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.
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...
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...
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...
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...
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
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.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
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.
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.
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
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 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
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
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...
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
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!
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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*
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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...
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...