Without LAN, how are we going to play with 2 computers at the same time behind a NAT router? With original Starcraft, you can't go on battle.net with more than one computer behind the same NAT router. [snip].
I'll second this. The *ONLY* way I've ever played Starcraft as a bonding father/son/son moment playing on a local LAN with 3 computers. I have no interest in anonymous play and it seems this usage will be unavailable. We own three copies of the same so this is not about needing the same license represented multiple times but, as the parent comment noted, the NAT issues forbade multiple Battle.net access anyway.
Please, Blizzard, consider not everyone is simply attempting to play an online game against anonymous and distant players. It seems the WoW phenomenon has colored your world-view that this is inappropriate. In the past I've thought it's a triumph that, along side a traditional game like chess, I can challenge my children with the online/LAN Starcraft.
Amazing! I had to visit sco.com to not believe this was not a little hyperbole but there it was -- we make UNIX, do professional services, and sue people.
Technically they should be sued by RedHat though since "RedHat vs. SCO" was listed a "Product" or "Service" as well and it seems that could violate copyright since as the instigator you'd think this particular suit was a "RedHat Product".
Just when you think you think nothing of SCO, they find a way to make you dig-deep and feel less..
My group recently switched from VSS to CVS and have fairly good luck. I'll echo that it's more tool rich. To be fair, a few of us invested some time in filling in different facilities we wanted but the basic tools made these mainly adjustments.
For performance VSS was maddening slow in our project (~60 directories, ~750 files) even with DSL. CVS seems much better in this regard and even supports compression (-zN option) if you require more.
On CVS so far we've only had two incidents where odd things happened and both were recoverable without loss of data (one was a file incorrectly marked as 'locked').
Slashdot Mirror
Without LAN, how are we going to play with 2 computers at the same time behind a NAT router? With original Starcraft, you can't go on battle.net with more than one computer behind the same NAT router. [snip].
I'll second this. The *ONLY* way I've ever played Starcraft as a bonding father/son/son moment playing on a local LAN with 3 computers. I have no interest in anonymous play and it seems this usage will be unavailable. We own three copies of the same so this is not about needing the same license represented multiple times but, as the parent comment noted, the NAT issues forbade multiple Battle.net access anyway.
Please, Blizzard, consider not everyone is simply attempting to play an online game against anonymous and distant players. It seems the WoW phenomenon has colored your world-view that this is inappropriate. In the past I've thought it's a triumph that, along side a traditional game like chess, I can challenge my children with the online/LAN Starcraft.
Amazing! I had to visit sco.com to not believe this was not a little hyperbole but there it was -- we make UNIX, do professional services, and sue people.
..
Technically they should be sued by RedHat though since "RedHat vs. SCO" was listed a "Product" or "Service" as well and it seems that could violate copyright since as the instigator you'd think this particular suit was a "RedHat Product".
Just when you think you think nothing of SCO, they find a way to make you dig-deep and feel less
My group recently switched from VSS to CVS and have fairly good luck. I'll echo that it's more tool rich. To be fair, a few of us invested some time in filling in different facilities we wanted but the basic tools made these mainly adjustments. For performance VSS was maddening slow in our project (~60 directories, ~750 files) even with DSL. CVS seems much better in this regard and even supports compression (-zN option) if you require more. On CVS so far we've only had two incidents where odd things happened and both were recoverable without loss of data (one was a file incorrectly marked as 'locked').