Because other native Linux games which perform much better will be purchased before your WineXed game?
What I forsee happening is some companies using Wine in the beginning to lower the cost of entry into providing Linux gaming, and then moving to native later on when it's more feasible.
If they don't want to go native, then their games will not run as well as their native competetion. In the end, it will work out great for Linux users.
The hysteria behind Wine is silly in my opinion. It's because of Transgaming and Wine I was actually able to get rid of my dual boot and still have access to the games I play, as well as big future titles. Think about it: the market is GROWING because of Wine. When the market is large enough, it will be feasible for a company to write a native version of the game.
A quote from the page: "However, with some recent events I cannot disclose, it is clear to me
that the opportunity for Wine to be used in a proprietary product is
too tempting and has caused some harm to the Wine project. Based on
experience, I feel strongly that the potential for harm is great
enough that CodeWeavers needs to take two actions. First, we would
like to release all new code we develop under an LGPL style license.
Second, I would like to open another call for a license change and
thereby strongly add my voice to Alexandre's."
Does it matter whether the license is dual or not? If it's GPL, then the GPL rules apply, and I still stand by my statement.
My statement mostly applied to newer projects.. Samba, for instance, is GPLed
I mentioned the Wine project. While it's not a server application, it's a very popular piece of software and will probably play a big role in creating an alternative to our current dominant platform. In fact, the Wine project switched their license to LGPL (which still protects users rights) because they saw the potential for everyone to get screwed over.
My point was that I think the success and momentum behind Linux is due to it's licensing. KDE, Samba, Wine, Linux, etc are all what end users see, and it is those people who the GPL seeks to protect.
Tell me, what does an end user gain from the BSD license? I'll tell you what it buys them: an opportunity to get screwed by an entity with a desire to profit at their expense.
The GPL = (BSD license - opportunity for users to get screwed). What about the companies? Please, think of the companies! If it weren't for their inherent greed, the GPL would not have come into being. The GPL is the community's way of saying "You won't be screwing us over any more." They've had their chance, and they've shown us that they are not intersted in the us, but the money - which gives incentive to locking people in.
Why do you think most big projects use the GPL these days? Gnome, KDE, Linux, GCC, Wine, as well as most applications on freshmeat and sourceforge? Because people prefer the GPL - it empowers the end user whereas other licences (such as the BSD license) empowers the guy with the most pull/money/clout/whatever. Everyone knows that the GPL isn't the best license for everything, but it's the preferred license for anything I contribute, and the same holds true for many other people as well.
GPL doesn't prevent you from writing something and selling it - it only prevents you from NOT providing the source to your changes. So? I would do that anyway.
It's very easy: If don't want your code or it's users will be exploited/denied - use the GPL. If you don't want your code or it's users will be exploited/denied - use another license.
In my opinion, the 'linux movement' is a mix of things, but it's mostly excitement behind the GPL, or the assurance of a community-driven computing platform, whose interest is only to serve the community, forever.
Why in the world would you want a regular user deleting stuff from the filesystem?? "Average Users" don't need that option. Unless of course, you think your mom needs to easily pop up a root nautilus and delete everything under/etc.
A bit of RTFM-ing on their website shows up gcc flags that can be used to compile all the binaries effortlessly from scratch that will result in 200% speed increase
That's complete nonsense. I think i've heard more like 2% increase from compiling with -march instead of -mcpu.
A bloated distribution with a poor package management system too.
God forbid anyone use the custom install..
And for servers, Linux is not the way to go. FreeBSD is the schnitz when it comes to http servers, samba, you name it. If it has networking and it's a server, it will run on FreeBSD.
Bah. FreeBSD is nice, but it's going nowhere when compared to the young whipper-snapper that Linux is. People seem to be more interested in working on GPLed code than they are on non-GPL code.. and for good reason. Why would you want to help out Apple or Microsoft when they probably won't give anything back?
Most of the other changes RedHat made to the KD interface I can sort of overlook, it's mostly icons and themes and whatnot. But some things should be off limits out of respect for the people doing all the work.
If this is truly the way people feel, then it contradicts KDE's stated goal, which is to provide a contemporary user interface to average people.
To put things into perspective, let me quote something from KDE's page:
"When it comes to stability, scalability and openness there is no competition to UNIX. However, the lack of an easy to use contemporary desktop environment for UNIX has prevented UNIX from finding its way onto the desktops of the typical computer user in offices and homes."
Now, of course ask different people how deliver a UNIX system to the average user, and you'll probably get different answers as seen here. However, all involved parties here have a common goal: to bring Unix to the average user. KDE's doing their thing, Gnome doing theirs, and Redhat's doing theirs. All parties need to give up the ego and consider the user, something which I think Redhat has done and others need to do. Since KDE and Gnome inconsistencies haven't disappeared on their own, Redhat has to deal with them.
It isn't about making the KDE or Gnome camp happy, it's about bringing Unix to the average user, where silly politics and egos get in the way.
In my opinion, there should be one desktop environment for regular users and one for advanced users. That way regular users all get the same interface, and us advanced users still have the option of 1000 + 1 guis.
And the KDE hacking sucks.. those people have not even given them credits... all abouts have been removed... It is really unethical
Where did you get this from? I haven't verified the 8.0 release, but in the beta the authors are mentioned in KDE apps, under About -appname-... or are you basing it on those old IRC chat logs which were pure speculation?
I have considered this myself, but it is a topic which is extremely flame-prone.
While I think there should be an infinite amount of basic window managers for X (such as BlackBox, FluxBox, Window Maker, etc.), do we really need two desktop environments?
I am constantly switching myself back and forth between KDE and Gnome for various reasons, and I am always considering switching my users over as well.. It becomes difficult to recommend a desktop to them, because in a year the other desktop which you didn't recommend may surpass the other.
I really wish KDE would have taken up the FSF on their offer to provide a totally free QT replacement - we would have our one Desktop environement and things would be much easier for us admins and our users..
I just installed Redhat's Null the other day, and it does a fantastic job of anti-aliasing fonts right out of the box. In fact, the installer's and Open Office's fonts are anti-aliased as well!:)
You're missing the fact that if you change color depths in X, it must be restarted (this is not required in Windows or MacOS X).
And the fact that if you do change your max resolution, you also need to restart X (this is not required in Windows or MacOS X).
And you're probably missing the fact that most people don't like panning their desktop.
What would be nice is to be able to change MAX resolutions on the fly in X, as well as bit depth.
For example,
If I want to play Half-life under Wine:
* Edit/etc/X11/XF86Config
* Change DefaultDepth from 24 to 16
* Restart X
* After I'm done, I have to change DefaultDepth from 16 to 24
* Restart X
The time it takes me isn't much and I don't mind because I understand what's going on, but to people used to other GUI environments it seems backwards.
Considering how easy GNU made it from Apple to use GCC, you'd think they could do the same for Quicktime. Oh well, it's not like they've already ported it to Unix or anything..
First of all, I didn't demand anything from Apple. I merely pointed out that they have not ported to any other platform except the most popular.. I also pointed out that if they *were* interested in giving back to the community from which they readily take (GCC, FreeBSD, etc.) then they would at least have the courtesy to port their player to some other platforms. We already have a BSD kernel, but we don't have a Quicktime (laters version here) player for Unix (Linux specifically).
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there are many free video players out there.. The problem is that later Quicktime codec aren't open. To create a quicktime-enabled player would mean to reverse engineer the codecs, or to use Windows codecs. It's not the interface that we care about, it's the ability to view quicktime (insert version here) movies on our platform of choice.
Again, i'm not demanding that they port anything, I'm only voicing my opinion on their actions, which I think are only taking place because they aren't the currently monopoly holder. To back up my opinion, I use Quicktime 6 as an example.
I'm not saying that Apple's quicktime server is a bad thing.. I'm saying they'd be helping more people by porting their closed Quicktime player to other platforms than to release a stream server which can only serve Windows and MacOS.
In my opinion, video and sound are just as much a part of the web as images.. Imagine only being able to view certain images on one platform, but not others?
The web was designed with platform independance in mind, and if a company activly promotes a multimedia format and doesn't port the player is doing the founders of our web, and the community, a big injustice.
Ha! They have released Darwin and Quick Time Streaming Server (and next month Rendevous) as open source.
Is it really a big deal that they open source something that noone really cares about? It's nice for a few mac developers, but these actions don't help the community all that much. As for QuickTime Streaming Server, what good is this for a FreeBSD or Linux user?
And Apple ships with Macs (compressed on the hard drive but available and free for install) and in the OS X retail boxes a free copy of their development suite (which now includes GCC 3.1). Upgrades are free for the download, or $20 for a FedEx-ed CD. This enables any Mac user that wants to, to develop as much open source as their little heart desires, without having to pay for development tools.
You'd think with all the money Apple saved in creating C compiler they could afford to hire a Linux programmer to port Quicktime to Qt or GTK so the GCC developers could watch the Two Towers trailers.. Seriously, the community could really benefit from a cross-platform Quicktime Video player way more than a server which will only serve the monopolies of x86 and PPC platforms.
Apple does care about their customers, their shareholders, and even tries to benefit the industry as a whole (Firewire, Rendevous). In contrast, Microsoft takes their customers for granted, uses them, manipulates them, treats them like criminals. Microsoft also doesn't pay shareholders dividends, and their stock prices are no longer going up and up. Microsoft acquired more congresscritters than Enron, because they donated three times what Enron did in the 2000 elections. You can compare one of these two companies to Enron. The one isn't Apple.
It would be interesting to see how Apple acted if it were in Microsoft's shoes..
I'm not saying that opening their software is a bad thing, or something to be overlooked. What I'm saying is that Apple will only do things that don't infringe on their market share, even if the community would benefit tremendously. Which is fine, but don't go around saying that they're all about the community, because they are not.
Quicktime is the only software that Apple makes that an average non-Mac user cares about, so until they port it to other platforms which people regularly use, I won't see them as a 'community friendly' company (ie a potential Microsoft.)
If they care anything for the community, they would have ported Quicktime to Unix platforms. They're pushing websites to use their platform (Quicktime mov), but they don't provide players for any platform that doesn't have huge marketshare, thereby furthering monopoly-like status of Windows and MacOS. Hell, even Real ported to Unix when they were pushing to be the dominant steamed video platform back in the day... As a matter of fact, there's a RealOne beta port for Unix.
Let the OS vendors do OSes and leave the multimedia to a 3rd party, please.
I can't blame them for doing what big corporations do (further their market share) but I don't have to like it or support it.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that what the DOJ did to Microsoft?
Are you serious? Read the DOJ findings of fact. Monopolies and anti-competetive practices go WAY back. No new technology there.
Because other native Linux games which perform much better will be purchased before your WineXed game?
What I forsee happening is some companies using Wine in the beginning to lower the cost of entry into providing Linux gaming, and then moving to native later on when it's more feasible.
If they don't want to go native, then their games will not run as well as their native competetion. In the end, it will work out great for Linux users.
The hysteria behind Wine is silly in my opinion. It's because of Transgaming and Wine I was actually able to get rid of my dual boot and still have access to the games I play, as well as big future titles. Think about it: the market is GROWING because of Wine. When the market is large enough, it will be feasible for a company to write a native version of the game.
You can run the Windows version of UT2003 with OpenGL. There is some information (including some benchmarking) on that here.
In a flyby benchmark of Citadel Linux scored 48.9fps, while Windows scored 43.6. In Direct3D mode, Windows scored 63.9 fps.
There is no One Right License for everything. Why is this so hard forpeople to understand?
It's not. In fact, I agreed with you in earlier posts on that.
Mozilla Is licensed under MPL/GPL/LGPL, and MPL is a copyleft-type license.
To be honest, I'm not sure what the exception is you speak of in reference to Linux. Could you post a link explaining?
I was basically defending the GPL from someone who called it Marxist or whatever..
The Wine project started out with a BSD-style license, and switched to LGPL.
A quote from the page:
"However, with some recent events I cannot disclose, it is clear to me that the opportunity for Wine to be used in a proprietary product is too tempting and has caused some harm to the Wine project. Based on experience, I feel strongly that the potential for harm is great enough that CodeWeavers needs to take two actions. First, we would like to release all new code we develop under an LGPL style license. Second, I would like to open another call for a license change and thereby strongly add my voice to Alexandre's."
Does it matter whether the license is dual or not? If it's GPL, then the GPL rules apply, and I still stand by my statement.
My statement mostly applied to newer projects.. Samba, for instance, is GPLed
I mentioned the Wine project. While it's not a server application, it's a very popular piece of software and will probably play a big role in creating an alternative to our current dominant platform. In fact, the Wine project switched their license to LGPL (which still protects users rights) because they saw the potential for everyone to get screwed over.
My point was that I think the success and momentum behind Linux is due to it's licensing. KDE, Samba, Wine, Linux, etc are all what end users see, and it is those people who the GPL seeks to protect.
Yeah, I have some typos in there. It's late for me.
Tell me, what does an end user gain from the BSD license? I'll tell you what it buys them: an opportunity to get screwed by an entity with a desire to profit at their expense.
The GPL = (BSD license - opportunity for users to get screwed). What about the companies? Please, think of the companies! If it weren't for their inherent greed, the GPL would not have come into being. The GPL is the community's way of saying "You won't be screwing us over any more." They've had their chance, and they've shown us that they are not intersted in the us, but the money - which gives incentive to locking people in.
Why do you think most big projects use the GPL these days? Gnome, KDE, Linux, GCC, Wine, as well as most applications on freshmeat and sourceforge? Because people prefer the GPL - it empowers the end user whereas other licences (such as the BSD license) empowers the guy with the most pull/money/clout/whatever. Everyone knows that the GPL isn't the best license for everything, but it's the preferred license for anything I contribute, and the same holds true for many other people as well.
GPL doesn't prevent you from writing something and selling it - it only prevents you from NOT providing the source to your changes. So? I would do that anyway.
It's very easy:
If don't want your code or it's users will be exploited/denied - use the GPL.
If you don't want your code or it's users will be exploited/denied - use another license.
In my opinion, the 'linux movement' is a mix of things, but it's mostly excitement behind the GPL, or the assurance of a community-driven computing platform, whose interest is only to serve the community, forever.
Why in the world would you want a regular user deleting stuff from the filesystem?? "Average Users" don't need that option. Unless of course, you think your mom needs to easily pop up a root nautilus and delete everything under /etc.
A bit of RTFM-ing on their website shows up gcc flags that can be used to compile all the binaries effortlessly from scratch that will result in 200% speed increase
That's complete nonsense. I think i've heard more like 2% increase from compiling with -march instead of -mcpu.
A bloated distribution with a poor package management system too.
God forbid anyone use the custom install..
And for servers, Linux is not the way to go. FreeBSD is the schnitz when it comes to http servers, samba, you name it. If it has networking and it's a server, it will run on FreeBSD.
Bah. FreeBSD is nice, but it's going nowhere when compared to the young whipper-snapper that Linux is. People seem to be more interested in working on GPLed code than they are on non-GPL code.. and for good reason. Why would you want to help out Apple or Microsoft when they probably won't give anything back?
I've never met a regular user who knew how to use About | Help. :)
My guess is that regular users won't know or care about how sparse the documentation for the Gimp is.
Most of the other changes RedHat made to the KD interface I can sort of overlook, it's mostly icons and themes and whatnot. But some things should be off limits out of respect for the people doing all the work.
If this is truly the way people feel, then it contradicts KDE's stated goal, which is to provide a contemporary user interface to average people.
To put things into perspective, let me quote something from KDE's page:
"When it comes to stability, scalability and openness there is no competition to UNIX. However, the lack of an easy to use contemporary desktop environment for UNIX has prevented UNIX from finding its way onto the desktops of the typical computer user in offices and homes."
Now, of course ask different people how deliver a UNIX system to the average user, and you'll probably get different answers as seen here. However, all involved parties here have a common goal: to bring Unix to the average user. KDE's doing their thing, Gnome doing theirs, and Redhat's doing theirs. All parties need to give up the ego and consider the user, something which I think Redhat has done and others need to do. Since KDE and Gnome inconsistencies haven't disappeared on their own, Redhat has to deal with them.
It isn't about making the KDE or Gnome camp happy, it's about bringing Unix to the average user, where silly politics and egos get in the way.
In my opinion, there should be one desktop environment for regular users and one for advanced users. That way regular users all get the same interface, and us advanced users still have the option of 1000 + 1 guis.
Right.
So since they "don't give KDE enough credit", they need to remove all references to KDE from the software? What sense does that make?
I guess some people will never be happy, and will always bitch about something regardless of how hard others try.
And the KDE hacking sucks.. those people have not even given them credits... all abouts have been removed... It is really unethical
Where did you get this from? I haven't verified the 8.0 release, but in the beta the authors are mentioned in KDE apps, under About -appname-... or are you basing it on those old IRC chat logs which were pure speculation?
I have considered this myself, but it is a topic which is extremely flame-prone.
While I think there should be an infinite amount of basic window managers for X (such as BlackBox, FluxBox, Window Maker, etc.), do we really need two desktop environments?
I am constantly switching myself back and forth between KDE and Gnome for various reasons, and I am always considering switching my users over as well.. It becomes difficult to recommend a desktop to them, because in a year the other desktop which you didn't recommend may surpass the other.
I really wish KDE would have taken up the FSF on their offer to provide a totally free QT replacement - we would have our one Desktop environement and things would be much easier for us admins and our users..
I just installed Redhat's Null the other day, and it does a fantastic job of anti-aliasing fonts right out of the box. In fact, the installer's and Open Office's fonts are anti-aliased as well! :)
Yes.
/etc/X11/XF86Config
You're missing the fact that if you change color depths in X, it must be restarted (this is not required in Windows or MacOS X).
And the fact that if you do change your max resolution, you also need to restart X (this is not required in Windows or MacOS X).
And you're probably missing the fact that most people don't like panning their desktop.
What would be nice is to be able to change MAX resolutions on the fly in X, as well as bit depth.
For example,
If I want to play Half-life under Wine:
* Edit
* Change DefaultDepth from 24 to 16
* Restart X
* After I'm done, I have to change DefaultDepth from 16 to 24
* Restart X
The time it takes me isn't much and I don't mind because I understand what's going on, but to people used to other GUI environments it seems backwards.
Excuse me, but what's with your blind hatred of Redhat? Is it because they have a positive income that you hate them now?
If they wanted to get rid of KDE, they'd get rid of KDE.
Idiot.
Ok, Hitler called for the extermination of thousands of people for no good reason.
The US bombed a Japanese city in retaliation to their active agression, their act of war.
The idea that you find the two comparable is interesting, to say the least.
The difference is that the US isn't a militarily agressive country for being a superpower, not when compared to ther countries throughout history.
Considering how easy GNU made it from Apple to use GCC, you'd think they could do the same for Quicktime. Oh well, it's not like they've already ported it to Unix or anything..
First of all, I didn't demand anything from Apple. I merely pointed out that they have not ported to any other platform except the most popular.. I also pointed out that if they *were* interested in giving back to the community from which they readily take (GCC, FreeBSD, etc.) then they would at least have the courtesy to port their player to some other platforms. We already have a BSD kernel, but we don't have a Quicktime (laters version here) player for Unix (Linux specifically).
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there are many free video players out there.. The problem is that later Quicktime codec aren't open. To create a quicktime-enabled player would mean to reverse engineer the codecs, or to use Windows codecs. It's not the interface that we care about, it's the ability to view quicktime (insert version here) movies on our platform of choice.
Again, i'm not demanding that they port anything, I'm only voicing my opinion on their actions, which I think are only taking place because they aren't the currently monopoly holder. To back up my opinion, I use Quicktime 6 as an example.
I'm not saying that Apple's quicktime server is a bad thing.. I'm saying they'd be helping more people by porting their closed Quicktime player to other platforms than to release a stream server which can only serve Windows and MacOS.
In my opinion, video and sound are just as much a part of the web as images.. Imagine only being able to view certain images on one platform, but not others?
The web was designed with platform independance in mind, and if a company activly promotes a multimedia format and doesn't port the player is doing the founders of our web, and the community, a big injustice.
Ha! They have released Darwin and Quick Time Streaming Server (and next month Rendevous) as open source.
Is it really a big deal that they open source something that noone really cares about? It's nice for a few mac developers, but these actions don't help the community all that much. As for QuickTime Streaming Server, what good is this for a FreeBSD or Linux user?
And Apple ships with Macs (compressed on the hard drive but available and free for install) and in the OS X retail boxes a free copy of their development suite (which now includes GCC 3.1). Upgrades are free for the download, or $20 for a FedEx-ed CD. This enables any Mac user that wants to, to develop as much open source as their little heart desires, without having to pay for development tools.
You'd think with all the money Apple saved in creating C compiler they could afford to hire a Linux programmer to port Quicktime to Qt or GTK so the GCC developers could watch the Two Towers trailers.. Seriously, the community could really benefit from a cross-platform Quicktime Video player way more than a server which will only serve the monopolies of x86 and PPC platforms.
Apple does care about their customers, their shareholders, and even tries to benefit the industry as a whole (Firewire, Rendevous). In contrast, Microsoft takes their customers for granted, uses them, manipulates them, treats them like criminals. Microsoft also doesn't pay shareholders dividends, and their stock prices are no longer going up and up. Microsoft acquired more congresscritters than Enron, because they donated three times what Enron did in the 2000 elections. You can compare one of these two companies to Enron. The one isn't Apple.
It would be interesting to see how Apple acted if it were in Microsoft's shoes..
I'm not saying that opening their software is a bad thing, or something to be overlooked. What I'm saying is that Apple will only do things that don't infringe on their market share, even if the community would benefit tremendously. Which is fine, but don't go around saying that they're all about the community, because they are not.
-Flame retardant suit on-
Quicktime is the only software that Apple makes that an average non-Mac user cares about, so until they port it to other platforms which people regularly use, I won't see them as a 'community friendly' company (ie a potential Microsoft.)
If they care anything for the community, they would have ported Quicktime to Unix platforms. They're pushing websites to use their platform (Quicktime mov), but they don't provide players for any platform that doesn't have huge marketshare, thereby furthering monopoly-like status of Windows and MacOS. Hell, even Real ported to Unix when they were pushing to be the dominant steamed video platform back in the day...
As a matter of fact, there's a RealOne beta port for Unix.
Let the OS vendors do OSes and leave the multimedia to a 3rd party, please.
I can't blame them for doing what big corporations do (further their market share) but I don't have to like it or support it.
Long live Ogg!