and why should browsers even supply codecs? why not just use whatever framework is available from the OS. IIRC, the gtk webkit port uses gstreamer for video support, so it probably can handle quite a few codecs apart from theora and h264
They can just as well ignore official support, and just provide binaries (and _maybe_ answer some questions in the forums if they don't happen to run on a particular system). They don't have to support anything, not even Ubuntu. What's the worst that can happen if they release unsupported binaries? Lose users? Linux users already aren't able to play their games anyway.
I don't get this. In the interview, it is made clear that Blizzard has, HAS, [native] linux clients for their games. Why don't they release them? Even if they are buggy, there's absolutely nothing they might lose with such a move. They might however gain more users. If some poor soul in Blizzard has actually spent the time to create a client, why not allow him to release it, close sourced, static, whatever. Just release something.
it's funny how that happens, since gnome is nothing like the windows gui. If anything, it tries to somewhat imitate the osx gui (which can also be said for windows)
You should check out enlightenment's edje library. That same animation could be done in 10-15 lines of simple, non-C code (so that designers can do the animations, not programmers)
There's wine. And yes, nowadays, it will run most software by just double-clicking it.
The hardware problem is not really linux's fault, but rather the manufacturers. Some hardware doesn't work out of the box on windows, yet people don't bitch that windows is a pile of crap, because it doesn't support it.
Ubuntu can run fine without broadband. Most applications are small, and it will take minutes to download, even on a modem. Leave the computer overnight, and you will have downloaded most of the repository.
Almost all software comes with desktop files, which makes it visible in the GUI menu of choice.
There's also some proprietary games, native to linux (like ETQW for instance, or Savage 2). A lot of games can be run on wine. And most people use game consoles to play games.
You can do almost everything without opening a terminal these days. The only reason we use a terminal (leaving the impression that it is a necessity), is because we get shit done faster.
I hope the enlightenment project will be accepted this time around. They provide very nice libraries, though it was a shame that they were rejected in previous instalments of SoC
Slashdot Mirror
and why should browsers even supply codecs? why not just use whatever framework is available from the OS. IIRC, the gtk webkit port uses gstreamer for video support, so it probably can handle quite a few codecs apart from theora and h264
They can just as well ignore official support, and just provide binaries (and _maybe_ answer some questions in the forums if they don't happen to run on a particular system). They don't have to support anything, not even Ubuntu. What's the worst that can happen if they release unsupported binaries? Lose users? Linux users already aren't able to play their games anyway.
I don't get this. In the interview, it is made clear that Blizzard has, HAS, [native] linux clients for their games. Why don't they release them? Even if they are buggy, there's absolutely nothing they might lose with such a move. They might however gain more users. If some poor soul in Blizzard has actually spent the time to create a client, why not allow him to release it, close sourced, static, whatever. Just release something.
I'd like to know the answer to that one as well. And whether SCII and DIII will be available for Linux in one form or another.
Well, chasm, which was released just a year after quake, had a lot more variant color palette. Not in a single level, but not all levels were brown.
I tend to think that the hurricane spell of the druid is rather dull and ugly-looking.
it's funny how that happens, since gnome is nothing like the windows gui. If anything, it tries to somewhat imitate the osx gui (which can also be said for windows)
You should check out enlightenment's edje library. That same animation could be done in 10-15 lines of simple, non-C code (so that designers can do the animations, not programmers)
There's wine. And yes, nowadays, it will run most software by just double-clicking it. The hardware problem is not really linux's fault, but rather the manufacturers. Some hardware doesn't work out of the box on windows, yet people don't bitch that windows is a pile of crap, because it doesn't support it. Ubuntu can run fine without broadband. Most applications are small, and it will take minutes to download, even on a modem. Leave the computer overnight, and you will have downloaded most of the repository. Almost all software comes with desktop files, which makes it visible in the GUI menu of choice. There's also some proprietary games, native to linux (like ETQW for instance, or Savage 2). A lot of games can be run on wine. And most people use game consoles to play games. You can do almost everything without opening a terminal these days. The only reason we use a terminal (leaving the impression that it is a necessity), is because we get shit done faster.
I hope the enlightenment project will be accepted this time around. They provide very nice libraries, though it was a shame that they were rejected in previous instalments of SoC
obviously, you've never used Shift+Insert to paste before, either ...