Yes, Linus has much control over the 'official' Linux kernel, but there are many branches of the kernel, and if Linus decided to one day become evil, the world could switch to a non-evil branch.
How in the world could you consider this fascism? Linus encourages other people to fork the kernel, for crying out loud.
"Windows is the absolute best OS out there for gaming at this point unless you want to play on a console."
Not everyone uses software for what it currently is. If this were the case, noone would have ever used it for anything, since it started out as practically nothing. If everyone shared your attitude, there would be no point in doing anything new or competetive, because there is already something out there that does the job.
No, wanting to do the things you love in the OS you use isn't pathethic. What's pathetic is the fact that you were modded up for your ignorant, close-minded post.
Too bad Microsoft didn't take your advise when they were developing Direct3D. If they had, running Windows games under Linux would be much better, since Wine's Direct3D support seems to suck compared to it's OpenGL support. Of course, you can't be the best gaming OS if you allow a little competetion, right?
What's interesting is how so many people spend so much time and effort bitching about duplicates when it's so much easier to just ignore it. Anyone have any theories on why people act this way?
The only theory I can come up with is that it gives some people a feeling of superiority when they point out errors of people who they consider to be 'above them' (Slashdot editors), and in an effort to try to cover up their true intentions (which is to inflate their ego), they make claims that it is just *sooo* annoying.
Name one port (that wasn't done by Transgaming themselves) that was created using WineX. For every port that is created with WineX, there will be another that was written without it.
Neverwinter Nights: Native. A Tale in the Desert: Native. UT2003: Native.
Think of WineX as a gateway drug for game developers. Sooner or later, they are going to want to get maximum performance from their games, and they will do native ports. If they don't care enough to do that, it probably means that there aren't enough Linux gamers to justify a native port, and you have yourself to blame for wanting to prevent people like me from doing all my gaming in Linux.
If I'm already playing Battlefield 1942 under Windows, why not play Neverwinter Nights under Windows too? I feel that dual booting is a bigger threat than Wine. At least when I use Wine, I'm motivated to go to developers sites and ask for a Linux port. People who dual boot would rather spend their time playing the game instead of registering at some company's forum to ask for a port to what they can already easily play.
It wasn't until I ditched Windows for gaming (thanks to Transgaming's support for Half-life) that I really started getting into Linux gaming advocacy. Before then, I just didn't bother because I could just play them in Windows.
WineX - Not as evil as you think.
on
Winex 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Anti-Wine claim #1:
If a company can use WineX for their game, they won't bother making a true native port.
Here's the deal: If a company cares about it's audience, and a significant number of it's audience are running Linux, they are not going to want to use WineX. Why? Performance. Higher hardware requirements on games means you lessen your audience, so it's in a game developer's best interest to make the game as fast as possible, which means NOT using WineX. In addition to a game developer having to make their game run efficiently to reach more players, they have even more incentive to have their game run well due to competetion. If company X and company Y both have a FPS Doom 3 clone, and company X created a native binary while company Y did not, whose game will Linux gamers choose (assuming the games have comparable gameplay/fun factor)?
What if a company doesn't care about their Linux audience and decides to use WineX? Well, we lose nothing. If they don't care about their Linux audience (because it's much smaller than it's Windows audience or whatever) then chances are they weren't going to do a native port anyway. For example, it's obvious that Blizzard has no intention of porting to Linux in the near future. If they decided to create a Linux 'port' of World of Warcraft using WineX because it was extremely cheap, it doesn't mean that WineX prevented a native port. We lost nothing, but gain a title which is likely to attract many more Linux gamers, which will increase monetary incentive for companies to port their games to Linux. An example of a company that could have used WineX to port their game, but didn't, would be Bioware. They obviously care about their Linux audience (late port issues aside.)
To sum this point up, while WineX could cost us a native port or two, it will increase the Linux gamer audience to the point that it is significant, which is usually what is required for companies to even consider a native port of their game. And companies that do choose WineX during the Linux gaming movement's infancy due to monetary reasons will be reconsidering, because the savings from using WineX will be overshadowed by the return from reaching more gamers, and outselling a competetor whose game is less efficient because it uses WineX.
I'll be buying Neverwinter Nights from Tuxgames.com when it's stable under Linux, I'll be buying Doom 3 from Tuxgames, when it's released, and I'll be buying any other native Linux ports that I can get my hands on. I will also continue to be a Transgaming subscriber so I can play Battlefield 1942, the current game of the year (although, since BF1942 didn't run before, I had to dual-boot, which means I am registering my hits to websites as a Windows user. Is surfing under Linux important? Web hosts know the percentage of Windows users to Linux users.)
It took me about an hour at work. I think I averaged about 550KB/sec, and at one point it peaked at 900, but it never dropped below 300 at any given point after the first few minutes.
You people keep saying this "Redhat == Microsoft" crap, and it's absolutely ridiculous.
There can NOT be a Microsoft of Linux.
Why is this so hard to understand?
At any given moment, if Redhat does ANYTHING which pisses off enough people, they will have created another market that can be easily filled by yet another Linux distro which touts Redhat compatibility. Mandrake didn't start at version 1, they started off at version 6, and this is because they could download Redhat 6 sources, do a recursive search and replace of all the packages to sub Mandrake for Redhat, recompile, and create a Redhat compatible distro.. (Ok, they did a little more than that, but you get my point.) They have a VERY thin line to walk, and the only thing that will keep them in business is producing good products. The differences between distros are negligible if someone else's offerings are significantly better than Redhat's.
As long as Redhat packages (and creates) GPL software, they can never become a Microsoft. This is the very reason I feel that I don't have to worry about Redhat - The reason many people hate the GPL is because it leans too far in favor of the end user and not enough towards corporations.
People who equate Redhat to Microsoft must not have looked at the GPL and the source to Redhat's GPLed contributions to free software.
RPM is a package format..rpm =~.deb Apt is a frontend for packages (such as.debs or.rpms.)
Debian packages are called.debs, which are very similar to.rpms. Apt is a frontend to these packages, and you can get it for RPM-based distros as well: http://www.freshrpms.net
Comparing a package format to a package management frontend doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I saw it mentioned briefly before, but I think most people have missed it. I saw it mentioned some time ago on Linux.com:
Current is an open-source implementation of an up2date server.
I've used it, and it does work, however I'm waiting for multple channel functionality and some other features before I switch to using it instead of apt.
We've been using amd on Linux, Solaris, and Irix clients for a few years now, and it's quite solid.
The amd config files are on our NIS server, so setting up machines to automount users's home directories is as easy as copying a standard amd.conf file in/etc and starting up amd.
Perhaps you could give an example of why you think is sucks.
PS/2 and Xbox are practically PCs. Get a keyboard. Get a mouse. Get a chair. Put the Playstation at a computer desk.
Most people don't actually chat while playing games, most people I know go offline.
Most people I know don't use cheat codes because they play multi-player games, and cheating is pretty lame anyway.
So I guess it's $1,000 for the ability to check your email without having to get up off your ass for a minute?
Anyway, you missed my point. While some Windows gamers here think the Linux gamers are silly for gaming on a platform which offers few titles, console gamers think we are all idiots for spending $200 to upgrade a video card that will last for one year.
The moral is it doesn't matter what someone else thinks, because someone is always going to think what you are doing is idiotic.
The question you're asking this guy is the question console gamers have been asking you for years. Why spend $1000 on a game machine that will be obsolete in 1 year when you can spend $200 on a console that's good for 3?
(Disclaimer: I'm a Linux gamer, and I don't dual boot. I just wanted to show you how you are in the same situation as Linux gamers, you pay something extra to game on a "not-so-ideal" platform for games. )
So it's the Wine project's fault that companies will use misleading sales pitches to make their products look more attractive? I wish companies were more honest too, but your placing of the blame on the Wine project is ridiculous.
First, Redhat (I'm sure other distros as well) INCLUDE OCTAVE. That's right, you don't NEED to compile it because it comes with your distro. You can't get much easier to install than selecting the package at OS install time.
Second, Octave doesn't require a user to jump through 8 hoops to run it on your system. No FlexLM, no licence files, no keys, no giving Mathworks your hostID when you change computers, etc.
Finally, most people don't compile from source. And those who do are usually experienced enough to figure out how to get things compiled.
Naturally we're intimately familiar with the workings of Unreal Tournament 2003 engine and after a quick look at the display settings, which were set at a 1024x768x32bit resolution with all other features at default, we measured a mere average 42fps and maximum fps around the 55...60fps mark. Considering the fact that this is a 2GHz Athlon-64 processor teamed up with a GeForce Ti 4600 we honestly expected a whole lot better. A 1.6GHz Pentium 4 with that very same GeForce Ti 4600 videocard would have no problems clocking in a similar score while running under Windows XP.
"Intimately familar"? Hardly. If they were intimately familiar with the engine, they would have known that it is not optimized for OpenGL, and that comparing Direct3D to OpenGL under Windows OR Linux is not a good or fair comparison.
Neither the Windows OpenGL renderer nor the Linux OpenGL renderer score the same as the D3D one.
You can see a real comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D here
Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD is more stable...
Care to back that up with a link or something?
Linux != Redhat, or Debian, or Mandrake.
Yes, Linus has much control over the 'official' Linux kernel, but there are many branches of the kernel, and if Linus decided to one day become evil, the world could switch to a non-evil branch.
How in the world could you consider this fascism? Linus encourages other people to fork the kernel, for crying out loud.
"Windows is the absolute best OS out there for gaming at this point unless you want to play on a console."
Not everyone uses software for what it currently is. If this were the case, noone would have ever used it for anything, since it started out as practically nothing. If everyone shared your attitude, there would be no point in doing anything new or competetive, because there is already something out there that does the job.
No, wanting to do the things you love in the OS you use isn't pathethic. What's pathetic is the fact that you were modded up for your ignorant, close-minded post.
Too bad Microsoft didn't take your advise when they were developing Direct3D. If they had, running Windows games under Linux would be much better, since Wine's Direct3D support seems to suck compared to it's OpenGL support. Of course, you can't be the best gaming OS if you allow a little competetion, right?
What's interesting is how so many people spend so much time and effort bitching about duplicates when it's so much easier to just ignore it. Anyone have any theories on why people act this way?
The only theory I can come up with is that it gives some people a feeling of superiority when they point out errors of people who they consider to be 'above them' (Slashdot editors), and in an effort to try to cover up their true intentions (which is to inflate their ego), they make claims that it is just *sooo* annoying.
Post your theories here!
We should at the very least sign the petition on Tuxgames.
Spread the word!
I really hope they do a native port as well.
I'm sure they are going to be developing a Linux server along side the client, so hopefully it won't take much more to make it run in Linux.
The only thing us Linux gamers can do is go beat our little drums in Valve's forums, and encourage others to do the same.
A mere $2,000,000 spent on a very secure OS will eventually save the US money, which means that we can buy more missiles in the long run.
The 'right' thing for him to do would have been to deny any acceptance of money upfront.
Name one port (that wasn't done by Transgaming themselves) that was created using WineX. For every port that is created with WineX, there will be another that was written without it.
Neverwinter Nights: Native.
A Tale in the Desert: Native.
UT2003: Native.
Think of WineX as a gateway drug for game developers. Sooner or later, they are going to want to get maximum performance from their games, and they will do native ports. If they don't care enough to do that, it probably means that there aren't enough Linux gamers to justify a native port, and you have yourself to blame for wanting to prevent people like me from doing all my gaming in Linux.
If I'm already playing Battlefield 1942 under Windows, why not play Neverwinter Nights under Windows too? I feel that dual booting is a bigger threat than Wine. At least when I use Wine, I'm motivated to go to developers sites and ask for a Linux port. People who dual boot would rather spend their time playing the game instead of registering at some company's forum to ask for a port to what they can already easily play.
It wasn't until I ditched Windows for gaming (thanks to Transgaming's support for Half-life) that I really started getting into Linux gaming advocacy. Before then, I just didn't bother because I could just play them in Windows.
Anti-Wine claim #1:
If a company can use WineX for their game, they won't bother making a true native port.
Here's the deal: If a company cares about it's audience, and a significant number of it's audience are running Linux, they are not going to want to use WineX. Why? Performance. Higher hardware requirements on games means you lessen your audience, so it's in a game developer's best interest to make the game as fast as possible, which means NOT using WineX. In addition to a game developer having to make their game run efficiently to reach more players, they have even more incentive to have their game run well due to competetion. If company X and company Y both have a FPS Doom 3 clone, and company X created a native binary while company Y did not, whose game will Linux gamers choose (assuming the games have comparable gameplay/fun factor)?
What if a company doesn't care about their Linux audience and decides to use WineX? Well, we lose nothing. If they don't care about their Linux audience (because it's much smaller than it's Windows audience or whatever) then chances are they weren't going to do a native port anyway. For example, it's obvious that Blizzard has no intention of porting to Linux in the near future. If they decided to create a Linux 'port' of World of Warcraft using WineX because it was extremely cheap, it doesn't mean that WineX prevented a native port. We lost nothing, but gain a title which is likely to attract many more Linux gamers, which will increase monetary incentive for companies to port their games to Linux. An example of a company that could have used WineX to port their game, but didn't, would be Bioware. They obviously care about their Linux audience (late port issues aside.)
To sum this point up, while WineX could cost us a native port or two, it will increase the Linux gamer audience to the point that it is significant, which is usually what is required for companies to even consider a native port of their game. And companies that do choose WineX during the Linux gaming movement's infancy due to monetary reasons will be reconsidering, because the savings from using WineX will be overshadowed by the return from reaching more gamers, and outselling a competetor whose game is less efficient because it uses WineX.
I'll be buying Neverwinter Nights from Tuxgames.com when it's stable under Linux, I'll be buying Doom 3 from Tuxgames, when it's released, and I'll be buying any other native Linux ports that I can get my hands on. I will also continue to be a Transgaming subscriber so I can play Battlefield 1942, the current game of the year (although, since BF1942 didn't run before, I had to dual-boot, which means I am registering my hits to websites as a Windows user. Is surfing under Linux important? Web hosts know the percentage of Windows users to Linux users.)
It took me about an hour at work. I think I averaged about 550KB/sec, and at one point it peaked at 900, but it never dropped below 300 at any given point after the first few minutes.
You people keep saying this "Redhat == Microsoft" crap, and it's absolutely ridiculous.
There can NOT be a Microsoft of Linux.
Why is this so hard to understand?
At any given moment, if Redhat does ANYTHING which pisses off enough people, they will have created another market that can be easily filled by yet another Linux distro which touts Redhat compatibility. Mandrake didn't start at version 1, they started off at version 6, and this is because they could download Redhat 6 sources, do a recursive search and replace of all the packages to sub Mandrake for Redhat, recompile, and create a Redhat compatible distro.. (Ok, they did a little more than that, but you get my point.) They have a VERY thin line to walk, and the only thing that will keep them in business is producing good products. The differences between distros are negligible if someone else's offerings are significantly better than Redhat's.
As long as Redhat packages (and creates) GPL software, they can never become a Microsoft. This is the very reason I feel that I don't have to worry about Redhat - The reason many people hate the GPL is because it leans too far in favor of the end user and not enough towards corporations.
People who equate Redhat to Microsoft must not have looked at the GPL and the source to Redhat's GPLed contributions to free software.
While Redhat may not release the source to thier up2date server, we are free to look at the source of the client and implement our own server..
The Current project is doing this.
http://current.tigris.org
Say hello to free software.
RPM is a package format. .rpm =~ .deb .debs or .rpms.)
.debs, which are very similar to .rpms. Apt is a frontend to these packages, and you can get it for RPM-based distros as well:
Apt is a frontend for packages (such as
Debian packages are called
http://www.freshrpms.net
Comparing a package format to a package management frontend doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
If you don't know how to compile it, then get the RPMS
I really hope that Red Hat drops the Unified desktop for RH 9.
And I really hope that they keep the unified desktop.
Just goes to show you that for every person that dislikes it, there is another that likes it.
If you want a stock KDE, hey, it's still free software. Go compile it.
This is the first post I have seen that agrees with my whole take on why Linux became popular while alternatives didn't.
I agree with you 100%.
I saw it mentioned briefly before, but I think most people have missed it. I saw it mentioned some time ago on Linux.com:
Current is an open-source implementation of an up2date server.
I've used it, and it does work, however I'm waiting for multple channel functionality and some other features before I switch to using it instead of apt.
I've been running a stock 2.4.20 kernel with the preempt patches on my 8.0 desktop for a few days now..
I wish someone would have told me I couldn't use a stock kernel before I compiled and ran it!
We've been using amd on Linux, Solaris, and Irix clients for a few years now, and it's quite solid.
/etc and starting up amd.
The amd config files are on our NIS server, so setting up machines to automount users's home directories is as easy as copying a standard amd.conf file in
Perhaps you could give an example of why you think is sucks.
PS/2 and Xbox are practically PCs. Get a keyboard. Get a mouse. Get a chair. Put the Playstation at a computer desk.
Most people don't actually chat while playing games, most people I know go offline.
Most people I know don't use cheat codes because they play multi-player games, and cheating is pretty lame anyway.
So I guess it's $1,000 for the ability to check your email without having to get up off your ass for a minute?
Anyway, you missed my point. While some Windows gamers here think the Linux gamers are silly for gaming on a platform which offers few titles, console gamers think we are all idiots for spending $200 to upgrade a video card that will last for one year.
The moral is it doesn't matter what someone else thinks, because someone is always going to think what you are doing is idiotic.
The question you're asking this guy is the question console gamers have been asking you for years. Why spend $1000 on a game machine that will be obsolete in 1 year when you can spend $200 on a console that's good for 3?
(Disclaimer: I'm a Linux gamer, and I don't dual boot. I just wanted to show you how you are in the same situation as Linux gamers, you pay something extra to game on a "not-so-ideal" platform for games. )
Apologies, you weren't really placing blame. I have a itchy trigger finger I guess :)
So it's the Wine project's fault that companies will use misleading sales pitches to make their products look more attractive? I wish companies were more honest too, but your placing of the blame on the Wine project is ridiculous.
Actually, I think you have it backwards.
First, Redhat (I'm sure other distros as well) INCLUDE OCTAVE. That's right, you don't NEED to compile it because it comes with your distro. You can't get much easier to install than selecting the package at OS install time.
Second, Octave doesn't require a user to jump through 8 hoops to run it on your system. No FlexLM, no licence files, no keys, no giving Mathworks your hostID when you change computers, etc.
Finally, most people don't compile from source. And those who do are usually experienced enough to figure out how to get things compiled.
Naturally we're intimately familiar with the workings of Unreal Tournament 2003 engine and after a quick look at the display settings, which were set at a 1024x768x32bit resolution with all other features at default, we measured a mere average 42fps and maximum fps around the 55...60fps mark. Considering the fact that this is a 2GHz Athlon-64 processor teamed up with a GeForce Ti 4600 we honestly expected a whole lot better. A 1.6GHz Pentium 4 with that very same GeForce Ti 4600 videocard would have no problems clocking in a similar score while running under Windows XP.
"Intimately familar"? Hardly. If they were intimately familiar with the engine, they would have known that it is not optimized for OpenGL, and that comparing Direct3D to OpenGL under Windows OR Linux is not a good or fair comparison.
Neither the Windows OpenGL renderer nor the Linux OpenGL renderer score the same as the D3D one.
You can see a real comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D here