Slashdot Mirror
Myth 2 Server Goes Open Source
iMacGuy writes: "As announced on Bungie.net, the Myth 2 Internet Server will be shutting down on February 15. However, they have released the source code. It runs on Linux currently, and can be ported to Windows, *BSD, and Mac OS X."
I'm rather ambiguous about the open source "movement", but I have to appreciate any company that gives out their products when they no longer are being supported. I've been screwed too many times with products that were truly good, but just a year out of date.
:) ), it simply allows their software to be even better supported. It extends the "shelf-life" of the software - maybe they'll make some money from the $5 bargain bin, even if the company is no longer running the server for the product. It also allows for very quick security fixes, and for playability fixes that usually take weeks to months for companies to implement. I can already invision custom designed servers for different groups.
Hopefully other companies will take bungie.net's lead and release server software as well. In my mind, it can't hurt the company (although some way will probably be pointed out to me
Or this might just be my ever idealistic mind... Til later.
If you think it was "movies on computer," you probably weren't a very good player. Ah, the joys of King of the Hill on Venice, with the WW2 plugin... your squad gets torn apart in about 5 minutes but you can still hold the flag long enough to win. "Woot" and stuff.
In fact it was Bungie's networking code for Myth II that was so good it was originally a replacement for, and later became a new version of, Apple's net gaming library (NetSprockets).
Yes, Microsoft owns Bungie. No, Micorosoft does not normally release their source code. Yes, Myth II's server runs on Linux.
Am I missing something? I ask because I fail to see the dilemma, or surprise, or whatever it is that has people hot and bothered in this situation.
First off, Microsoft does not immediately impose a Win32 regime on companies it acquires. They do not operate on their image, or on a basis of "we hate Open Source and Linux." They operate for profit, and killing software that's already been implemented simply to show off that they don't need Linux or Open Source is not profitable. MS acquired Hotmail a long time ago IIRC, and they're still dependent on FreeBSD servers for some of it. Bungie wrote their server for Linux (whether before or after they were acquired by MS) and there is no point in forcing them to develop it for Windows instead. Also, the fact that Bungie has given away the code to that server does not imply that Microsoft is "embracing" Open Source, it simply means that someone decided keeping the official servers up was too expensive, but that it would be shitty to just cut people off, and that releasing the source code could only make profits go up (see the bargain bin thing in another post). I'm sure Microsoft has no problem with anything that does not cut into profit and could potentially increase it.
The argument that could be made is that image does indeed affect people's esteem of and confidence in MS, but in this case we're not dealing with MS directly but a subsidiary company. Bungie releasing source code does not hurt MS's ego. If MS released the code to FrontPage or WinXP, that would be different... but they haven't.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
They don't claim that it's Open Source. It's the Slashdot author, iMacGuy, who was careless in his choice of headlines.
Unfortunately, "Open Source" was a crappy certification mark in the first place, because it's too descriptive.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Arkanes (why do you post without using your real name?), He did not arbitrarily decide what "open source" is. Open source is a trademarked term, and there is a definition [opensource.org], as defined by the trademark owners, of what does and does not entail "open source" software. As it turns out, bungie.net software release can not properlly be called "open source".
/. believe in being able to trade mark common usage words anyway..
IIRC, the trademark was refused, and even if it wasn't, no one here at
It never fails to amuse me how one minute people here are complaining that they can't call something killustrator, because adobe has trademarked the common word illustrator, but then they insist that people can't call source code that is open open source without pissing off the OpenSource nazi's..