Contrast with the UT install on Windows, which consisted of clicking "Next" a few times.
This wasn't my experience at all (unreal tournament 2004 for Linux). It had as pretty a graphical installer as you could want, zero extra fiddling required.
however the last . is assumed and doesn't need to be typed.
Not really. Domain names ending in . are Fully Qualified Domain Names. If they don't end in., the resolver should try your search list before falling back to the root domains.
Just like how http:// (space added to prevent it from turning into a link) is assumed and typing slashdot.org into the address bar of your browser will take you to site.
You can also type "slashdot" and, subject to certain conditions, you'll get to slashdot. That all is done in the browser; the FQDN question is lower level than that.
E.g. you always write "http://www.hotmail.com/". not "http://www.hotmail.com/."
Though "http://www.hotmail.com./" should work (though it doesn't in many setups, unfortunately). Should also be much faster, since it usually avoids at least one local failed DNS request (and is more secure as well!).
There is more than one reason why businesses die. It is my understanding that Loki died primarily because of mismanagement. Additionally, the situation of 2005/2006 is different from the situation of 1999-2001. Or should I still be talking about Windows Blue Screens of Death all the time?
So if you don't buy a game, you think the publisher will assume that there are Linux gamers out there that did not buy it because there is no Linux version?
No, that's why I tell them that that's not why I'm buying their game.
Voting with your wallet happens when there are alternatives to a product you want, and you go for the alternatives.
There are plenty of alternatives. There are enough Linux games and games I bought under Windows and old games that are cheap for me to spend my money and time on. Not to mention that there is plenty of entertainment outside the computer/video gaming sphere. You're as captive as you let yourself be.
Leaving them to go bankrupt is not exactly the best way to make the industry notice Linux.
If you're referring to Loki, it's my understanding that they were as much a victim of poor management as small marketshare.
Especially since is has such a small install base, most of which is for server environments and not desktops.
Last stats I heard, we had roughly parity with Mac's marketshare.
Linux is definately not the right tool (yet) for gaming.
Linux most definitely ready for games! There are plenty of games which illustrate this fact! Just because it's unpopular (due to a plethora of non-technical reasons!) doesn't make it the wrong tool.
Don't complain that you can't run windows only software then.
It's not complaining, it's requesting. Nothing happens if you don't ask, and that's what we're doing. Many think that there's no market, and there'll be nothing to disprove that if we don't speak up. That is preceisely how change happens.
The real question here is whether a
4-billion loss is a reasonable loss for what they've
accomplished,
Indeed. However, we know the answer to that now: they make 4billion USD pure profit per quarter. The only 2 divisions which are profitible are Windows and Office (there may be a third this last quarter that got a meager couple million profit iirc). Those two divisions make money hand over fist, with absurdly huge profit margins and volumes. And this 4bn pure profit includes Xbox division losses!
Therefore, it's clear: as long as these two cash cows continue to be profitible (what, everyone suddenly gonna switch to Mac?), they can continue to dump money into the Xbox without significantly impacting their business. Especially for what they seem to plan for the Xbox--home media hub and/or satellite--this isn't even really a question. They intend to dominate the living room with Windows Media and coincidentally also video games. Their goal is to be the gatekeepers to all media content, with all media companies going through them and, unless something big happens like users (home and enterprise alike) realizing this and forgoing a little current comfort for long-term security, they will undoubtedly succeed at this.
What's particularly amusing is that, if this scenario is true, that the big media companies, by aligning themselves with Microsoft, are executing their own death sentence: with Microsoft the gatekeeper for all media--in the living room, office, and phone/pda/futuregadget--the big media companies will be redundant, and merely expensive for MSFT to keep around (since they take their cut of the media being funneled into homes). If this scenario pans out, the MicroSoft National Broadcasting Company (MSNBC), Newsweek, Focus, and other media venues owned by Microsoft are shades of the future.
"The game industry" isn't quite ignoring us either. We don't have the level of titles as even mac, but we're not totally ignored either.
If you want a loyal fanbase, you can support us well and we will love you for it. Otherwise, stick with the more fickle users and see if you can eke out a living as a small party.
Thank you for the example. I play America's Army every once in a while and enjoy it.
However, contrary to your claims, from what I can tell, the Linux version is 0.1 (i.e. one revision) behind the Windows version (2.3 and 2.4, respectively). Thus far, I've not experienced problems, but I've not played it for a bit either.
Generally, from what I can tell, you have the same options as you do for all the myriad of Windows versions: you specifically support some and write to some standard. In this case, things are actually pretty standardized and the interop problems aren't nearly as huge as people wish to make them out to be. Rather like working with different iterations and versions of Windows, I think.
The only closed-source software I've run on Linux came with it's own installer and was typically independent of distribution. The scripts needed to do some checking on their own.
All of the closed-source software (notably quite a few pieces now!) save for one (cedega) which I have used have come with their own installer which checks to make sure that the libraries it needs are present on the system. This is not at all surprising; this is exactly what closed-source Windows software does. The only difference is that many of the installers seem stuck in the 80's with ugly shell scripts or the early 90's with ugly motif-like installers. Really, my favorites thus far are codeweavers crossover office (not too bad looking) and unreal tournament 2004 (such a schweet installer).
That is what installers are for: making sure the libs and things you need are present on the system and, if necessary, installing them (how many CDs come with, say, DirectX version Foo or MFC version Bar?)
Projects on this level of complexity and quality (assuming it is as good as the other Civ games) are usually pretty well-designed.
Hmm. Good point. It may well be pretty well-thought-out.
I suspect that cross-platform code will likely still improve a program, by finding bugs by coming at things slightly differently, as well as by forcing compartmentalization of some things. It's much easier to code a cross-platform project with a nice model than to have bits strewn about.
All of you are voting with your collectively huge wallet, so massive in fact that game devs haven't noticed. I run a fast, stable windows box, and it's people like you that degrade the quality of my games.
Now you contradict yourself. If, as you claim, "game devs haven't noticed [us]", then we can't well be detracting from the "quality of [your] games."
es, Linux is great and all, and we all want to see it become the next desktop platform, but is it too much to ask for you to either dual boot Windows or have a separate box for your Wintendo?
If you want me to buy your game, then yes, it is too much to ask. It's called "voting with your wallet," and I try to practice it. If you want Linux to be well supported, you have to help out. It ain't gonna happen on its own.
Additionally, cross-platform game development needn't add too much additional labour if you start off designing it as such, and generally the quality of the code is better (because you have to sit down and think about how to do things intelligently, not to mention bug fixing).
Now, if you think that Linux support is intractable because of support costs, then fine. Give me the game without support. Just give me some version of the game. Of course I won't pay the same amount as with support, and if someone else does more, I'll be more loyal to them. But it'll eliminate the need for support costs.
After talking to some GNOME devs, I've found out that they don't actually use OWA; they use webdav (requires IIS to be running too). Regardless, it falls far short of the full Evolution + Outlook combination.
Evolution can do a bit, but it uses Outlook Web Access. According to Microsoft, only Outlook 2003 will work fully with Exchange. Internet Explorer 5.01 and later for Windows get to use OWA Premium (a very small subset of the full functionality of Exchange + Outlook); everyone else (including Evolution) must use OWA basic, which is a small subset of the functionality in OWA Premium (i.e. a small subset of a very small subset of the full Exchange + Outlook features)
I'm sorry if this sounds overly liberal, but sometimes it's good to be critical of the government.
I'm not sure I agree with everything you said, but by and large I do. My main objection the the war (aside from the lack of international support, though who much of that is corruption is another question altogether, the cost, and other things) is that the weapons simply weren't there. People who oppose the war generally forget that even saddam said that he had WMDs (and, after much sabre-rattling, let inspectors back in and submitted the required report on what all weapons he had). However, the sabre-rattling worked, and Saddam let inspectors back in and did what was required of him. At that point, the US should have just backed off warily. However, Bush claimed that they were holding back still, and pushed us into war.
I can understand wanting to finish the Gulf War. The Gulf War wasn't over--we merely had a cease-fire, contingent upon Saddam continuing to abide by what he said he would do (which he notably broke left and right without real repercussion). But none of that is what Bush claimed. He claimed there were still more WMDs and didn't give the inspectors time to check it out (and ignored what they were saying). And that's inexcusable, given how badly things didn't pan out. I was so very sorely disappointed when he kept is job.
Rationally evaluating the facts isn't conservative nor liberal. It's the way things are supposed to work. Unfortunately, people on both sides of the fence seem to get carried up in the politics and hate and forget this.
I'm getting mighty tired of the hate. From both sides.
he US is so vastly advanced technologically that such research isn't really necessary. They can already destroy entire cities like Fallujah with relative ease. Killing people isn't a challenge for them any more.
Killing people en masse hasn't been a problem for mankind in general for a long, long time. Lots of US military R&D goes into not killing people. For instance, the US could easily bomb any given country back into the stoneage extremely cheaply with early- to mid-20th century tech. Stupid bombs are extremely well-understood and cheap to make in large amounts. Military R&D TMK currently is tackling the problem of killing (or merely incapacitating!) the opponents without killing civilians and your friends, a very tough task. It's much easier and cheaper to drop shedloads of stupid bombs on a target covering it and the surrounding area to ensure its destruction than it is to develop a smart bomb which will only take out the target, leaving the surroundings relatively intact.
Ridiculous conditions that are non-negotiable and you are required to accept them if you want to get anything done?
I dunno. I find myself to be rather productive, and I think the vast majority of the software I use came with either one simple license or one rather lengthy license. They both state no warranty (as does any other license I've seen), and the long license only says anything more if I re-distribute the software (says I have to provide source code and re-distribution rights).;)
That's a very interesting point you make; however, I could add that although many small companies don't 'want' competition, they don't go out of their way to prevent it like Microsoft does.
Well, yes and no. No business wants competition; it cuts into profit. The ideal situation for any business is monopoly, held tightly by external forces (e.g. supply chain pressuring consumers to stay with the monopoly, or a government, or natural things like scarcity (e.g. power lines)).
Small and medium business do what they can to prevent competition and kill their competitors, just like the big companies. The key words, however, are what they can. The powers of small and medium businesses are quite limited, so their actions are held in check quite well by competitors and outside forces. Not so far large companies, particularly Microsoft. There are very, very few comptitors (sometimes none!) who can truly push back hard and hold these companies in check. In certain situations, the only real organized resistance is the government and other regulatory agencies, who make sure that even if their actions go relatively unchecked, they can't break the rules too badly. Unfortunately, the political process opens this last avenue up to influence by those who are to be regulated.
Or is Microsoft lying?
Well, yes and no. Microsoft is lying as much as any other company does. PR and all that. It's not lying in that they're trying (in some ways) to interoperate. Interoperation in symbiotes is very good for Microsoft--it provides additional solutions on top of Microsoft's that they themselves don't (yet) provide, and allows Microsoft to get new customers and keep others who may have left to go to a competitor that has what the customer needs.
It's lying in that it wants competitors to interoperate with it like it wants a kick in the shin. Customers being free to migrate around increases competition greatly, since any new startup can come by and potentially work just as well as Microsoft software, and at least some users will migrate away [actually, it'd be interesting to model this like a quantum mechanical system]. It's definitely in Microsoft's interest to keep their customers locked in to their software to the greatest extent that the customers will allow. Problem is that it seems that customers are pushing back a bit, so Microsoft has to do a little to placate them. Hopefully people won't be fooled back into a local maximum of goodness. The global maximum of goodness (truly equal competitors) requires overcoming an activation energy (leaving the Microsoft fold and worrying about all the documents in formats that aren't always perfectly transferrable, program and hardware compatibility, etc. that they should be considering. She who controls the data controls the business! If Microsoft pulled your Office licenses tomorrow, what would you do? How well could you transition to another office suite or OS? What about if Apple died tomorrow, if your presentations are in Keynote? How about if OpenOffice developers got frustrated and quit, if you use OpenOffice? This is an extremely important question, since there are fairly good probabilities that such questions will come up (though not necessarily the ones I've listed)! If you fail to take this into account, you'll find yourself sued or otherwise annoyed, unable to switch to a competitor to push back as a customer, and railroaded into License 6.0! (for a recent example))
But the short answer is that Microsoft is lying exactly as most other businesses would in their situation. I hold hope that not all businesses operate this way, but I'm not fool enough to believe that it doesn't come at a price (cutting into profits). The key problem is the amount of Microsoft's power due to its marketshare. It's really up to the users ("consumers" leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as it doesn't really imply the powe
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. However, it does help avoid potential screwups/typos in a few corner cases.
There is more than one reason why businesses die. It is my understanding that Loki died primarily because of mismanagement. Additionally, the situation of 2005/2006 is different from the situation of 1999-2001. Or should I still be talking about Windows Blue Screens of Death all the time?
Therefore, it's clear: as long as these two cash cows continue to be profitible (what, everyone suddenly gonna switch to Mac?), they can continue to dump money into the Xbox without significantly impacting their business. Especially for what they seem to plan for the Xbox--home media hub and/or satellite--this isn't even really a question. They intend to dominate the living room with Windows Media and coincidentally also video games. Their goal is to be the gatekeepers to all media content, with all media companies going through them and, unless something big happens like users (home and enterprise alike) realizing this and forgoing a little current comfort for long-term security, they will undoubtedly succeed at this.
What's particularly amusing is that, if this scenario is true, that the big media companies, by aligning themselves with Microsoft, are executing their own death sentence: with Microsoft the gatekeeper for all media--in the living room, office, and phone/pda/futuregadget--the big media companies will be redundant, and merely expensive for MSFT to keep around (since they take their cut of the media being funneled into homes). If this scenario pans out, the MicroSoft National Broadcasting Company (MSNBC), Newsweek, Focus, and other media venues owned by Microsoft are shades of the future.
If you want a loyal fanbase, you can support us well and we will love you for it. Otherwise, stick with the more fickle users and see if you can eke out a living as a small party.
However, contrary to your claims, from what I can tell, the Linux version is 0.1 (i.e. one revision) behind the Windows version (2.3 and 2.4, respectively). Thus far, I've not experienced problems, but I've not played it for a bit either.
Generally, from what I can tell, you have the same options as you do for all the myriad of Windows versions: you specifically support some and write to some standard. In this case, things are actually pretty standardized and the interop problems aren't nearly as huge as people wish to make them out to be. Rather like working with different iterations and versions of Windows, I think.
That is what installers are for: making sure the libs and things you need are present on the system and, if necessary, installing them (how many CDs come with, say, DirectX version Foo or MFC version Bar?)
I suspect that cross-platform code will likely still improve a program, by finding bugs by coming at things slightly differently, as well as by forcing compartmentalization of some things. It's much easier to code a cross-platform project with a nice model than to have bits strewn about.
PLONK
Additionally, cross-platform game development needn't add too much additional labour if you start off designing it as such, and generally the quality of the code is better (because you have to sit down and think about how to do things intelligently, not to mention bug fixing).
Now, if you think that Linux support is intractable because of support costs, then fine. Give me the game without support. Just give me some version of the game. Of course I won't pay the same amount as with support, and if someone else does more, I'll be more loyal to them. But it'll eliminate the need for support costs.
This is my main question, and will directly affect if/when I purchase the game.
After talking to some GNOME devs, I've found out that they don't actually use OWA; they use webdav (requires IIS to be running too). Regardless, it falls far short of the full Evolution + Outlook combination.
Evolution can do a bit, but it uses Outlook Web Access. According to Microsoft, only Outlook 2003 will work fully with Exchange. Internet Explorer 5.01 and later for Windows get to use OWA Premium (a very small subset of the full functionality of Exchange + Outlook); everyone else (including Evolution) must use OWA basic, which is a small subset of the functionality in OWA Premium (i.e. a small subset of a very small subset of the full Exchange + Outlook features)
I can understand wanting to finish the Gulf War. The Gulf War wasn't over--we merely had a cease-fire, contingent upon Saddam continuing to abide by what he said he would do (which he notably broke left and right without real repercussion). But none of that is what Bush claimed. He claimed there were still more WMDs and didn't give the inspectors time to check it out (and ignored what they were saying). And that's inexcusable, given how badly things didn't pan out. I was so very sorely disappointed when he kept is job.
Rationally evaluating the facts isn't conservative nor liberal. It's the way things are supposed to work. Unfortunately, people on both sides of the fence seem to get carried up in the politics and hate and forget this.
I'm getting mighty tired of the hate. From both sides.
Well, yes and no. No business wants competition; it cuts into profit. The ideal situation for any business is monopoly, held tightly by external forces (e.g. supply chain pressuring consumers to stay with the monopoly, or a government, or natural things like scarcity (e.g. power lines)).
Small and medium business do what they can to prevent competition and kill their competitors, just like the big companies. The key words, however, are what they can. The powers of small and medium businesses are quite limited, so their actions are held in check quite well by competitors and outside forces. Not so far large companies, particularly Microsoft. There are very, very few comptitors (sometimes none!) who can truly push back hard and hold these companies in check. In certain situations, the only real organized resistance is the government and other regulatory agencies, who make sure that even if their actions go relatively unchecked, they can't break the rules too badly. Unfortunately, the political process opens this last avenue up to influence by those who are to be regulated.
Well, yes and no. Microsoft is lying as much as any other company does. PR and all that. It's not lying in that they're trying (in some ways) to interoperate. Interoperation in symbiotes is very good for Microsoft--it provides additional solutions on top of Microsoft's that they themselves don't (yet) provide, and allows Microsoft to get new customers and keep others who may have left to go to a competitor that has what the customer needs.
It's lying in that it wants competitors to interoperate with it like it wants a kick in the shin. Customers being free to migrate around increases competition greatly, since any new startup can come by and potentially work just as well as Microsoft software, and at least some users will migrate away [actually, it'd be interesting to model this like a quantum mechanical system]. It's definitely in Microsoft's interest to keep their customers locked in to their software to the greatest extent that the customers will allow. Problem is that it seems that customers are pushing back a bit, so Microsoft has to do a little to placate them. Hopefully people won't be fooled back into a local maximum of goodness. The global maximum of goodness (truly equal competitors) requires overcoming an activation energy (leaving the Microsoft fold and worrying about all the documents in formats that aren't always perfectly transferrable, program and hardware compatibility, etc. that they should be considering. She who controls the data controls the business! If Microsoft pulled your Office licenses tomorrow, what would you do? How well could you transition to another office suite or OS? What about if Apple died tomorrow, if your presentations are in Keynote? How about if OpenOffice developers got frustrated and quit, if you use OpenOffice? This is an extremely important question, since there are fairly good probabilities that such questions will come up (though not necessarily the ones I've listed)! If you fail to take this into account, you'll find yourself sued or otherwise annoyed, unable to switch to a competitor to push back as a customer, and railroaded into License 6.0! (for a recent example))
But the short answer is that Microsoft is lying exactly as most other businesses would in their situation. I hold hope that not all businesses operate this way, but I'm not fool enough to believe that it doesn't come at a price (cutting into profits). The key problem is the amount of Microsoft's power due to its marketshare. It's really up to the users ("consumers" leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as it doesn't really imply the powe
Three places off the top of my head: linksys, sveasoft, openwrt. The only closed part (tmk) are the broadcomm drivers.