placement of the file and the file name a programmer should be able to tell exactly what a program is and does. No more wandering around putting files like "pif" in any old directory you stumble across. Common sence? Apparently not common enough i guess.
However not all is bleak for microsoft. I have seen Unix systems far worse. Take my school solaris acount for example. Instead of putting bash under
Sheesh... It's ridiculous really...
i really enjoy the irony here. elitist linux hackers are bad for linux's reputation, but it's okay for the author to stereotype my parents, sister, and girlfriend (what about my boyfriend, anyway?) as clueless lusers. that's the way to get more people interested in technology! k-r4d d00d.
tyler
But going into Device Manager, selecting a piece of hardware and telling Windows to search the WindowsUpdate site for "updated drivers" is what I'm talking about. . . .Anyone who thinks that modules isn't the future of driver development on Linux is fooling themselves. Yes, having specific devices imbedded into the kernel itself is nice (and speeds driver load time), but what about all the drivers that *don't* need to be in there, such as the amateur radio drivers compiled into the kernel up until a few years ago?
I think the issue is not whether the drivers are compiled in the kernel, but whether they're distributed with the kernel. There are a few drivers that are distributed apart from the kernel (OSS/Expensive and ALSA immediately come to mind), but for the most part, your drivers come with your kernel, so doing an "update" in the Win98 sense isn't necessary. The issue of whether modules are good/bad isn't really terribly interesting since they're so mature and people can choose for themselves anyway.
The view that Linux cannot be a gaming platform is clearly amateurish.
Of course it can be a gaming platform. It's just that it can't be a very good one for certain types of games (the types of games which are very popular right now). No doubt that you can get satisfactory out of any game if you put enough effort into it, but it seems kind of silly when you could be spending that effort doing something a lot more useful (such as actually playing the game on a gaming platform, e.g. a Nintendo).
If it cannot, why are companies like Loki even bothering?
Loki is a company. They generally don't do things because they're a good idea; they do things because people demand them. Linux users are stupid people, and Loki can make a lot of money off of them by providing answers to stupid problems. That said, that's not the complete truth, as Loki is doing a number of cool things apart from (and arguably even in spite of) the market.
Why do most distributions include Gnome and KDE games out of box, even when the install is set to "server" mode?
Again, we're not talking about the same kinds of games. You can probably play Space Invaders on even the earliest of TI calculators, but that doesn't really make it a gaming platform.
Linux is still primitive. It is based on a monolithic kernel implementation from the 70s. It was inspired by a simple OS used to teach OS principles. How is it not primitive?
---
Posting at -1 means never losing karma.
Can you metamoderate?
What Linux needs to push it into the realm of gaming heaven:
1.) A feature like WindowsUpdate, which downloads and installs the latest drivers for hardware. This is an underappreciated Godsend for Windows users (where I dabble on occasion). Why can't a Linux distributor, particularly a highly-paid one like Corel, Caldera or RedHat, implement a simple website which includes up-to-date driver downloads? I don't mean the "system updates" that RedHat offers, with the simple updates to the kernel. I'm talking full-on driver updates, something I can just click and it will say "You are not using the best drivers for your GeForce board? Should I download and install the newest ones for you?" Review the changes (of course) and bam, one step closer to gaming heaven.
2.) A better standardized X needs to be in place. I want full support for DirectX-like screen calls and antialiasing for fonts. I want OpenGL embedded in the system itself if I'm going to use it. I want support for USB devices like mice out of box. I know this is going to be difficult, but these are areas Windows is flogging Linux in. I can set up a Windows 98 system, plug in a few peripherals, have the system detect them, install the latest DirectX and bam, full support for 99.9% of the best games out there.
3.) Position Linux to developers as a viable gaming platform. This is the most difficult task, and can only be done after the first 2 are completed. The Mac has been jockeying for developer support for years. The problem (and how Linux cannot fall into the same trap) is that Apple refuses to bend the needs of the OS towards developers' needs. All the standards for UI and UI consistency across apps doesn't do a heap of good when iD is trying to port Quake III Arena to the system, which has its own UI. Apple has to get off its bandwagon and start positioning OpenGL within the system (as they are doing in MacOS X) NOW to developers, instead of continuting to push stale standards like QuickDraw (Apple's Vietnam, next to OpenDoc).
These are not simple changes, but they are necessary to gaming development on the Linux platform. Hopefully distributors will realize them and get Linux in a position where it can take over Microsoft's PC gaming crown.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Does anyone else find the Windows directory structure more of a PITA than *nix? It seems to me that /etc, /usr, /usr/local, /lib, /usr/lib/, and /home all have a fairly defined purpose, whereas %WINDIR% (whether it be C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINNT or whatever) tends to a black hole, there usually isn't a $HOME, the directory structure under C:\PROGRA~1 is often odd (do programs go in C:\PROGRA~1\company\proggie or just C:\PROGRA~1\proggie?), and there's a whole lot of crap in C:\, etc
damn straight - both fine young teens have an uncanny resemblance to one another!
is it a conspiracy?
-- I'd take a bitch-slapping for you sol!
Lets define our own open source console gaming machine. Let's not define a bleeding edge machine, instead, lets define a nice trailing edge machine that still has a couple of years of life left in it. This would let us get the most bang for our buck.
Lets say that it will have the following:
500Mhz pentium II CPU
128MB RAM
30GB Hard Drive
Sound Blaster Live
ATI AGP All-in-wonder 128 Pro card (Hardware MPEG II)
NE2000 10/100 network card
CD/RW drive
DVD drive
Digital Surround Speakers
Once we define the hardware we then make a Linux distribution that fully supports this machine. We have full drivers for all the hardware.
Now we write software that fully supports all the hardware:
player/recorder: DVD, CD, MP3, MPEG (1, 2, 4), AVI, MOV
Digital VCR (open source TIVO) with VCR control
Digital 8 track audio
TV
Surround sound from all sources with digital effects.
X with DRI/Open GL drivers that fully support the hardware.
A standard 3D gaming engine with modules to play the Doom, Quake, Quake II, and Quake III and our own games...
A standard tile gamming engine with modules to play Warcraft, Warcraft II, Starcraft and games of our own devising...
A review board can update the hardware list every couple of years and replace the most outdated hardware to bring the machine back up to date with the current trailing edge.
Seperate standards boards for each type of gaming engine can improve/upgrade the engines using open source methods.
What does everyone think?
-- Never make a general statement.
There are numerous uncomplimentary posts about Gentus on kernel traffic . It seems that they've been accused of GPL violations.
> If you want to clutter up your root directory, be my guest, but don't try to argue
> that having the ability to keep your files in your own space is a hardship.
And when did I argue that? You are being such a stubborn dolt about the whole matter. I was clearly, clearly, *clearly* speaking about the directory structures on a single-user or single-profile system, not a shared server or multi-user workstation. Of course you *always* have the choice of keeping files "in your own space," or whatever. But, the Windows dirctory structure is simply easier to customize, that's what I was arguing. Try getting rid of some of the "customary" directories on a Linux box, and see how well installations and general use go. Why do programmes on Linux scatter stuff here, there, everywhere, so that getting rid of or moving one of the standard dirs will confuse many install routines and fuck stuff up? Contrast this with Windows, where the only root directory you need to keep around is \Windows, and even then you can call it something else during installation and it will still work well with most install routines and in general day to day operation. All I ever argued is that the Windows dir structure makes more sense than all the obscure mostly-three-lettered dir names in Linux, and that customizability makes sense. I don't understand how so many Linux users like to customize window managers and desktops, and tweak everything--*except* the directory structure. People complain like hell whenever a distro places something in a nonstandard place, and talk about how it breaks this or that. Well, in Windows that just doesn't happen. Things don't break if you tank \My Documents or change the location of \Windows\Temp to just C:\Temp, or if you install all your apps into subdirectories of a root folder called \Apps instead of \Program Files. Changing a few registry settings can even change locations of system folders inside \Windows without breaking anything.
That is all I was arguing, along with the fact that customization of directory structure is good and helps productivity when done right. But if you say *anything* contrary to the party line around here, you instantly get suspected of trolling, just as you accused me in your first reply to my post. You immediately came at it from the perspective of a sysadmin, not an end user, despite the fact that I was obviously talking about the experience and needs of end users. This just highlights the sad state of affairs which is preventing Linux from capturing the desktop/workstation market from MS. Linux coders, for the most part, write stuff that experienced Linux users like--stuff with command lines and text configuration, or graphical proggies with complicated menus. That's fine, unless of course you'd like Windoze and Mac people to start switching over to Linux. Linux will never, ever, beat MS on the desktop unless most coders start thinking like end users. And, if MS continues to win on the desktop, it'll also start retaking the server market, since Windows Server will be able to provide "extras" for those running Windows Consumer/Workstation, and because thin clients will be able to run sessions on Windows Server complete with all the point-and-click ease and customizability that a Windows desktop OS offers. MS's ultimate vision would be to have users everwhere log in to ASPs through fat pipes, and be running almost their whole desktop remotely, transparently, so it looks just like a real OS is there on your thin-client "computer." I don't want that to happen, but the only way it won't happen is if Linux or another OS steps up and provides a nice friendly easy-as-Windoze-or-Mac experience. But I don't see Linux moving there, because Linux coders are not thinking like end users, as your own attitude proves. I hope things change, and that Linux developers start developing apps and an easier to use OS which will provide for the requirements of end users; if they don't, Windows *will* win, and we don't want that to happen.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Someone moderate this up... it deserves to be at least as high as the post it is in reply to, which was naive at best.
Savant
I run a dedicated half-life/counter-strike server on a freebsd box with linux emulation. I play counter-strike on my Windows 2000 desktop machine. Life is good.
True, Windows is and for the forseeable future will stay faster than Linux. Why? Mainly because of DirectX. DirectX is essentially a tool to allow developers to shove aside Windows. While running a DirectX application, Windows is effectivally shut out for a great deal of the time. Running in exclusive mode DirectDraw, for example, gives around 90-something% of the processor time to the application. It allows direct access to hardware, and essentially behaves like DOS with standardized hardware acceleration. This is the exact kind of behaviour Linux (and UNIX in general) prevents against. While multiple users, and the general abstraction and generality of UNIX's design may be great for some things, it is not great for games. Case in point: DRI. DRI is an attempt to to put direct hardware access into Linux. It does it in the UNIX-way (client-server, abstracted, general and portable) and it seems hurts performance in the process. Otherwise NVIDIA probably would have chosen THAT for its drivers instead of creating its own kernel driver (which I think probably behaves a lot more rudely to the OS than does DRI). Before you flame me, think of the reasons behind their desicion. Making their own system certainly wasn't to protect source code, they could have made binary DRI drivers. It certainly hurt them, because they have to spend much more effort to maintain drivers in sync with kernel versions and XFree86 updates, plus they lose any other *NIX users. The only reason they could have chosen to do their own is because DRI wasn't fast enough. And if it doesn't work for NVIDIA, that's a big warning sign. They have the fastest hardware available, and will for the near future, and if it doesn't serve their needs, then something is wrong with the system. Also, it seems to me, that DRI just won't cut it for the broad range of cards at the consumer level. They all depend on varying different models of rendering, and by not allowing apps direct access to the drivers, DRI inherently preaches a particular way of rendering. For a marginal OS, that is very dangerous, because the hardware vendors will NOT give a thought to the needs of DRI while they're designing hardware. SGI pulled this off, because THEY design the hardware AND software, but Linux doesn't have this luxury. I use this point (DRI) to try to explain that the "UNIX-way" just won't work with games. While its flexibility, stability, and tweekability make it a great OS for many tasks, it just doesn't work for games. In fact many of these traits (its flexibility and the abstraction that leads to stability and portability) actually work AGAINST it being a good gaming OS.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I use slackware!
:-)
>elite users are using hardcore distributions such as Debian and Slackware
Actually I use it because I started using it a long time ago and haven't ever found a reason to switch. If it works good why change it?
But thanks for calling me elite and hardcore anyways.
But he's not talking about general networking is he? This isn't theoretical. Right here, right now. If you're a gamer, Linux networking sucks compared to Windows. For games the better TCP/IP stack isn't really noticable, and it has much less support for modems and services.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The point nr. 3 (Standards) that James Hills makes is especially valid I think. To me linux always seems a forest of functionality (tools, directory structures, ...). But lately, with all the new distributions appearing, and with the explosion of new linux development, this forest is turning into a jungle...
Beg pardon the poor English I writes after a few lessons only!
It is not like it a channel Linux of all have really, it is? Thus, why they disturb? I think that perhaps they should move precisely above. And why does expenditure of conductor and differences treat it? Ain't windows Linux. I represent that nobody, Linux which makes function its large box of play bad lot, not an ass probably transmit would not like to receive, as one receives installation of the conductors. They could represent it probably really outside without Gamespy disturbing to mention it with them. Doesn't the Gamespy article really again break ground, him? I mean it, am not as the plays of Linux am largely, right? Since the article underlines, the principal expenditure which stops the back Linux today a its platform of play likely to be developed, is standards and an implementation of conductor. I only could receive some plays, for with my system working correctly (after the many
hours recently qualified drivers downloaded and adjusting). Some plays do not work with all. This one is far a cry Windows 98cSe. People to precisely
use Linux not play that much - is to him still servers and place of work good. Yeah is pleasant him to sometimes play Q3.
No comment at this time
That's exactly the "militant linux" attitude that the article is warning against.
....and the FACT is ..".
"YOU should do THIS...YOU should'nt do that....Because I
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
1) I have Windows 98 on this machine, and Windows Update has *never* told me that there are any drivers that need updating, and I've been using it since late 98.
2) OpenGL is integrated into XFree 4 I believe.