The difference is that (despite the huge waste of my time:) because to high noise to signal ratio) I continually give devil's advocate benefit of doubt.
Though I do have to admit to my human frailty of "preferring society and companionship of intelligent men" by "my highly personal *prejudiced* standard of intelligence and insight."
(i.e., One man has full right to prefer bimbo over an ugly woman. I have full right to prefer social company of intelligent men by my narrow definitions.:) )
I seldom assumes any flaming *idiot* as incapable of intelligent thought, just misguided and closing his mind to greater understanding and enjoyment.
J/king aside. That is my point with GOSIX. You appear to be completely unable to grasp the concept proposed.:)
The *problem* with most engines, commercial and open source, in terms of operating system support, is that it is a priori.
You must take the lump sum of the engine (i.e., Quake, that would be the static non-deformable BSP data structure?) when all you want is the lowest level common denominator functionality.
To most commercial games, engines like Quake, to even Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 Arean, is about 70% to 90% useless, or non-reusable, for me (or other commercial developers).
As coders, id have been relatively conscientious of modular coding practices.
I am advocating taking the next step up.
I am advocating first developing, then evangelizing, then distributing, the idea of most future 3D engines (or wrappers) to build on top, or next top, a simple cross-OS GOSIX low level operating system.
You may mind if your latest game doesn't have bump-mapping, or self-shadowing terrain (that for example is not in Quake).
You probably won't mind if your latest game on Wintel is still using _rdtsc to doing function timing. That functionality is supported (by a different command) on Motorola chipsets.
I am talking encapsulating the low level and less performance dependent Operating System functionality that is used by almost all games and engines, and yet is continually re-written, re-ported, re-upgraded (redudantly) on very version of every engine and game from every company and every developer.
And then I am talking about this layer being truly free and open in every sense.
Then instead of waiting for your developer or company to *port* your favorite game to your smaller (and I am talking about smaller than BeOS) platform, you can merely upload and conribute GOSIX implementation code.
And Voila, all engines and games that abide by GOSIX will run on your tiny platform... that you help to code a small part.
Any truly technically literate caveats, critiques, contributions, ideas, suggestions to GOSIX are deeply appreciated.
Any illiterate "people who don't understand the concept" posters, *PLEASE* *FIRST* re-read and re-read and re-read and re-read (and re-read again please:) ) this post here, before posting your technically illiterate response.
P.S. Apologies to going "medievally anal" on your reponse, AC.:)
I empathize it is very easy to misunderstand technical context (as I did on the first post, mis-grasping both "interface" and "layer" of the abstract summary, until I was able to visit the site and read the project spec).
As an advice (and one I am teachng myself to practice), please read very carefully before posting your non-sequitor response?
I do look forward to your "more well-thought-out" discussion and critcism to the idea. Especially any infeasibility issues.
P.P.S. "Prior Art"
In terms of "prior art", I would say Quake engine is a poor example.
The best example of "prior art" for GOSIX so far (if you can grasp the concept) is Mr. (Dr.?) Jay Lepreau's excellent OSKit work.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/
I respond to your post, only to give an excuse to link to Lepreau's OSKit html!
The above is a lot closer to prior art than your Quake source example.
What you say is true of 99.99% of all Open Source projects, unfortunately.
The specific *killer* app I described (which apparently is not this), but GOSIX (I just made it up, Game Operating System:) ) shall be built in a different manner than most Open Source projects though.
GOSIX (I think?) may have more potential professional programmer users. This may mean more commercial programmers and projects having *vested* *commercial* *technical* interest to contribute, and not just monetarily.
Just as an example, I am a professional coder, and have been one for many years. I have no wife nor baby nor life in any manner and would choose to remain steadfastly that way.:) More seriously, I am fortunate to have a day job that indulge my love and desire to code all the time.
And I am quite seriously thinking of coding up several Operating Systems versions of GOSIX. 1. I have the experience. 2. I have the time. Since Since development of GOSIX is a vital component of the engine in developemnt.
Will it become a one-man-authored code module like all others? Perhaps. But I shall be sneakier than the average bear.:)
What if I comment and document GOSIX's API. And only choose to implement GOSIX for only a few platforms?
And the next time a Be-OS or FreeBSD game player pleads me for a Be or BSD port of my 3D engine/game, I say: "Here is the open-sourced and documented GOSIX. You code the implementation. You get the game."
Then I would have fooled Be or BSD gamers into contributing to the code.
What if competing engines and games co-opt GOSIX to afford itself x-platform functionality, and save low level development time?
Good for them.
Then I could had caused more games to appear on more platforms overall.
And these competing programmers and companies will also end up additional contributors to GOSIX.
The above is entirely theoretical. None of it should be taken to have any factual or logical merit.
They are merely used illustratively of why *this particular project -- GOSIX* may be unique from some other projects.
It may be fun to design and implement GOSIX on most Operating Systems. (Game Operating System!)
A basic OS functionality (beside file and streaming IO, also accurate timers, process control (spawn, kill), lowest level packet / communication, etc.)
Once it is first written, first spec-ed, low-level OS code implemented (on top of operating systems), then any game written to GOSIX would run on all the OS supported by GOSIX.
Then the whole idea of "develop more games on Linux", "port games to FreeBSD", would be moot.
2. What I am looking for is even smaller than Posix. There really are only a small handful of Operating System functionality necessary for a game app.
3. POSIX API is relatively well-documented, and properly supported on many Unix flavors. Implementationally, it shouldn't be that hard to do an Open Source GPL small project of a POSIX Windows 98 / 2000 / NT wrapper.
Legally, are you aware of anything Microsoft will be offended by if one were to code a POSIX wrapper on top of their Operating System?
Even Wintel simple functionality does not change that much day to day.
It would still be hard to do full POSIX, but for the parts of POSIX that I need, I don't see how hard it is to: 1. first code it 2. that code remains relatively no/low maintenance
Thank you for any legal and technical caveats that you know of.
Ditto, OT, everyrhing. OMG This is funny. Thank you 348 for pointing this out. Thank you AC for linking to another OSM fan-fic. This is as close to hilarious OS fan-fic as it gets. The next time/. wants to stray OT to humor, they should have 1 news item: OS fan-fic. Then OS's humor work can be on-topic for once.
Good job. This is one of the funniest things I ever read on/. .
I misunderstood. I should be moderated down for OT!:)
I finally was able to get on the site. While it is cool what the project is.
What I am looking for (wishful thinking:) ) is a "thinner than real Operating System basic functionality 'shell'." I am less concerned about deskstop appearance.
I am more concerned or interested in some sort of global universal coding project in which a lowest common denominator set of basic Operating System functionality is supported.
This is *different* from Linux or FreeBSD or any other full blown Operating System in the sense that it is both smaller than an Operating System, and most likely sits on top of Operating System.
What I mean by is a small universal library, that gets accurate clock (system timer), that handles directory and data streaming services.
I appear to misunderstand both "shell" (a literal GUI shell, and not an "abstraction shell or layer"), and interface (visual interface, and not "interface into Operating System / hardware / functionality").
For everyone who shall respond to this as: just support "X" Operating System. That is the point.:) I wonder if it is possible for small game app to be cross operating system by sitting on top a small lib like such.:) (instead of manually porting the small API to each platform every time).
Apologies for misunderstanding. And moderate me down darn it!
P.S. They are then in fact in the *same* market as Operating System / Linux. They shall have the same "technical support user-friendliness manpower" problem of competing against commercial houses as they do. Thus, some of my above advice shall be more difficult to apply.
It is *easy* to support code for engineers.
It is *too much work* to support "low literacy users" like how can I customize my widget to a different color?
P.P.S. Isn't it annoying or funny Operating System and Open Source have the same initials?
The brief description appears to be Very Good Thing. It shall increase the number of applications and games on more OS's.
If it becomes phenomenally successful, your participants would have been instrumental to some large positive contributions to application spread.
Would this "historical" motivation be suficient?:)
// GPL is the only way
The precise reasons why all the commercial cross-UI projects fail / fall short is...
The only way such a layer can be constructed is through GPL.
There are too many platforms, each of those platforms upgrades (downgrades:) ) too quickly too often, too many new devices popping out too fast.
Any commercial limited-man team (versus the infinite manpower of GPL code resource) shall eventually be outstripped.
GPL is the only chance for a successful implementation of this.
I myself am looking forward to it both as user, and as coder.
Don't even think of anyway to "protect" commercial interests. The moment any part of it becomes "closed" (even in the form of "cannot be modified until after inconvenient beureaucracy") would hamper or destroy this project.
You shall succeed where commercial apps precisely and only because of open-ness.
// Commericial : higher level applications
How do you protect yourself against higher level applications (like games, database applications) that co-opt your code *freely* to provide our commercial applications with your functionality?
1. Credit and Appreciation
We commerical users of GPL code shall do what we always do. Accord code authors and groups with proper credit. Demonstrate our appreciation with thanks.
2. Donation
We commercial users shall thank you, after your code module demonstrates sufficient robustness, by donating actual development budget, to further fund your work.
There is precedence for this, and I do not suspect we shall change.
I shall watch your project very closely, and if I do see many other commercial developers or peers making good use of it in the future, I shall personally goad such peers into donation.:)
The same speaks for me. If I personally find your code base highly helpful to my commercial projects, I shall contribute what I can, even non-financially, to ensure the continual growth and support of your group.
// Commerical : lower level implementations
How do you protect yourself from commercial developers of low level layers?
The answer is you don't have a thing to worry from them.:)
1. GPL
That you are GPL and open, and they are closed and have limited manpower, shall easily cause your product (if organized properly, and if sufficient good code is contributed) easily to become technically superior and robust.
As I exposit above, there is no way any commercial company can keep up with all the versions of all the platforms. It shall bankrupt their payroll before this happens.
You *are* at a technological advantage.
2. Free or Pay
What if they just *copy* your layer verbatim and sell it for a profit?
As my understanding, this is exactly what GPL or Free Software is about! People are free to make profit off the code.
How shall your coders protect yourself?
Easy.
Be available to offer good friendly support to "users" (most likely higher level developers like us).
As *competitor* with the above commercial plagiarizer, you are already at an advantage:
1. Your product is free. Theirs cost money.
You are winning on the cost / price competition.
2. Your product can potentially have better technical support than theirs, if you do it right.
You have the resource of the original coders of the modules to support application developers.
They merely have plagiarizers or interpretors. Or a phone technician who did not even work on the code.
You actually have a better chance of this *protection* than Linux.
The average user or target market of Linux are lower literacy non-coders who need a lot of hand-holding ( and all the users who don't belong this category are already using Debian and not Red Hat:) ).
The target market or user of your layer are high level application technology literate commerical coders like myself, who are "easier" to support.
The scope of what you need to answer or help, would not run as wide a gamut as an entire Operating System.
// Project Scope Suggestion
I have been thinking the same thing on a much smaller scale for a very small subset of OS services that are needed by most game applications.
If this project is early on, may I suggest a smaller scope of Operating System Services?
In fact I can submit you privately a short spec of a small handful of *essential* functionality.
Besides the obvious personal bias that I am a commerical game developer, there are some gains for you as well:
1. A completed small project is better than a non-completed larger entity.
If done modularly and correctly, such completed small project can easily be grown and extended to its final ambition.
You can get to your technical proof of concept quicker. Ensuring both momentum and success.
2. Test Bed
By building your first iteration to a set of common functions, that already have quite a few applications waiting to ride on top of them, you have the fastest means to a nice group of users.
This again helps to smooth out kinks, track down bugs, proof in the pudding, kind of feedback that is hard to get by writing a "lower layer" in a "user-less" vaccuum.
// Disclaimer
Your site had been/.'ed. I could not get not on the site to review the project's technicality and specification.
The above is only based on what I can guess from your summary. Apologies to any misunderstanding.
What constitutes an entity, a structure that is same self?
It is continuity, and only continuity.
In coding, the only thing that constitudes an on-going process is its memory, its state variables controlling, remembering, verifying, holding onto its flimsy existence.
The moment there is a memory overrun from another process or moduel that trashes this continuity by trashing these flimsy variables, boom, the process dies, what is "self" dies.
We calls it death.
Do you really think biological neurons with its flimsy pathways holding these flimsy state variables are anymore real, conscious, permanent, existence and identification of self's?
I look back at the man I was 10 years ago, I was a year ago, I look back at what I thought only 1 day ago, and I realize if I were a network server trasmitting myself, that there are some massive baseline deltas going on.
I am not the man I was one second ago. Neither are you.
Your biological sigmoidal neural network pathways holding onto continuities are the only thing that gives you the reality or illusion of continuous self.
Take that away, and you are not you either.
So, we are going down onto merely the storage media, the execution buffer.
*That* a box with a copy you *does not feel like you* is not an indication your current existence of self is any more robust.
It *should* pinpoint how absurd it is that you now think you are you.
You only are lulled into that belief because of your neural pathway state variables! That is all you are! Faint, unreliable, failing, easily overrun little variables hanging onto threads of continuity.
You, and most humans, are continually at the brink of not existing. And you don't even need to die to do it.
As I am coding and thinking through networking in a completely new light, I come to see the parallels of communication and mis-communication in RL, I come to finally understanding the intertwining relationships of "insightful", "perception", "classy" and "privacy." I come to understand God is a priori to infrastructure of culture and creation of man.
*One* insight from this is when person A appears to be insightful or classy to group B, and when person C appears to be stupid or tacky to same group B.
It is not necessarily that A is more insightful or classy.
Such Group B reception (client deciphering of message packet) is merely indicating audience comfort, appropriateness of language, message, and context, and describing its comfort level with assignment of values *like* insightful, classy, or stupid, or tacky.
Precisely because of this insight I have arrived, I recognize my recent understanding of network server client technology cum God as a priori is completely incorrect for audience / client receiver slashdot.
It shall be incorrectly interpreted as techno-elitist, techno-babble, obscure erudition, soft-philosophy all at the same time. It shall be misinterpreted as hot air blowing, and not true contemplation, enlightenment, or technology breakthrough.
No, what this audience, and what generic news readers want to read, is some easy to digest pop psych views on "I am an empowered woman and I can be anything I want. Girls rock and rulez! I can underwater basketweave and dance on my tiptoe at the same time. I have choices to wear red skirt with green stockings if I want to."
Thereby I shared it with appropriate audience, which turns out only to be 1 human being in this whole world.
There is too much I think, that I try to comprehend, that I gain to understand from coding, that shall not be sharable to most people in this world.
No, not because I am smart.
But because I tend to think and contemplate things of zero interest to anyone.
Go flame at the utter pretentiousness of this post.:) It *is* the wrong audience, and I tried so hard not to mention a single thing (and I still haven't:) ) of my thoughts on this.
I am half serious. It is factual I have blocked all news. Reading chick troll news, and reading subsequent ignorant generalizations, get me riled up for no good end.
I know as well as a lot of AC posters that my writing does not and cannot change the world to a more enlightened place. Maybe my code can, after I spend more time on it.
If I keep getting indignant, I'd turn into a John Katz.:)
That's why the 1st module I ever write and put in a new project is memory and heap allocators, full of overrun magic numbers, underrun magic numbers, freed data tokens.
You do some memset like this... big giant assertions go boom.:)
Looks like I amalgamated 2 cool Namco games into one. Voldo is in Soul Caliber. Xiao-Yu is in Tekken.
So the analogy would be I'd rather play Voldo than Ivy (who looks cool:) ) cuz Ivy's "mid" range attacks suck. It is distance attack. Or close attack. Then there are these huge gaps in distances where she has no fighting wherewithal.
Voldo can slink into and out of a lot of situations.
The following is personal standpoint of course, and not representative of my current coding game project, or my company.
1. If you look deeper (I did), I start to think of George / 3DR as stealth feminists.:)
Of course, if I actually say that to George, I'd pissed him off big time.:)
They hired a "human coder" only because they need him/her. They need his/her code.
There are many companies that: "Hey, we should hire a woman to get more press. To improve our image."
But only 3DR: "We should hire this HUMAN because he/she is one of the best / most knowledgeable."
2. Duke
I like Duke for a long time before people start to tell me it is sexist.
Enjoying pornography, puns, bad jokes, is not demeaning to women.
Unless I think of myself as a pixlelated sprite stripper in the game.
Unless I think Duke represents (or is meant to) in any way the real world (then I may as well believe in Everquest and we are all elves and dwarfs).
Then, maybe I'd have some problems.
There is a "huge divide" of 1 make-belief world I (and most sane players) understand to be make-belief.
And sincere Katz-like genuinely concerned people believing seriously in "the reality that men and women are different."
Katz (sorry Katz) wasn't making a joke when he writes all those articles. He really believes in them.
Being a HUMAN who plays and enjoys games for many years, I have a very solid grasp on: a. game -> fantasy b. real world
When I choose to be Voldo in Soul Caliber, and not Xiao-Yu. I think to myself:
Voldo have a lot of sneaky feights that I can confuse a lot of players so that they don't even know where I am coming
not
I think of myself more like a male homosexual perverted Italian sex slave masochist, than a Chinese female acrobat
Note to newbie gamers: If you start applying real life prejudices to gaming, you are going to suck. It is like the movie "Matrix." Play with the "rules of the games", not your perception of reality.
You are welcome to email me off-line for further discussion on the above.
// "finally" etc.
It appears we are on the same page.
The issues are a lot less across gender divides.
It is a lot more on the true meaning of prejudices. Prejudices of all kinds.
Over-generalizations of a lot of human beings (male and female) that people don't know about.
What I battle is true prejudice, and I don't care if I am doing it for a man, or for a woman (or for myself, or my enemy, or for my friend).
Whenever I see someone makes 1 erroneous generalization (thus prejudice in the real meaning of the word), I have a nasty irrepresible need to right a wrong.:) This gets me in unnecessary trouble.
My view is prejudice, and over-generalization is not only annoying or unfair.
It perpetuates ignorance. It stifles progress to greater understanding or knowledge.
The particular Carmack bashing human should for example cease to gain greater insight in Quake rasterization implementation. The ones who see woman first and knowledge source second will cease learn more in math or code.
So thus I act locally to battle every minute pointless instance of true prejudice, of over-generalization.
You had heard of the movement of "random act of kindess"?
It would be nice if there is a: 1. "random act of enlightenment" 2. "random act against misinformation / over-generalization / true prejudice"
1. We agree OO is implementable in C (even assembly, I had written object-oriented assembly before, seriously) and C++. 2. So the real question comes down to "protection."
// protection
Your point is that C doesn't have a nasty mean sentry standing in the way, saying "You can't do that bro."
And that OO languages / C++ do. "Hey buddy, I am private, stay off my turf."
You, my friend, are underestimating the ingenuity of the evil-programming-user!:)
If someone really wants to muck with their prissy private member, he can just do a cast on this pointer (heh, I have seen people do that a "LOT"!:) ), and voila, all your protection is for naught.
OO is a discipline for both the implementer, and the user. Just because some languages "put up some verifications for cheats" don't make them foolproof against malicious bad users... there are many malicious bad users.:)
OO as a concept should be divorced and distilled from language implementation. When you tell the whole team to do OO, you should let them know:
1. just because you are using C doesn't mean you can get away with "this mess" 2. just because your file module is named.cpp, just because your code has these class { tokens in them, if you do evil things like cast this pointer to get to private members... you are still evil... you still should be flogged!
That or the bad mean evil creator of the class that so oppress you such that the only you can use his darn class is to access a private.
Heh, I tried to be funny (failed!).
You get my point. Bad code in OO language with "protection." Good code possible in assembly.
It is all in the state of mind, in the will of programmers.
// contracts
What you say about contracts is perfect. And pretty much what I said just right now.
A "base" class doesn't do any encapsulation for you.
It is cooperation with implementer and user.
I contend this cooperation can be equally easy accomplished in C / linear language,
than in OO languages that "guard you from bad practices through syntaxes."
If team developers cooperate -- derivation and encapsulation happens, whatever the language.
If team developers sabotage (I shall stick everything private so none of you can get at anything MWAHHAHAHAHAH! I shall cast my this pointer and loot your protected treasures dry MWAHAHAHHHAHAHAH!) then you can be using "PERFECT OO LANGUAGE FROM GOD HIMSELF" and you'd be messed up.
The short answer is coding at 3DR is more fun than: people making bizarre generalizations about people they don't know 1. you said something == you think you are important 2. you want to talk (and ask about, and learn) about math/code / you say things I don't understand / you say things I can't discuss with == you think you are important / smart 3. you work at game companies that I "kind of" heard of before:) == you think you are important == you think you are famous 4. you have "struggles" with being annoyed by "gender related things" / you are easily goaded or piqued into responding to dorky situations == you are not getting over yourself
Duke the game, boothbabe, zoomed angles, just pale by comparison.:)
Heh, it's fun to go OT. In some ways it seems difficult (at least for me:) ) to design good VM, and implement good VM. What are the best way choose decent op codes for VM? What are some caveats to VM implementation? What are some tricks to coding good VM's? Do understand my VM making ability to limited to the brute-force big look up table of code to execution. There *must* be a more intelligent way of putting a VM together by professionals than the way I hack them together.:) Thanks for any VM information you would have.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy.
:) because to high noise to signal ratio) I continually give devil's advocate benefit of doubt.
:) )
The difference is that (despite the huge waste of my time
Though I do have to admit to my human frailty of "preferring society and companionship of intelligent men" by "my highly personal *prejudiced* standard of intelligence and insight."
(i.e., One man has full right to prefer bimbo over an ugly woman. I have full right to prefer social company of intelligent men by my narrow definitions.
I seldom assumes any flaming *idiot* as incapable of intelligent thought, just misguided and closing his mind to greater understanding and enjoyment.
Not to give good old St. John a hard time, since he did throw some good parties. :)
:)
He is "close-sourcing" Genesis. Walk the Walk, Saint. Enough-said.
But it doesn't run on FreeBSD or VMS! :)
:)
... that you help to code a small part.
:) ) this post here, before posting your technically illiterate response.
:)
J/king aside. That is my point with GOSIX. You appear to be completely unable to grasp the concept proposed.
The *problem* with most engines, commercial and open source, in terms of operating system support, is that it is a priori.
You must take the lump sum of the engine (i.e., Quake, that would be the static non-deformable BSP data structure?) when all you want is the lowest level common denominator functionality.
To most commercial games, engines like Quake, to even Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 Arean, is about 70% to 90% useless, or non-reusable, for me (or other commercial developers).
As coders, id have been relatively conscientious of modular coding practices.
I am advocating taking the next step up.
I am advocating first developing, then evangelizing, then distributing, the idea of most future 3D engines (or wrappers) to build on top, or next top, a simple cross-OS GOSIX low level operating system.
You may mind if your latest game doesn't have bump-mapping, or self-shadowing terrain (that for example is not in Quake).
You probably won't mind if your latest game on Wintel is still using _rdtsc to doing function timing. That functionality is supported (by a different command) on Motorola chipsets.
I am talking encapsulating the low level and less performance dependent Operating System functionality that is used by almost all games and engines, and yet is continually re-written, re-ported, re-upgraded (redudantly) on very version of every engine and game from every company and every developer.
And then I am talking about this layer being truly free and open in every sense.
Then instead of waiting for your developer or company to *port* your favorite game to your smaller (and I am talking about smaller than BeOS) platform, you can merely upload and conribute GOSIX implementation code.
And Voila, all engines and games that abide by GOSIX will run on your tiny platform
Any truly technically literate caveats, critiques, contributions, ideas, suggestions to GOSIX are deeply appreciated.
Any illiterate "people who don't understand the concept" posters, *PLEASE* *FIRST* re-read and re-read and re-read and re-read (and re-read again please
P.S. Apologies to going "medievally anal" on your reponse, AC.
I empathize it is very easy to misunderstand technical context (as I did on the first post, mis-grasping both "interface" and "layer" of the abstract summary, until I was able to visit the site and read the project spec).
As an advice (and one I am teachng myself to practice), please read very carefully before posting your non-sequitor response?
I do look forward to your "more well-thought-out" discussion and critcism to the idea. Especially any infeasibility issues.
P.P.S. "Prior Art"
In terms of "prior art", I would say Quake engine is a poor example.
The best example of "prior art" for GOSIX so far (if you can grasp the concept) is Mr. (Dr.?) Jay Lepreau's excellent OSKit work.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/oskit/
I respond to your post, only to give an excuse to link to Lepreau's OSKit html!
The above is a lot closer to prior art than your Quake source example.
What you say is true of 99.99% of all Open Source projects, unfortunately.
:) ) shall be built in a different manner than most Open Source projects though.
:) More seriously, I am fortunate to have a day job that indulge my love and desire to code all the time.
:)
The specific *killer* app I described (which apparently is not this), but GOSIX (I just made it up, Game Operating System
GOSIX (I think?) may have more potential professional programmer users. This may mean more commercial programmers and projects having *vested* *commercial* *technical* interest to contribute, and not just monetarily.
Just as an example, I am a professional coder, and have been one for many years. I have no wife nor baby nor life in any manner and would choose to remain steadfastly that way.
And I am quite seriously thinking of coding up several Operating Systems versions of GOSIX.
1. I have the experience.
2. I have the time. Since Since development of GOSIX is a vital component of the engine in developemnt.
Will it become a one-man-authored code module like all others? Perhaps. But I shall be sneakier than the average bear.
What if I comment and document GOSIX's API. And only choose to implement GOSIX for only a few platforms?
And the next time a Be-OS or FreeBSD game player pleads me for a Be or BSD port of my 3D engine/game, I say: "Here is the open-sourced and documented GOSIX. You code the implementation. You get the game."
Then I would have fooled Be or BSD gamers into contributing to the code.
What if competing engines and games co-opt GOSIX to afford itself x-platform functionality, and save low level development time?
Good for them.
Then I could had caused more games to appear on more platforms overall.
And these competing programmers and companies will also end up additional contributors to GOSIX.
The above is entirely theoretical. None of it should be taken to have any factual or logical merit.
They are merely used illustratively of why *this particular project -- GOSIX* may be unique from some other projects.
It may be fun to design and implement GOSIX on most Operating Systems. (Game Operating System!)
A basic OS functionality (beside file and streaming IO, also accurate timers, process control (spawn, kill), lowest level packet / communication, etc.)
Once it is first written, first spec-ed, low-level OS code implemented (on top of operating systems), then any game written to GOSIX would run on all the OS supported by GOSIX.
Then the whole idea of "develop more games on Linux", "port games to FreeBSD", would be moot.
1. Thank you.
2. What I am looking for is even smaller than Posix. There really are only a small handful of Operating System functionality necessary for a game app.
3. POSIX API is relatively well-documented, and properly supported on many Unix flavors. Implementationally, it shouldn't be that hard to do an Open Source GPL small project of a POSIX Windows 98 / 2000 / NT wrapper.
Legally, are you aware of anything Microsoft will be offended by if one were to code a POSIX wrapper on top of their Operating System?
Even Wintel simple functionality does not change that much day to day.
It would still be hard to do full POSIX, but for the parts of POSIX that I need, I don't see how hard it is to:
1. first code it
2. that code remains relatively no/low maintenance
Thank you for any legal and technical caveats that you know of.
Ditto, OT, everyrhing. /. wants to stray OT to humor, they should have 1 news item: OS fan-fic.
/. .
OMG This is funny.
Thank you 348 for pointing this out.
Thank you AC for linking to another OSM fan-fic.
This is as close to hilarious OS fan-fic as it gets.
The next time
Then OS's humor work can be on-topic for once.
Good job. This is one of the funniest things I ever read on
I shall use my +1 bonus for good.
Moderate this up. Informative.
If you really want to see your favorite titles on Linux, don't just post here. Email or post there. Let these developers know.
They have a good track record of porting many titles.
I'll tell Keith that.
:)
:)
Who knows, I may *ask* to do the port as a vacation after my big 3D engine project now. Keith'd be happy.
I have been thinking of taking a 4-week vacation to write small or GPL code, before going back to another big long coding project.
No, flamers, I haven't been thinking about taking a vacation after the 3D engine *that* much.
*If* I can find any old Realms of Chaos swag, I'll mail you off some for being such a fan.
I misunderstood. I should be moderated down for OT! :)
:) ) is a "thinner than real Operating System basic functionality 'shell'." I am less concerned about deskstop appearance.
:) I wonder if it is possible for small game app to be cross operating system by sitting on top a small lib like such. :) (instead of manually porting the small API to each platform every time).
I finally was able to get on the site. While it is cool what the project is.
What I am looking for (wishful thinking
I am more concerned or interested in some sort of global universal coding project in which a lowest common denominator set of basic Operating System functionality is supported.
This is *different* from Linux or FreeBSD or any other full blown Operating System in the sense that it is both smaller than an Operating System, and most likely sits on top of Operating System.
What I mean by is a small universal library, that gets accurate clock (system timer), that handles directory and data streaming services.
I appear to misunderstand both "shell" (a literal GUI shell, and not an "abstraction shell or layer"), and interface (visual interface, and not "interface into Operating System / hardware / functionality").
For everyone who shall respond to this as: just support "X" Operating System. That is the point.
Apologies for misunderstanding. And moderate me down darn it!
P.S. They are then in fact in the *same* market as Operating System / Linux. They shall have the same "technical support user-friendliness manpower" problem of competing against commercial houses as they do. Thus, some of my above advice shall be more difficult to apply.
It is *easy* to support code for engineers.
It is *too much work* to support "low literacy users" like how can I customize my widget to a different color?
P.P.S. Isn't it annoying or funny Operating System and Open Source have the same initials?
Just for you Keith Schuler
Paginitsu
:)
// Good Thing
:)
...
:) ) too quickly too often, too many new devices popping out too fast.
:)
:)
:) ).
/.'ed. I could not get not on the site to review the project's technicality and specification.
The brief description appears to be Very Good Thing. It shall increase the number of applications and games on more OS's.
If it becomes phenomenally successful, your participants would have been instrumental to some large positive contributions to application spread.
Would this "historical" motivation be suficient?
// GPL is the only way
The precise reasons why all the commercial cross-UI projects fail / fall short is
The only way such a layer can be constructed is through GPL.
There are too many platforms, each of those platforms upgrades (downgrades
Any commercial limited-man team (versus the infinite manpower of GPL code resource) shall eventually be outstripped.
GPL is the only chance for a successful implementation of this.
I myself am looking forward to it both as user, and as coder.
Don't even think of anyway to "protect" commercial interests. The moment any part of it becomes "closed" (even in the form of "cannot be modified until after inconvenient beureaucracy") would hamper or destroy this project.
You shall succeed where commercial apps precisely and only because of open-ness.
// Commericial : higher level applications
How do you protect yourself against higher level applications (like games, database applications) that co-opt your code *freely* to provide our commercial applications with your functionality?
1. Credit and Appreciation
We commerical users of GPL code shall do what we always do. Accord code authors and groups with proper credit. Demonstrate our appreciation with thanks.
2. Donation
We commercial users shall thank you, after your code module demonstrates sufficient robustness, by donating actual development budget, to further fund your work.
There is precedence for this, and I do not suspect we shall change.
I shall watch your project very closely, and if I do see many other commercial developers or peers making good use of it in the future, I shall personally goad such peers into donation.
The same speaks for me. If I personally find your code base highly helpful to my commercial projects, I shall contribute what I can, even non-financially, to ensure the continual growth and support of your group.
// Commerical : lower level implementations
How do you protect yourself from commercial developers of low level layers?
The answer is you don't have a thing to worry from them.
1. GPL
That you are GPL and open, and they are closed and have limited manpower, shall easily cause your product (if organized properly, and if sufficient good code is contributed) easily to become technically superior and robust.
As I exposit above, there is no way any commercial company can keep up with all the versions of all the platforms. It shall bankrupt their payroll before this happens.
You *are* at a technological advantage.
2. Free or Pay
What if they just *copy* your layer verbatim and sell it for a profit?
As my understanding, this is exactly what GPL or Free Software is about! People are free to make profit off the code.
How shall your coders protect yourself?
Easy.
Be available to offer good friendly support to "users" (most likely higher level developers like us).
As *competitor* with the above commercial plagiarizer, you are already at an advantage:
1. Your product is free. Theirs cost money.
You are winning on the cost / price competition.
2. Your product can potentially have better technical support than theirs, if you do it right.
You have the resource of the original coders of the modules to support application developers.
They merely have plagiarizers or interpretors. Or a phone technician who did not even work on the code.
You actually have a better chance of this *protection* than Linux.
The average user or target market of Linux are lower literacy non-coders who need a lot of hand-holding ( and all the users who don't belong this category are already using Debian and not Red Hat
The target market or user of your layer are high level application technology literate commerical coders like myself, who are "easier" to support.
The scope of what you need to answer or help, would not run as wide a gamut as an entire Operating System.
// Project Scope Suggestion
I have been thinking the same thing on a much smaller scale for a very small subset of OS services that are needed by most game applications.
If this project is early on, may I suggest a smaller scope of Operating System Services?
In fact I can submit you privately a short spec of a small handful of *essential* functionality.
Besides the obvious personal bias that I am a commerical game developer, there are some gains for you as well:
1. A completed small project is better than a non-completed larger entity.
If done modularly and correctly, such completed small project can easily be grown and extended to its final ambition.
You can get to your technical proof of concept quicker. Ensuring both momentum and success.
2. Test Bed
By building your first iteration to a set of common functions, that already have quite a few applications waiting to ride on top of them, you have the fastest means to a nice group of users.
This again helps to smooth out kinks, track down bugs, proof in the pudding, kind of feedback that is hard to get by writing a "lower layer" in a "user-less" vaccuum.
// Disclaimer
Your site had been
The above is only based on what I can guess from your summary. Apologies to any misunderstanding.
Loopback: yes, this is what I understood about prejudice.
... yes, the "close-minded lack of comprehension" onto another.
Prejudice begets greater prejudice. That is the true evil of prejudice.
Not the whole black man makes less per white man dollar thing.
When one man is prejudiced against, he spreads and propagates the hatred, anger
This is the greatest and truest reasons why prejudice in all named and unnamed forms should be stopped.
In fact prejudice without a name (i.e., misconcpetions of Free-BSD) are even more harmful than widely known prejudice (like racial).
Without a name, it creeps surreptitiously like a meme into a mind, and quietly spreads itself like a virus.
What constitutes an entity, a structure that is same self?
It is continuity, and only continuity.
In coding, the only thing that constitudes an on-going process is its memory, its state variables controlling, remembering, verifying, holding onto its flimsy existence.
The moment there is a memory overrun from another process or moduel that trashes this continuity by trashing these flimsy variables, boom, the process dies, what is "self" dies.
We calls it death.
Do you really think biological neurons with its flimsy pathways holding these flimsy state variables are anymore real, conscious, permanent, existence and identification of self's?
I look back at the man I was 10 years ago, I was a year ago, I look back at what I thought only 1 day ago, and I realize if I were a network server trasmitting myself, that there are some massive baseline deltas going on.
I am not the man I was one second ago. Neither are you.
Your biological sigmoidal neural network pathways holding onto continuities are the only thing that gives you the reality or illusion of continuous self.
Take that away, and you are not you either.
So, we are going down onto merely the storage media, the execution buffer.
*That* a box with a copy you *does not feel like you* is not an indication your current existence of self is any more robust.
It *should* pinpoint how absurd it is that you now think you are you.
You only are lulled into that belief because of your neural pathway state variables! That is all you are! Faint, unreliable, failing, easily overrun little variables hanging onto threads of continuity.
You, and most humans, are continually at the brink of not existing. And you don't even need to die to do it.
Yes, I think too much.
:) It *is* the wrong audience, and I tried so hard not to mention a single thing (and I still haven't :) ) of my thoughts on this.
And au contraire.
As I am coding and thinking through networking in a completely new light, I come to see the parallels of communication and mis-communication in RL, I come to finally understanding the intertwining relationships of "insightful", "perception", "classy" and "privacy." I come to understand God is a priori to infrastructure of culture and creation of man.
*One* insight from this is when person A appears to be insightful or classy to group B, and when person C appears to be stupid or tacky to same group B.
It is not necessarily that A is more insightful or classy.
Such Group B reception (client deciphering of message packet) is merely indicating audience comfort, appropriateness of language, message, and context, and describing its comfort level with assignment of values *like* insightful, classy, or stupid, or tacky.
Precisely because of this insight I have arrived, I recognize my recent understanding of network server client technology cum God as a priori is completely incorrect for audience / client receiver slashdot.
It shall be incorrectly interpreted as techno-elitist, techno-babble, obscure erudition, soft-philosophy all at the same time. It shall be misinterpreted as hot air blowing, and not true contemplation, enlightenment, or technology breakthrough.
No, what this audience, and what generic news readers want to read, is some easy to digest pop psych views on "I am an empowered woman and I can be anything I want. Girls rock and rulez! I can underwater basketweave and dance on my tiptoe at the same time. I have choices to wear red skirt with green stockings if I want to."
Thereby I shared it with appropriate audience, which turns out only to be 1 human being in this whole world.
There is too much I think, that I try to comprehend, that I gain to understand from coding, that shall not be sharable to most people in this world.
No, not because I am smart.
But because I tend to think and contemplate things of zero interest to anyone.
Go flame at the utter pretentiousness of this post.
I am half serious. It is factual I have blocked all news. Reading chick troll news, and reading subsequent ignorant generalizations, get me riled up for no good end.
:)
I know as well as a lot of AC posters that my writing does not and cannot change the world to a more enlightened place. Maybe my code can, after I spend more time on it.
If I keep getting indignant, I'd turn into a John Katz.
My engine code doesn't have memset, my friend.
:)
I call C_Zero_Memory.
(I also have C_Fill_Memory for those necessary moments.)
So, yes, it can assert at C_Zero_Memory, on the stack, at the point of failure.
BTW. C stands for Common as in Common functions. It does not stand for Corrinne.
P.S. A corollary is C_Zero_Memory is (and can be)platform optimized. Internally for windows, C_Zero_Memory calls ZeroMemory.
Going way OT :)
... :)
That's why the 1st module I ever write and put in a new project is memory and heap allocators, full of overrun magic numbers, underrun magic numbers, freed data tokens.
You do some memset like this
big giant assertions go boom.
Looks like I amalgamated 2 cool Namco games into one. Voldo is in Soul Caliber. Xiao-Yu is in Tekken.
:) ) cuz Ivy's "mid" range attacks suck. It is distance attack. Or close attack. Then there are these huge gaps in distances where she has no fighting wherewithal.
So the analogy would be I'd rather play Voldo than Ivy (who looks cool
Voldo can slink into and out of a lot of situations.
Adden:
If one believes
lack of a female virtual game character in one game causes or deepens sexism
one game's inclusion of a virtual female game character improves one's feminism
then one may as well believe Doom causes Columbine.
// 3DR
:)
:)
:) This gets me in unnecessary trouble.
The following is personal standpoint of course, and not representative of my current coding game project, or my company.
1. If you look deeper (I did), I start to think of George / 3DR as stealth feminists.
Of course, if I actually say that to George, I'd pissed him off big time.
They hired a "human coder" only because they need him/her. They need his/her code.
There are many companies that: "Hey, we should hire a woman to get more press. To improve our image."
But only 3DR: "We should hire this HUMAN because he/she is one of the best / most knowledgeable."
2. Duke
I like Duke for a long time before people start to tell me it is sexist.
Enjoying pornography, puns, bad jokes, is not demeaning to women.
Unless I think of myself as a pixlelated sprite stripper in the game.
Unless I think Duke represents (or is meant to) in any way the real world (then I may as well believe in Everquest and we are all elves and dwarfs).
Then, maybe I'd have some problems.
There is a "huge divide" of 1 make-belief world I (and most sane players) understand to be make-belief.
And sincere Katz-like genuinely concerned people believing seriously in "the reality that men and women are different."
Katz (sorry Katz) wasn't making a joke when he writes all those articles. He really believes in them.
Being a HUMAN who plays and enjoys games for many years, I have a very solid grasp on:
a. game -> fantasy
b. real world
When I choose to be Voldo in Soul Caliber, and not Xiao-Yu. I think to myself:
Voldo have a lot of sneaky feights that I can confuse a lot of players so that they don't even know where I am coming
not
I think of myself more like a male homosexual perverted Italian sex slave masochist, than a Chinese female acrobat
Note to newbie gamers: If you start applying real life prejudices to gaming, you are going to suck. It is like the movie "Matrix." Play with the "rules of the games", not your perception of reality.
You are welcome to email me off-line for further discussion on the above.
// "finally" etc.
It appears we are on the same page.
The issues are a lot less across gender divides.
It is a lot more on the true meaning of prejudices. Prejudices of all kinds.
Over-generalizations of a lot of human beings (male and female) that people don't know about.
What I battle is true prejudice, and I don't care if I am doing it for a man, or for a woman (or for myself, or my enemy, or for my friend).
Whenever I see someone makes 1 erroneous generalization (thus prejudice in the real meaning of the word), I have a nasty irrepresible need to right a wrong.
My view is prejudice, and over-generalization is not only annoying or unfair.
It perpetuates ignorance. It stifles progress to greater understanding or knowledge.
The particular Carmack bashing human should for example cease to gain greater insight in Quake rasterization implementation. The ones who see woman first and knowledge source second will cease learn more in math or code.
So thus I act locally to battle every minute pointless instance of true prejudice, of over-generalization.
You had heard of the movement of "random act of kindess"?
It would be nice if there is a:
1. "random act of enlightenment"
2. "random act against misinformation / over-generalization / true prejudice"
1. We agree OO is implementable in C (even assembly, I had written object-oriented assembly before, seriously) and C++.
:)
:) ), and voila, all your protection is for naught.
... there are many malicious bad users. :)
.cpp, just because your code has these class { tokens in them, if you do evil things like cast this pointer to get to private members ... you are still evil ... you still should be flogged!
2. So the real question comes down to "protection."
// protection
Your point is that C doesn't have a nasty mean sentry standing in the way, saying "You can't do that bro."
And that OO languages / C++ do. "Hey buddy, I am private, stay off my turf."
You, my friend, are underestimating the ingenuity of the evil-programming-user!
If someone really wants to muck with their prissy private member, he can just do a cast on this pointer (heh, I have seen people do that a "LOT"!
OO is a discipline for both the implementer, and the user. Just because some languages "put up some verifications for cheats" don't make them foolproof against malicious bad users
OO as a concept should be divorced and distilled from language implementation. When you tell the whole team to do OO, you should let them know:
1. just because you are using C doesn't mean you can get away with "this mess"
2. just because your file module is named
That or the bad mean evil creator of the class that so oppress you such that the only you can use his darn class is to access a private.
Heh, I tried to be funny (failed!).
You get my point. Bad code in OO language with "protection." Good code possible in assembly.
It is all in the state of mind, in the will of programmers.
// contracts
What you say about contracts is perfect. And pretty much what I said just right now.
A "base" class doesn't do any encapsulation for you.
It is cooperation with implementer and user.
I contend this cooperation can be equally easy accomplished in C / linear language,
than in OO languages that "guard you from bad practices through syntaxes."
If team developers cooperate -- derivation and encapsulation happens, whatever the language.
If team developers sabotage (I shall stick everything private so none of you can get at anything MWAHHAHAHAHAH! I shall cast my this pointer and loot your protected treasures dry MWAHAHAHHHAHAHAH!) then you can be using "PERFECT OO LANGUAGE FROM GOD HIMSELF" and you'd be messed up.
eh ... that's why I posted the question ... you put up your web site, but not your email. :)
I did your Java VM project on your web site.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/01/25/15023 8&cid=290
:) == you think you are important == you think you are famous
:)
The short answer is coding at 3DR is more fun than:
people making bizarre generalizations about people they don't know
1. you said something == you think you are important
2. you want to talk (and ask about, and learn) about math/code / you say things I don't understand / you say things I can't discuss with == you think you are important / smart
3. you work at game companies that I "kind of" heard of before
4. you have "struggles" with being annoyed by "gender related things" / you are easily goaded or piqued into responding to dorky situations == you are not getting over yourself
Duke the game, boothbabe, zoomed angles, just pale by comparison.
Heh, it's fun to go OT. :) ) to design good VM, and implement good VM. :)
In some ways it seems difficult (at least for me
What are the best way choose decent op codes for VM?
What are some caveats to VM implementation?
What are some tricks to coding good VM's?
Do understand my VM making ability to limited to the brute-force big look up table of code to execution. There *must* be a more intelligent way of putting a VM together by professionals than the way I hack them together.
Thanks for any VM information you would have.