Nope; it would be suicide for a computer running a traditional operating system.
If that happens, I expect he'll cut his losses and move to something else. UNTIL that happens (since we're dealing with hypothetical here), he can use OS X and enjoy it I expect.
Life is uncertain. You just deal with bumps as they come - they're not life threatening.
And yet MY experience is also very different... to yours. I cannot rely on Linux simply because its user-base is so small that the niggling issues which crop up often don't get reported enough to grab the attention of a suitable developer, or are swept under the WONFIX rug. There's no point mentioning them because everyone has their own set of issues, which they either work around or go back to Windows for. I'm tired of workarounds.
I can trust a finely tuned Linux system for a mission critical task, but not for a general purpose desktop.
To clarify my post - it might sound like trolling, but only because it appears to be bashing Linux even if it deserves it sometimes. In reality I kinda like Linux. We use it at work on our servers (CentOS specifically), it has its uses on things like the Raspberry Pi and as the basis for Android as well as plenty of other applications. But as a desktop system it's just woeful IMHO and I'm fucking tired of so many half-baked components that crop up which don't get supported or tested sufficiently (mostly in consumer-focused distros) that it becomes disillusioning after a while. Windows has its problems too, but everything does. Fanboyism doesn't and shouldn't elevate an operating system over another.
I found myself moving from Linux back to Windows 7. Turns out I didn't actually care what fanboys proclaimed Linux could do if the software I wanted to run didn't exist in Linux. Or that my USB3 ports were busted in Linux due to a regression in the kernel that no-one bothered to fix. Or that there aren't any GUI file managers that are as quick at displaying info (and enough details including bitrates and resolutions) that are capable in Explorer.
Shame. But I think I've rid myself of the fanboy stink and use whatever the fuck I want now.
Well I agree with you on multiplayer. That's one case where automating patches should always be done, since everyone needs the same version obviously. I generally play mostly single player games these days though so it's not as big of a deal, but I get where it's useful.
As for a patch level, that's too much effort I reckon. It's just a consequence of having a platform like Steam or Origin or whatever keeping tabs on your game library, and I'll admit regressions don't happen THAT often (except when a patch removes features, like a lot of useful console commands were in a RAGE update). As for manual downloads, bit deal - we dealt with that years ago and lived through it. It's hardly what I'd call a huge bother. Call me an old fart, I'm accepting of that.:)
Its just nice not to have all the clutter of manual downloads, manual patches, expansion packs, etc.
Actually, manual downloads and patches sounds great to me. Means you retain control over how you want to use your game installation, such that if a newer patch is rubbish you can choose to stick with something earlier. Yes I know in Steam you can tell it to not update a particular game, but sooner or later Steam will force the update either due to resetting that setting, or a reinstall which will necessitate it making sure everything's up to day. I don't like this automatic control because there are some games, like RAGE and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which have problems with their respective latest patches that don't exist in former ones.
People seem to enjoy trading convenience for control. I understand why, but I don't agree that the increased benefit of giving the vendor more control is the direction we want to take things.
they hid a lot of gameplay depth in the game, but there was no easy way to access it. I first played through the game essentially never activating maximum strength, as I didn't like melee. Then I read on what suit modes things actually did and I raged at how little it was explained in game....Apparently maximum strength allowed you to stabilize your weapon to enable recoilless full auto even on heavier weapons.
I agree with your complaint - there are many features of the gameplay and the suit that are rarely (if ever) touched upon and the game assumes the player will discover these features as they play, which isn't always the case. One extra advantage you didn't mention with regards to maximum strength is that by stabilizing your weapon, you all but eliminate "scope sway" when using any weapon with a sniper scope. So a technique would be to equip the SCAR/AK with a silencer and sniper scope, activate max strength, lie prone and take out baddies from a distance silently and fairly easily, so long as you're hiding well.
If you want to play like this though, you can already with a game which features manual saves. Impose that restriction on yourself if you want, but having it imposed for everyone is ridiculous.
You still have to be cautious on a save anywhere game, it's just less frustrating if you fuck up. Moreso, a game with only checkpoints discourages experimentation. If it takes a single mistake to ruin 5 minutes of stealth gameplay and you can't save during that time to make a mistake less annoying, you'll end up gravitating towards just giving up and taking a regular assault approach to any situation because odds are you'll survive anyway and it's quicker. Less fun possibly, but it's also less time to get to the next checkpoint.
It's kinda like Apple not allowing side-loading of apps on their iDevices. They might argue it's "better" because of increased security, but some of us prefer the traditional means of installing apps from 3rd-parthy sources. We would like the OPTION at least; let people stick to the App store if they want, but at least enable 3rd-party installs as part of the OS. There's no technical reason why this cannot be done except for knowing what's best apparently. The game goes for these games which don't allow manual saves in my opinion. Having the option allows more freedom, and those who prefer to be constrained can do so themselves rather than being forced artificially.
(Not trying to Apple bash here for cheap points - just seemed like an appropriate comparison at the time).
One thing that pisses me off with a lot of modern games such as Crysis 3 (and this also includes Crysis 2) is that they rely entirely on autosaving at checkpoints. No ability to quicksave at any point at all. Autosaves are fine, but the removal of traditional manual save functionality is such a huge step backwards it affects enjoyment for me. This was highly irritating in Crysis 2 because the game likes to highlight various tactics in infiltrating a base (assault, stealth, hybrid approach), but the lack of an ability to make your own saves when desired really screws up the ability to perform stealth properly. Mess it up and you'll find yourself throwing a grenade at your feet in order to force a reload of the last checkpoint, at which point you'll need to start the whole area again. Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dishonored have the ability to create manual saves at any area (and multiple saves too) and this makes performing stealth far more desirable. You can save several times during your progress and if you stuff up, just reload the last point which might be most of the way through a section, as opposed to a checkpoint which would only occur at the beginning and the end.
But I need not ramble, because graphics do not appeal much anymore on their own if the gameplay is boring. Have them together, great, but graphics are nothing without some meat.
We seem to be heading towards the direction of streaming content, both audio and video, where the consumer pays $X per month for a selection of content. That's fine if you prefer that model (and it's a decent model - there's plenty of content that's probably only worth a single view/listen anyway), but unfortunately this seems to be the only legal outlet that's available for legit, digitally-distributed movies and videos from the big guys.
In other words, I still can't legally download TV shows or movies in a DRM-free format to be kept on my server and viewed at my leisure. No-one seems to offer that option for a high-quality file, basically - the answer they give is the streaming services. I like my digital library that's under my own control and not at the whims of the vendor, but most of it is constructed from either pirated material or ripped from DVDs.
Music is fine as there are still plenty of music sites selling legal content DRM-free, but video is mostly elusive. I WANT to buy video to run offline, but it's all streaming these days and I suspect the younger generation won't care after a few years anyway.
I feel the same way. Although I'm approaching 30 and want to get off most gaming for reasons of thinking that it's a horribly wasteful hobby and I should be doing something more interesting, like creating content or working on some electronics projects or something more intellectually stimulating. But I still am disappointed with the direction the gaming industry has taken of late as well, so it helps push me in the appropriate direction.
He has a point though. It's all about control - Valve has the control, the customer has bugger-all. I don't trust that Valve will be around in the long term because life is very uncertain, and who knows what future Steam will have then. Maybe it'll be sold off to EA who impose draconian changes to how it works, who knows. What I do know is that if I have DRM-free games on my computer, I have the control. I can back them up, move them around and I don't have to give a damn about another vendor. Who cares if hardware becomes incompatible in the future? DOSBox/ScummVM/VirtualBox show this to be a non-issue.
Yes I know, the future of Valve and Steam as a "what-if" could mean nothing; heck I could die tomorrow and make my concerns rather pointless. But as users we're losing control over everything these days, as the balance of power shifts strongly over to the corporations. This is not a good thing, and I fear not enough people care anymore about their rights so long as they get the goods, no matter how clearly they're being fucked.
Then they'll just move back to Windows (or stay with Windows, depending on the situation) and everyone will just deal with it like all compromises in life.
It's inevitable that Linux will be pushed off computers. It's like pushing against the ocean at this point - Microsoft has too much inertia and Linux has no ability to lobby. Might as well reacquaint yourselves with how Windows works and where all the options are./only half-joking here - I really do think Linux will be eliminated in a few years time. Just accept it and move on.
A mature adult would know that the choice of words they used to express themselves can sway an argument in any number of directions. You don't have to swear, be abusive or even particularly forceful to get your point across. That's the realm of someone who hasn't learnt decent social skills, and anyone who disparages the value of social skills hasn't learnt them either.
If you spend most of your working days at home, you WILL be forgotten. There is definitely value in having a physical presence at your workplace, even if you spend the majority of your time at your desk. You'll still be seen in the hallways, you'll be physically there at meetings, if you need to talk to someone about an issue it's easy enough to do it in person with the subtle benefits of having your physical presence there as opposed to being on the phone/communicator.
People remember faces better if they seem them regularly. Work at home (at least regularly) and you run the risk of being forgotten for various benefits such as being picked for a promotion, or to go on a field trip (if you aren't sick of travel yet), and heck, people will like you more if you're actually there (people being the social creatures that they are), which has its own benefits.
The only exception would be if everyone else at your workplace works from home, and there's only a handful of people who need to physicall go somewhere to work. I know the writers on Ars Technica fit that description quite well. Otherwise you might be better off dealing with the drudgery of dragging yourself into work for its career benefits.
Indeed. Filter effects in Inkscape are its Achilles' heel, and although the performance (apparently) improves with each new version it's something that seems to be a continuing problem compared to commercial packages. General workarounds include using layers and hiding filters that you don't need displayed all the time, reduce geometry and nodes, and simply make sure enough RAM is available for the program.
I do know for a fact there have been several GSoC projects addressing this very issue. It's a pity that it's so much work in improving its performance, but if it was easy it'd been done ages ago. This is why commercial software sometimes wins out - paying people to work on the boring, tedious but necessary stuff results in fixing this issue, but this isn't an option for most open source so you take what you can get.
There have already been several posts about Blender's UI, and the topic of its UI always seems to come up every time a story about Blender appears.
The problem seems to be an assumption about modern software being easy enough to pick up and use without requiring a manual or even a basic tutorial. This might suffice for some software, maybe most, but for a complex 3D development package with thousands of different features and functions, there's a limit as to how far that "dive-in-and-use" approach works. I'm not suggesting there aren't ways the UI could be improved further; of course there are. It's just that sometimes you need to read and study in order to learn, and you can't just click buttons and expect to pick things up from a cursory approach.
3D modelling and development is hard. There are a ton of different things that are expected in modern 3D packages and if Blender is to support them, then that means more buttons, more options, and more complexity. Some of it can be redesigned to provide novice users a less intimidating experience, but it's the nature of the beast, and it's unfair to harp on about it when it's been shown that you CAN use Blender to do good work.
Humorous fact (as the OP) - despite being a long-time Slashdot reader I don't feel any attraction to accounts. This is a brand new account as I like to start fresh from time to time.
That comment (basically an anti-Microsoft comment) was my first comment with this new account - and I'm ALREADY positive karma and being offered the option to "Disable Advertising - as our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot".
Everyone's been telling me (not here, just everyone else on the web) that Microsoft is better now - that they aren't quite the assholes they were in the 90's/early 2000's. There we were thinking the worst was behind them with their support for open standards on the web and not trying to kill kittens in their sleep. That if anyone still hated them in 2013 that they were being difficult, stubborn, misguided and childish.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope; it would be suicide for a computer running a traditional operating system.
If that happens, I expect he'll cut his losses and move to something else. UNTIL that happens (since we're dealing with hypothetical here), he can use OS X and enjoy it I expect.
Life is uncertain. You just deal with bumps as they come - they're not life threatening.
And yet MY experience is also very different... to yours. I cannot rely on Linux simply because its user-base is so small that the niggling issues which crop up often don't get reported enough to grab the attention of a suitable developer, or are swept under the WONFIX rug. There's no point mentioning them because everyone has their own set of issues, which they either work around or go back to Windows for. I'm tired of workarounds.
I can trust a finely tuned Linux system for a mission critical task, but not for a general purpose desktop.
To clarify my post - it might sound like trolling, but only because it appears to be bashing Linux even if it deserves it sometimes. In reality I kinda like Linux. We use it at work on our servers (CentOS specifically), it has its uses on things like the Raspberry Pi and as the basis for Android as well as plenty of other applications. But as a desktop system it's just woeful IMHO and I'm fucking tired of so many half-baked components that crop up which don't get supported or tested sufficiently (mostly in consumer-focused distros) that it becomes disillusioning after a while. Windows has its problems too, but everything does. Fanboyism doesn't and shouldn't elevate an operating system over another.
I found myself moving from Linux back to Windows 7. Turns out I didn't actually care what fanboys proclaimed Linux could do if the software I wanted to run didn't exist in Linux. Or that my USB3 ports were busted in Linux due to a regression in the kernel that no-one bothered to fix. Or that there aren't any GUI file managers that are as quick at displaying info (and enough details including bitrates and resolutions) that are capable in Explorer.
Shame. But I think I've rid myself of the fanboy stink and use whatever the fuck I want now.
I dunno, anyone who just clicks the Desktop tile and uses it the same way they always have.
Well I agree with you on multiplayer. That's one case where automating patches should always be done, since everyone needs the same version obviously. I generally play mostly single player games these days though so it's not as big of a deal, but I get where it's useful.
As for a patch level, that's too much effort I reckon. It's just a consequence of having a platform like Steam or Origin or whatever keeping tabs on your game library, and I'll admit regressions don't happen THAT often (except when a patch removes features, like a lot of useful console commands were in a RAGE update). As for manual downloads, bit deal - we dealt with that years ago and lived through it. It's hardly what I'd call a huge bother. Call me an old fart, I'm accepting of that. :)
Actually, manual downloads and patches sounds great to me. Means you retain control over how you want to use your game installation, such that if a newer patch is rubbish you can choose to stick with something earlier. Yes I know in Steam you can tell it to not update a particular game, but sooner or later Steam will force the update either due to resetting that setting, or a reinstall which will necessitate it making sure everything's up to day. I don't like this automatic control because there are some games, like RAGE and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which have problems with their respective latest patches that don't exist in former ones.
People seem to enjoy trading convenience for control. I understand why, but I don't agree that the increased benefit of giving the vendor more control is the direction we want to take things.
I agree with your complaint - there are many features of the gameplay and the suit that are rarely (if ever) touched upon and the game assumes the player will discover these features as they play, which isn't always the case. One extra advantage you didn't mention with regards to maximum strength is that by stabilizing your weapon, you all but eliminate "scope sway" when using any weapon with a sniper scope. So a technique would be to equip the SCAR/AK with a silencer and sniper scope, activate max strength, lie prone and take out baddies from a distance silently and fairly easily, so long as you're hiding well.
If you want to play like this though, you can already with a game which features manual saves. Impose that restriction on yourself if you want, but having it imposed for everyone is ridiculous.
You still have to be cautious on a save anywhere game, it's just less frustrating if you fuck up. Moreso, a game with only checkpoints discourages experimentation. If it takes a single mistake to ruin 5 minutes of stealth gameplay and you can't save during that time to make a mistake less annoying, you'll end up gravitating towards just giving up and taking a regular assault approach to any situation because odds are you'll survive anyway and it's quicker. Less fun possibly, but it's also less time to get to the next checkpoint.
It's kinda like Apple not allowing side-loading of apps on their iDevices. They might argue it's "better" because of increased security, but some of us prefer the traditional means of installing apps from 3rd-parthy sources. We would like the OPTION at least; let people stick to the App store if they want, but at least enable 3rd-party installs as part of the OS. There's no technical reason why this cannot be done except for knowing what's best apparently. The game goes for these games which don't allow manual saves in my opinion. Having the option allows more freedom, and those who prefer to be constrained can do so themselves rather than being forced artificially.
(Not trying to Apple bash here for cheap points - just seemed like an appropriate comparison at the time).
One thing that pisses me off with a lot of modern games such as Crysis 3 (and this also includes Crysis 2) is that they rely entirely on autosaving at checkpoints. No ability to quicksave at any point at all. Autosaves are fine, but the removal of traditional manual save functionality is such a huge step backwards it affects enjoyment for me. This was highly irritating in Crysis 2 because the game likes to highlight various tactics in infiltrating a base (assault, stealth, hybrid approach), but the lack of an ability to make your own saves when desired really screws up the ability to perform stealth properly. Mess it up and you'll find yourself throwing a grenade at your feet in order to force a reload of the last checkpoint, at which point you'll need to start the whole area again. Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dishonored have the ability to create manual saves at any area (and multiple saves too) and this makes performing stealth far more desirable. You can save several times during your progress and if you stuff up, just reload the last point which might be most of the way through a section, as opposed to a checkpoint which would only occur at the beginning and the end.
But I need not ramble, because graphics do not appeal much anymore on their own if the gameplay is boring. Have them together, great, but graphics are nothing without some meat.
We seem to be heading towards the direction of streaming content, both audio and video, where the consumer pays $X per month for a selection of content. That's fine if you prefer that model (and it's a decent model - there's plenty of content that's probably only worth a single view/listen anyway), but unfortunately this seems to be the only legal outlet that's available for legit, digitally-distributed movies and videos from the big guys.
In other words, I still can't legally download TV shows or movies in a DRM-free format to be kept on my server and viewed at my leisure. No-one seems to offer that option for a high-quality file, basically - the answer they give is the streaming services. I like my digital library that's under my own control and not at the whims of the vendor, but most of it is constructed from either pirated material or ripped from DVDs.
Music is fine as there are still plenty of music sites selling legal content DRM-free, but video is mostly elusive. I WANT to buy video to run offline, but it's all streaming these days and I suspect the younger generation won't care after a few years anyway.
I feel the same way. Although I'm approaching 30 and want to get off most gaming for reasons of thinking that it's a horribly wasteful hobby and I should be doing something more interesting, like creating content or working on some electronics projects or something more intellectually stimulating. But I still am disappointed with the direction the gaming industry has taken of late as well, so it helps push me in the appropriate direction.
Ha! You assume a typical programmer has the kind of leverage to say such a thing.
He has a point though. It's all about control - Valve has the control, the customer has bugger-all. I don't trust that Valve will be around in the long term because life is very uncertain, and who knows what future Steam will have then. Maybe it'll be sold off to EA who impose draconian changes to how it works, who knows. What I do know is that if I have DRM-free games on my computer, I have the control. I can back them up, move them around and I don't have to give a damn about another vendor. Who cares if hardware becomes incompatible in the future? DOSBox/ScummVM/VirtualBox show this to be a non-issue.
Yes I know, the future of Valve and Steam as a "what-if" could mean nothing; heck I could die tomorrow and make my concerns rather pointless. But as users we're losing control over everything these days, as the balance of power shifts strongly over to the corporations. This is not a good thing, and I fear not enough people care anymore about their rights so long as they get the goods, no matter how clearly they're being fucked.
Then they'll just move back to Windows (or stay with Windows, depending on the situation) and everyone will just deal with it like all compromises in life.
It's inevitable that Linux will be pushed off computers. It's like pushing against the ocean at this point - Microsoft has too much inertia and Linux has no ability to lobby. Might as well reacquaint yourselves with how Windows works and where all the options are. /only half-joking here - I really do think Linux will be eliminated in a few years time. Just accept it and move on.
A mature adult would know that the choice of words they used to express themselves can sway an argument in any number of directions. You don't have to swear, be abusive or even particularly forceful to get your point across. That's the realm of someone who hasn't learnt decent social skills, and anyone who disparages the value of social skills hasn't learnt them either.
If you spend most of your working days at home, you WILL be forgotten. There is definitely value in having a physical presence at your workplace, even if you spend the majority of your time at your desk. You'll still be seen in the hallways, you'll be physically there at meetings, if you need to talk to someone about an issue it's easy enough to do it in person with the subtle benefits of having your physical presence there as opposed to being on the phone/communicator.
People remember faces better if they seem them regularly. Work at home (at least regularly) and you run the risk of being forgotten for various benefits such as being picked for a promotion, or to go on a field trip (if you aren't sick of travel yet), and heck, people will like you more if you're actually there (people being the social creatures that they are), which has its own benefits.
The only exception would be if everyone else at your workplace works from home, and there's only a handful of people who need to physicall go somewhere to work. I know the writers on Ars Technica fit that description quite well. Otherwise you might be better off dealing with the drudgery of dragging yourself into work for its career benefits.
Indeed. Filter effects in Inkscape are its Achilles' heel, and although the performance (apparently) improves with each new version it's something that seems to be a continuing problem compared to commercial packages. General workarounds include using layers and hiding filters that you don't need displayed all the time, reduce geometry and nodes, and simply make sure enough RAM is available for the program.
I do know for a fact there have been several GSoC projects addressing this very issue. It's a pity that it's so much work in improving its performance, but if it was easy it'd been done ages ago. This is why commercial software sometimes wins out - paying people to work on the boring, tedious but necessary stuff results in fixing this issue, but this isn't an option for most open source so you take what you can get.
There have already been several posts about Blender's UI, and the topic of its UI always seems to come up every time a story about Blender appears.
The problem seems to be an assumption about modern software being easy enough to pick up and use without requiring a manual or even a basic tutorial. This might suffice for some software, maybe most, but for a complex 3D development package with thousands of different features and functions, there's a limit as to how far that "dive-in-and-use" approach works. I'm not suggesting there aren't ways the UI could be improved further; of course there are. It's just that sometimes you need to read and study in order to learn, and you can't just click buttons and expect to pick things up from a cursory approach.
3D modelling and development is hard. There are a ton of different things that are expected in modern 3D packages and if Blender is to support them, then that means more buttons, more options, and more complexity. Some of it can be redesigned to provide novice users a less intimidating experience, but it's the nature of the beast, and it's unfair to harp on about it when it's been shown that you CAN use Blender to do good work.
Humorous fact (as the OP) - despite being a long-time Slashdot reader I don't feel any attraction to accounts. This is a brand new account as I like to start fresh from time to time.
That comment (basically an anti-Microsoft comment) was my first comment with this new account - and I'm ALREADY positive karma and being offered the option to "Disable Advertising - as our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot".
Doesn't take much does it. :)
Everyone's been telling me (not here, just everyone else on the web) that Microsoft is better now - that they aren't quite the assholes they were in the 90's/early 2000's. There we were thinking the worst was behind them with their support for open standards on the web and not trying to kill kittens in their sleep. That if anyone still hated them in 2013 that they were being difficult, stubborn, misguided and childish.
Think I'll stay away from Neowin for a while.