I've got a question for everyone that puts their software under the GPL: Why?
I can think of no better endorsement for the free software community than a company saying "A lot of the quality code in this great product is from free software authors all around the world."
Personally, I think it would be really neat to find my name on a successful product if I ever wrote a nice piece of code.
I'm sorry. I normally wouldn't post something so clearly off-topic, but I feel I need to.
Reading Slashdot and coming across something so clearly ridiculous as "which u need" on the front page really devalues the whole experience. I come here to read the news and take part in intelligent discussions, but when these so-called editors come along with stories that look like they were written by a 5th grader, I can't help but feel a little annoyed.
Now that the Slashdot editors are being paid for this, I'd expect a little better quality. CmdrTaco's spelling isn't the greatest, but that's an honest mistake and I know that he's responsible for most of Slashdot, so it's a lot easier to look the other way. But when HeUnique--who has contributed virtually nothing--comes along with a story like this, it's a lot more irritating.
Please, proofread your stories before you post them, editors.
I just compiled it with '--disable-debug' in./configure, and gcc -funroll-all-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -O3 -march=pentiumpro, and it dumps core as soon as it starts up.
My advice: don't waste all that time and disk space - it won't work.
I think the most reasonable solution to this problem is obvious to everyone at this point.
First, we must acquire thousands upon thousands of large crowbars. Second, we need to go door to door clubbing people in the knees with our crowbars, stealing their computers, and investigating the contents of these systems. Once the perpetrator has been located, we must force him/her to endure hundreds of hours of horrible, unlubricated goat sex. Yes, goat sex. I believe this is the only rational way to get rid of these awful "script kiddies."
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but if you absolutely, positively do _NOT_ want someone using your code, why the hell would you make your project open source in the first place?
Lisa (on the radio): And guess who's been practicing medicine without a license? *Dr. Hibbert starts to look uneasy* Lisa: That's right. Homer Simpson. Homer (in the distant background): D'oh! I cried (laughing) for about 10 minutes when I first saw that.
Yes, but there's a difference between between replacing all instances of the word "DOOM" with "XYZDOOM" and modifying a few small things, and actually reading the code and creating something better. What I meant to say was I hadn't seen any free, open-source games *similar* to Doom or Quake yet, or heard of any such projects.
Well, it just seems like everyone is running around saying "this is a big step for the *BSD*/Linux community," but not many that seem to actually be looking at the code and trying to understand it. I haven't seen any Doom or Quake clones, or heard of any such projects yet. Perhaps this is just because of a lack of good artists that are willing to do something like that, though. The art is the hardest part.
Why is it that all the source that's been released for commercial games thus far has been horribly ugly or badly obfuscated? Doom, Quake, and these parts of Unreal Tournament are no exception. Anyone that actually agress with BSD style(9) or Linus's style document would almost be offended by this stuff.
Just an observation, though. I still think it's great that people are releasing the sources to their games, and I still think Unreal Tournament is cool.:o)
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a troll.
I've got a question for everyone that puts their software under the GPL: Why?
I can think of no better endorsement for the free software community than a company saying "A lot of the quality code in this great product is from free software authors all around the world."
Personally, I think it would be really neat to find my name on a successful product if I ever wrote a nice piece of code.
Maybe I'm wrong.
face
I'm sorry. I normally wouldn't post something so clearly off-topic, but I feel I need to.
Reading Slashdot and coming across something so clearly ridiculous as "which u need" on the front page really devalues the whole experience. I come here to read the news and take part in intelligent discussions, but when these so-called editors come along with stories that look like they were written by a 5th grader, I can't help but feel a little annoyed.
Now that the Slashdot editors are being paid for this, I'd expect a little better quality. CmdrTaco's spelling isn't the greatest, but that's an honest mistake and I know that he's responsible for most of Slashdot, so it's a lot easier to look the other way. But when HeUnique--who has contributed virtually nothing--comes along with a story like this, it's a lot more irritating.
Please, proofread your stories before you post them, editors.
I just compiled it with '--disable-debug' in ./configure, and gcc -funroll-all-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -O3 -march=pentiumpro, and it dumps core as soon as it starts up.
My advice: don't waste all that time and disk space - it won't work.
Sigh.
What about "C += 2"?
I think the most reasonable solution to this problem is obvious to everyone at this point.
First, we must acquire thousands upon thousands of large crowbars. Second, we need to go door to door clubbing people in the knees with our crowbars, stealing their computers, and investigating the contents of these systems. Once the perpetrator has been located, we must force him/her to endure hundreds of hours of horrible, unlubricated goat sex. Yes, goat sex. I believe this is the only rational way to get rid of these awful "script kiddies."
You mean they actually go to those Linux conventions? Maybe they should be placed next to ESR's "Geeks with Guns." That would be really interesting.
*smirk*
That was fixed almost immediately after the release of 3.4-RELEASE.
I can't help but feel bad for the FreeBSD developers, who worked so hard getting 3.4 ready for release, only to do so with such an obvious bug intact.
Woah. Did I miss something? Didn't ESR just figure out he was going to get a nice wad of cash because of the VA IPO?
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but if you absolutely, positively do _NOT_ want someone using your code, why the hell would you make your project open source in the first place?
Lisa (on the radio): And guess who's been practicing medicine without a license? *Dr. Hibbert starts to look uneasy* Lisa: That's right. Homer Simpson. Homer (in the distant background): D'oh! I cried (laughing) for about 10 minutes when I first saw that.
Yes, but there's a difference between between replacing all instances of the word "DOOM" with "XYZDOOM" and modifying a few small things, and actually reading the code and creating something better. What I meant to say was I hadn't seen any free, open-source games *similar* to Doom or Quake yet, or heard of any such projects.
Well, it just seems like everyone is running around saying "this is a big step for the *BSD*/Linux community," but not many that seem to actually be looking at the code and trying to understand it. I haven't seen any Doom or Quake clones, or heard of any such projects yet. Perhaps this is just because of a lack of good artists that are willing to do something like that, though. The art is the hardest part.
Why is it that all the source that's been released for commercial games thus far has been horribly ugly or badly obfuscated? Doom, Quake, and these parts of Unreal Tournament are no exception. Anyone that actually agress with BSD style(9) or Linus's style document would almost be offended by this stuff.
:o)
Just an observation, though. I still think it's great that people are releasing the sources to their games, and I still think Unreal Tournament is cool.
Tool Tool Tool! I've always got a Tool CD in my player when I'm writing code. It helps me concentrate and it puts me in a really cool mood.