The way I see it, there are two parts to the software: the OS and the application. Why not have a simple application, open sourced, and whatever OS the individual office wants to use?
As for the application, it could be tiny. I mean, you could write that one in less than an hour.
If you had minimal possible input devices and votes collated to a local mchine with no net access whatsoever, it would be practically crack-proof. After that, local totals could be transmitted to a central office as securely as possible AND couriered over for added protection.
As soon as you start allowing more than minimal functionality (I hate that word), you start adding risks. And they chose Microsoft? Good luck, Guys.
You do know you can get several makes of electric cars for free? You can include any parts you want, can tinker with the engine yourself, and as they get better you can keep improving your own or get a new one.
On top of this they're better for the environment and have thousands of times the number of mechanics, many of whom work for free.
This reminds me of something I read some time back:
The Toddler Laws Of Property
If I like it, it's mine.
If it's in my hand, it's mine.
If I can take it from you, it's mine.
If I had it a little while ago, it's mine.
If it's mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way.
If I'm doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
If it looks just like mine, it's mine.
If I think it's mine, it's mine.
If I . ..Oops! I'm sorry, I goofed! Instead of typing in the Toddler Property Laws, I've been typing in Bill Gates' primary Business Plan.
--------
Offtopic, but hey... this is/.
Noims.
Re:playing games when booting?
on
GTK+ without X!
·
· Score: 1
Yeah. And you couldslow down the install the higher up the screen you get... that way it would install faster if you play well. Maybe installing a nice easter egg or two if you get through the entire installation without dying.
What I'm wondering is how much testing goes into deciding how trusted a piece of software is. If there's a lot of demand for signed software, and if the price is relatively low, surely someone could get their timebombed s/w signed and cause total havoc.
How many anti-MS s/w terrorists out there are working for reputable firms (that they don't like)?
It's not up to governments to say you need X amount of QA to produce software. If you concentrate on getting the job done with minimal tracable documentation of how you've gone about it, then you will indeed have it done faster and cheaper, but the phrase Caveat Emptor springs to mind.
I've both worked for and with companies that have tried churning out code without process and it's hell. Everything's fine until (aot unless) something goes wrong. If you institute good QA then not only do you have a better chance of better software (in the long run), but you also get a reputation for it.
This is the main reason for instituting good QA. Consistency. If a company consistently produces good software, they will make more sales.
I do agree to some degree with the fact that half the fun comes from writing the game, but to me this is true for any software you actually want to write. I'm currently working on an embedded system, and I'm enjoying the work thoroughly, but I think most of the pleasure I get is from the thought that someone else is going to use, benefit from, and perhaps enjoy what I'm writing. This just won't happen unless it's good.
The thing about games is that they have to be god to be noticed. For my definition of 'good', see my post a couple of levels up (roguelikes (and game types)). Now if you're writing a small (~share)ware game, or a blockbuster you're working to different standards.
If I understand correctly, your suggestion for a random or AI based world (as well as NPCs) looks very intesting. A plot-based game where the plot isn't directly written. It would certainly be worth looking into. The problem is, if you've ever GMed a RL RPG (dig those nLAs *:) ), you'll know that players often need a little nudge in the right direction, or a little fudge in reality to keep the excitement there. Lots of people know the frustration of trying to find the button to open the gate to the next level. In a really random world this would be worse because you won't necessarily know that there is a button.
This could, of course, be gotten around by having lots of semi-interconnected plots (randomly generated), and letting the player go through them as they want. At this stage, tho', it starts to get BIG!
Of course, I may have missed your idea/point completely, but it's given me a few nasty ideas. Thanks. *:)
I'm an avid gamer and have a high spec PC for almost solely that purpose. I still play a hell of a lot of Nethack though. The thing about Nethack is that it suits the OS model extremely well since there are so many picky little bits to it that it is so hugely expandable. In this way it's very like Linux itself, in that if you think something would be really cool you can add it on. If it's good it will be accepted (yes, I've used this metaphor before). The only way other games fit this is by adding levels, and perhaps embedding new features.
The problem with using this approach to develop most games software is that it's so hard to churn it out quickly. Any game that comes out has to do something better than any other. For fps's, for example, you can either make the game prettier (Q3), more intelligent (half-life), or different in some fundimental manner (Aliens Vs Predator / Thief). If you can't do this the game just won't sell. For example, Requiem seems a damn fine game, but since Half-Life game out first, I just never got into it.
To get this edge, the game has to come out as soon as is humanly possible. You also need a very high spec development platform to match the game's target machine. I don't think these really suit the OS method since so much time and money has to be put into it.
In short, if you write a game that's based on addictiveness, like nethack, and is expandable, OS works exceptionally well. If you're trying to make the next great fps, I'm not so convinced.
Noims
BTW, I know I'm mis-using the term Open Source, and using it to mean less and more than it does, but I hope I got my point accross anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, there are two parts to the software: the OS and the application. Why not have a simple application, open sourced, and whatever OS the individual office wants to use?
As for the application, it could be tiny. I mean, you could write that one in less than an hour.
If you had minimal possible input devices and votes collated to a local mchine with no net access whatsoever, it would be practically crack-proof. After that, local totals could be transmitted to a central office as securely as possible AND couriered over for added protection.
As soon as you start allowing more than minimal functionality (I hate that word), you start adding risks. And they chose Microsoft? Good luck, Guys.
Noims
You do know you can get several makes of electric cars for free? You can include any parts you want, can tinker with the engine yourself, and as they get better you can keep improving your own or get a new one.
On top of this they're better for the environment and have thousands of times the number of mechanics, many of whom work for free.
Noims.
This reminds me of something I read some time back:
.Oops! I'm sorry, I goofed! Instead of typing in the Toddler Property Laws, I've been typing in Bill Gates' primary Business Plan.
/.
The Toddler Laws Of Property
If I like it, it's mine.
If it's in my hand, it's mine.
If I can take it from you, it's mine.
If I had it a little while ago, it's mine.
If it's mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way.
If I'm doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.
If it looks just like mine, it's mine.
If I think it's mine, it's mine.
If I . .
--------
Offtopic, but hey... this is
Noims.
Yeah. And you couldslow down the install the higher up the screen you get... that way it would install faster if you play well. Maybe installing a nice easter egg or two if you get through the entire installation without dying.
Noims. Tetris junkie.
In fact the flies ages slower throughout their lifespan. The symptoms of old-age started appearing later in their lives too.
Admittedly old-age does last longer, but only in proportion to the increase in lifespan.
Noims
What I'm wondering is how much testing goes into deciding how trusted a piece of software is. If there's a lot of demand for signed software, and if the price is relatively low, surely someone could get their timebombed s/w signed and cause total havoc.
How many anti-MS s/w terrorists out there are working for reputable firms (that they don't like)?
Noims.
I wonder if they've sent in any bug fixes yet.
It's not up to governments to say you need X amount of QA to produce software. If you concentrate on getting the job done with minimal tracable documentation of how you've gone about it, then you will indeed have it done faster and cheaper, but the phrase Caveat Emptor springs to mind.
I've both worked for and with companies that have tried churning out code without process and it's hell. Everything's fine until (aot unless) something goes wrong. If you institute good QA then not only do you have a better chance of better software (in the long run), but you also get a reputation for it.
This is the main reason for instituting good QA. Consistency. If a company consistently produces good software, they will make more sales.
Noims
I do agree to some degree with the fact that half the fun comes from writing the game, but to me this is true for any software you actually want to write. I'm currently working on an embedded system, and I'm enjoying the work thoroughly, but I think most of the pleasure I get is from the thought that someone else is going to use, benefit from, and perhaps enjoy what I'm writing. This just won't happen unless it's good.
The thing about games is that they have to be god to be noticed. For my definition of 'good', see my post a couple of levels up (roguelikes (and game types)). Now if you're writing a small (~share)ware game, or a blockbuster you're working to different standards.
If I understand correctly, your suggestion for a random or AI based world (as well as NPCs) looks very intesting. A plot-based game where the plot isn't directly written. It would certainly be worth looking into. The problem is, if you've ever GMed a RL RPG (dig those nLAs *:) ), you'll know that players often need a little nudge in the right direction, or a little fudge in reality to keep the excitement there. Lots of people know the frustration of trying to find the button to open the gate to the next level. In a really random world this would be worse because you won't necessarily know that there is a button.
This could, of course, be gotten around by having lots of semi-interconnected plots (randomly generated), and letting the player go through them as they want. At this stage, tho', it starts to get BIG!
Of course, I may have missed your idea/point completely, but it's given me a few nasty ideas. Thanks. *:)
Cheers,
Noisdsn
I'm an avid gamer and have a high spec PC for almost solely that purpose. I still play a hell of a lot of Nethack though. The thing about Nethack is that it suits the OS model extremely well since there are so many picky little bits to it that it is so hugely expandable. In this way it's very like Linux itself, in that if you think something would be really cool you can add it on. If it's good it will be accepted (yes, I've used this metaphor before). The only way other games fit this is by adding levels, and perhaps embedding new features.
The problem with using this approach to develop most games software is that it's so hard to churn it out quickly. Any game that comes out has to do something better than any other. For fps's, for example, you can either make the game prettier (Q3), more intelligent (half-life), or different in some fundimental manner (Aliens Vs Predator / Thief). If you can't do this the game just won't sell. For example, Requiem seems a damn fine game, but since Half-Life game out first, I just never got into it.
To get this edge, the game has to come out as soon as is humanly possible. You also need a very high spec development platform to match the game's target machine. I don't think these really suit the OS method since so much time and money has to be put into it.
In short, if you write a game that's based on addictiveness, like nethack, and is expandable, OS works exceptionally well. If you're trying to make the next great fps, I'm not so convinced.
Noims
BTW, I know I'm mis-using the term Open Source, and using it to mean less and more than it does, but I hope I got my point accross anyway.