You claim they stole code from someone (unnamed), changed the citation of authorship, and then gave it away (presumably under the GPL). Do you have any published references for this, AC? A link, please... --M
..or it could be spread about the entire collection of projects under the umbrella. --jmg
That makes me really uneasy. So the FSF or Eric Raymond or Cowboy Neal is going to be in charge of which project receives support from a huge pool of "Free Software" donations? Can you imagine the nightmare of nepotism and political squabbling that will create? --update()
This is really a minor debating point. Personally, I disagree with you that selecting some general purpose funds to go to all projects under the umbrella would turn into a financial and political debacle. However, if those general purpose funds were used strictly for community disk, CVS, and project web space similar to sourceforge, this alone would be a good start. We all hope sourceforge continues providing it's excellent service, but should VA Linux go out of business something similar ought to be re-created by a tax exempt charity as I describe above. JMO.
I think this is a critical point all too many Open Source and Free Software advocates fail to recognize. We all like to point to the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition and argue the movement is about about Free Speech instead of gratis software, but the fact is that the gratis aspect of Free Software is the primary economic incentive driving Linux and *BSD among individual users and businesses. Gratis is popular, just like free beer.
However, gratis is also incompatible with most rational business models. That Redhat wants to sell support instead of software might be a sustainable business model, but I think no one yet knows this for sure. That Eazel wanted to sell network storage and "services", just like Microsoft intends, and spent it's entire vulture capital outlay on a loss leader file manager is clearly not a viable business model; their bankruptcy attests to this fact. We'll see if any of the other support/service business models actually succeed... they may or may not.
So given Mandrake's position with its huge user base, free ISO images offered before boxed versions hit the shelves, and a development staff paid for by those sales -- how is Mandrake going to position it's product in order to generate revenue while it gives the product away for free (before commercial release) via ftp?
This is the quandry -- do we (as a community) value hiring developers to manage and enhance Free Software toward specific community (or end-user) driven goals, or should it all be created haphazard by volunteers in a great bazzaar? I think we're at the point where for free OS's and applications to succeed, we'll HAVE to create a system whereby developers are hired and paid to create community sponsored projects which then get released under the GPL (or other free licenses).
Bruce Perens, among others, has argued for a street performer type system, whereby developers request donations for the value of the projects they create. The only serious problem with this mechanism is that it could force each project to hire a lawyer in order to obtain tax deductible charity status (such as the Free Software Foundation possesses). I think a better aproach would be for either the FSF, or some other umbrella organization, to be created with the express purpose of funneling donations to most any free project. Donors could specify who they wanted receive the donation, or it could be spread about the entire collection of projects under the umbrella. I like this for several reasons:
It's voluntary. Just like it's voluntary to use and write free software, so should it be voluntary to donate.
It creates a positive economic feedback loop for each project. However much money is donated to the SAMBA project (for example) is by definition a statement of their "value" to the community as a whole. However much money they receive is what can be spent on developers, administrative costs, and conferences. As long as financial community support persists, the project has a functional business model for hiring staff.
It evens out the success of certain low profile projects that are still critical, for example the DRI project over at sourceforge. There's no economic model supporting DRI whatsoever, other than developer interest. The best they get is maybe some money from the distributions which are relying on 3D support to succeed. Thus donations become a mechanism whereby USERS can target economic incentives toward specific projects they consider necessary for their future use and needs.
Frankly, all those who deride Mandrake for sticking their hat out begging miss the point. I've never given money to Mandrake, but then again I don't use Mandrake. I have given money to the OpenBSD project, the FSF, the EFF, the ACLU, and I've bought numerous Redhat distributions; because I agree with and want to support these projects. Those individuals who donate to Mandrake might have very good economic and personal reasons for doing so. They have an OS investment in Mandrake, a desired feature set they wish implemented in the next release, and are part of a community they wish to see succeed. If those community members decide that offering donations (among box sales) will support Mandrake well enough to meet its budgetary needs for hiring developers and staff, why not pursue that revenue stream? It's no different from NPR or PBS holding their hat out to their listeners/viewers, and over the last twenty years NPR and PBS have shown that their pledge drives do succeed at paying a significant portion of their budget.
I encourage all free software projects to request donations; and most of all I encourage the creation of some charity as described above which could be used to funnel money toward any and every free project around. Maybe this is where sourceforge should go if/when VA Linux goes down the tubes?
J. Maynard Gelinas
"By oneself evil is done; by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is undone; by oneself one is purified." --Gautama Sakyamuni
This PS/2 owner won't buy an X-box. Not because of loyalty to Sony or hatred toward MS, but because I suspect the X-box will be junk. Prove me wrong in November and maybe I'll reconsider... for now I'll play SSX and enjoy. --M
So refresh my memory.. who loses in this situation?
The entire society. This is not a left vs. right issue, but one of privacy rights. Your employer doesn't and shouldn't have the right to private medical records, especially records that they've collected or created without your consent. This is no different from age or gender discrimination. It's been this way for decades.
Employers should not have access to my private medical records for the same reason they shouldn't have the right to dictate how I live my life in my private time. Can you imagine what kind of society we'd have if corporations cherry picked only the healthiest individuals, worked them to death for a short duration, and then fired them before they grew old enough to lose their health? Just like only insuring the healthy, it distorts the very foundation of equal access and pay for equal work across society as a whole.
I'm flying out on business tomorrow morning, so if you actually do write back know that I'm not blowing you off but am simply out of town and unable to access the net.
Feel free to contact me via email, the address listed here is correct; I'll reply when I get a chance. If you must, send the note from an anonymous email account as well, just reference this post so I know the context.
I've been thinking about what you said WRT loki fixing their web site. You're right, if they've taken action to prevent the problem from happening to others, I might have prefered a more open statement to that effect, but I'm certainly impressed. Loki's problems with DR are really their affair, I'm more concerned about customers getting screwed by placing an order which appears to be reasonable on loki's web order form without knowing the potential consequences. The more I think about it the more I realize that I'm amenable to resolution by such a policy change.
I'd really like to be able to comment on Loki (good or bad) without having this whole mess come up again. If it's true that they've taken steps to resolve the problem then I really don't have much reason to bitch any longer.
Most people would vent their frustrations once, and let it stay there.
As I've written in the past, I originally posted to K5 out of frustration with their unwillingness to resolve my problem and the potential that it might happen to someone else. I'm actually be quite happy to learn that another person couldn't get into the same bind I found myself in last Sept-Oct. And, frankly, it's pretty much past history.
If you read the first post I wrote in this thread I summarized my personal annoyance with Loki, but I didn't dwell on it. That post was primarily a note regarding my regret over seeing the linux gaming scene in it's current state and my desire and wish to see it succeed. Of course, I know nothing about Loki's internal situation beyond what's been posted publicly, but based on their inability to get new product out the door, the large number of engineers who have left, and this apparent firesale of SMAC and Tribes 2 I can only assume the worst.
I honestly don't want loki to go bankrupt, or their staff to lose their jobs. However, I can't imagine any business succeeding given the assumption that I'm not the only one who's had a problem with them. I assume that if I've had a problem with customer service, other must have as well. In fact, while I received some threatening emails, I also received several emails from others who had problems with loki too. So, I wouldn't call what I've written a vendetta against loki or their staff. More a response to the overwhelming unreasonable calls to support loki no matter what -- even to the point of buying games that one wouldn't want or couldn't use. Linux users are wearing blinders that somehow if we all just buy one more game we don't want or need we'll somehow save the linux gaming scene. No... it doesn't work that way; that kind of market distortion is bound to fail across the long haul. A viable gaming scene will emerge once economic market conditions allow, and once the necessary software infrastructure is in place. Also, reasonable customer service helps.
I never saw a note in any of their newsgroups which suggested that customers not pre-order games. And the thought that a customer should know beforehand that something like this might happen is simply ludicrous. One can say "caveat emptor", but once done the notion of a higher calling WRT a for profit venture is out the door. They are a business. Which is good... businesses employ people and are a necessary part of a civilized society. But just because they are a linux business doesn't make them any more (or less) responsible to their customers. That's my attitude about the whole thing. I'm a critic of the policy presented by my communication with Kayt and most especially by the virulent response from the linux gaming community; one doesn't forget death threats easily. I also write letters to my congresspersons, other businesses which behave in ways I consider inappropriate, etc... so this isn't strictly about Loki. I waste time on this because I think it's the "right thing to do". Quixotesque, I suppose; and arguably childish here given that it's six months after the fact and I've been trolled into this debate once again.
Some of the engineering work in the games loki has released is just wonderful. The free software Loki has released, such as ALSA, is of real benefit to the Linux community as a whole as well. I don't argue that they've produced bad products, or that they've done a terrible disservice to the linux community through fraud or some other financial scandal. Loki has produced an honest product for the buck. But the customer support hasn't been satisfactory to my taste. I'm playing the role of critic here and hoping that with enough bitching some policy will change. Also, I hope to provide a balance to the absurd RAH RAH RAH that goes on WRT loki.
You know, if a rep from Loki had attempted to nip this in the bud -- for example, contacting DR and just canceling the order and re-reinstating it into two separate orders -- this whole thing would never have happened. Seriously.
If Loki won't let that kind of thing happen again (which honestly was probably a pretty rare event anyway), I'll be pleased and certainly won't claim that others might continue to get into that kind of mess. Can you publicly present a factual basis for that claim? I say this because you've been posting AC...
Cheers,
--Maynard
ps -- I honestly DO want to see the linux gaming market succeed. I like playing games!
Since you didn't use quotes, you only imply that I used those exact words -- which I didn't. The links you provide most certainly do stand up on their own as to the veracity of the response against my original post, and the complete facts of my position at that time, and today. As for the suggestion that Loki is "out to get me", that's patently ridiculous. They're a business; at most they should be out to get my dollar. Whether they actually want my business or not I can't speak to.
I dunno... I have a particular position regarding Loki and I repeat it when it seems appropriate; free speech and all. Why did Kayt Sorhaindo call me a liar on K5 and then never reply to back up her claim? Why did I recieve hate emails with threats to my life after my K5 post? Beats me.
However, I don't hate loki, or the people who work for them. I simply consider them a business out to turn a profit. Therefore, I give them no special consideration that I might offer to the FSF, the GNOME foundation, Debian, KDE, or any of a number of other non-profits and/or individuals supporting the Linux community with code, documentation, artwork, etc. If Redhat and/or their staff had acted in the same way in their official capacity I'd be out on my soapbox regarding them as well. It's not a distaste for Linux games that promotes this behavior, but a deep rooted feeling that a company who publically insults its customers doesn't deserve the same kind of "slack" that a non-profit should within the Linux community.
Q3A runs beautifully under RH7.1 with my Voodoo 3/2k. Some of the other Loki games, such as Myth II, have problems with running in 16bpp mode under GL (you have to update to the latest patch to support GL) with the Voodoo 1/2/3, however for the first time getting 3D support working under Linux is as simple as installing a distribution. If you've got an NVIDIA card you'll want to download the NVIDIA drivers, as the XFree4 drivers aren't anywhere near as good... but Voodoo and Radeon support out of the box is basically here.
This is *much* more important than just being able to play games... it's critical to the scientific community that requires 3D support for molecular modeling, data analysis, simulations, etc as well as the graphics rendering and modeling community. The long term consequences of out of the box 3D support in Linux for the graphics and scientific communities means far greater Linux penetration within these markets. And that's where the Linux desktop is heading -- on the desks of engineers, scientist, and artists... not business users. JMO.
I don't dispute this fact one bit. While Loki's web form never made it directly clear that DR was responsible for shipping the product until after I confirmed my order, nor did it state the results of combining orders in the manner, I do recognize that Loki formed an arrangement with DR to handle their distribution. So we agree on these facts.
So what?
I placed a bundled order once, complained, and was told by Loki staff to please resubmit broken up and that they would resolve this problem with their distributor. Afterwards I re-ordered two other games which were on pre-order because of that promise. Then I waited several months without any response or update as to what was going on. Digital River was rude as hell to me and when I contacted Loki they offered me a ridiculous subscription to every game they might ever release as a "solution". Thank God I turned them down on that offer...
These are the facts. You, and the other apologists for Loki continue to blame Digital River for the problem. I pulled up Loki's web page, placed an order by filling in the available boxes, and expected to receive some kind of product (or at least a regular update) like any other customer attempting a transaction with any other business. "Fault" and "blame" are irrelevant. No other online firms like L.L Bean, Land's End, etc etc etc behave like this because they want repeat customers. As I said before, I've bought ten games from Loki, which shows that I'm a repeat customer -- IOW, a gold mine to most online and mail order firms. In business the transaction is king, and those who forget their customers wind up losing transactions. Then it's bankruptcy.
That's the real world of business. Fault is irrelevant.
I bought the windows version of SMAC with Alien Crossfire boxed at CompUSA for ~$15.00 several months back. It's a great game, no doubt... but lack of demand has brought the price down to bargain bin levels. --M
I've just ordered from your company for the first time, I wish I had done so previously.
It looks like you're going to be the next company to hold the linux gaming torch; you need to find an alternative revenue stream from selling Loki games. Maybe you could work out an arrangement with id for providing support for their upcoming Doom 3 release? They release a windows CD and the binaries to play on Linux, you offer support in exchange for a fee -- either by a 900 number or some other scheme.
There are other companies producing cross platform games out there -- tribesoft and vicarious visions being the two best known at the moment. I hope you're able to find a revenue stream through while the linux gaming market recovers. It's important to note that for the first time we're seeing distributions which actually support 3D out of the box. RH7.1 does a pretty good job, I'm impressed. So the software infrastructure is now in place for install and play gaming.
Businesses succeed by taking money for a product and/or service and then delivering said product to the customer. Should the equation "money for product and services" be disrupted, a business failure will soon follow. --M
When I click on the shopping cart icon at www.lokigames.com when attempting a purchase, the URL I see is:
http://store.lokigames.com/dr/v2/[...]
Not Digital River at all. I realize that DR is their distributor (and, if you read my post you'll note that my lastest purchase was handled through tuxgames), however Loki needs to take responsibility for purchases handled through the ordering form on their web site. I've NEVER seen a company behave like this. Imagine Lands End or L.L. Bean taking an order from their web site, not shipping, and then blaming a distributor. However, the issue now is not Loki's order management and customer service troubles, but how the Linux gaming community will rebound through these tough times.
That said, I wish Loki's former engineers and programmers good luck in their new careers.
This is terrible. I've ranted in the past about Loki's awful customer service, and I claimed I would never buy another game from them again. That is after having bought ten games from Loki.So I suppose their demise is justified, given how badly they've judged the Linux market and how poorly they served this customer. But it's terrible just the same.
Loki screwed up in so many ways, which shouldn't have been obvious only in hindsight. For example, they focused on far too many 3D game ports like Heavy Gear 2, Soldier of Fortune, Descent 2, etc, when the driver support wasn't integrated in by the popular linux distributors like Redhat, Mandrake, et all. This meant that average users trying to install and play their games had to go through all sorts of hoops to get the stuff running on XFree-3.3.x, which further limited their market to only the most knowedgeable of the Linux community. If they had focused on porting more strategy games like CivCTP, which had a real potential market, they might still be financially solvent.
They *still* have refused to fix their web page and still take orders which they know they can't ship. What I mean by this is that if you order a released product bundled with something that's to be released at a future date, they will hold the released product until the new title is available. I'm sure this is primarily a problem with their distributor, but they could have set up their order form to either prevent these kinds of orders, or at least inform the customer of his/her potential wait.
All this said, I'm a hypocrite: after claiming I would never buy another Loki title again, I ordered the SMAC/Tribes 2 bundle from TuxGames recently primarily because I really like SMAC. I've got it running under Windows, but I like the game enough to bring it over to the linux side of my box... I have no idea how good Tribes 2 will be. Hope I enjoy the game.
I very much want to see the linux gaming market succeed. However, I recognize that if the market is only large enough to support one porting vendor it's not a sustainable market. One economic downturn and *poof!*. It's not reasonable for Linux gamers to be begging folks to go out and buy any and every game to help support loki. The market should support Loki (or any other company for that matter) on its own. Go ahead and buy these games if they're what you want (I did). But to buy these games just to "save loki" is foolish, and a failed strategy over the long haul.
I'm encouraged by John Carmack repeatedly stating that he will provide a port of Doom 3 to Linux. He probably won't sell a boxed version, but at least Linux gamers will be able to buy the Windows version and play under Linux. This is the seed that will keep the Linux gaming movment alive until the necessary drivers migrate out to the user community. Once XFree 4.x.x is ubiquitous we'll have the software infrastructure in place to support a 3D gaming market... at that point the primary issue will be whether there are enough users and buyers to support a company, not whether the market has the requisite skills necessary to configure their OS in order to play the game.
It looks to me that with the X-box being a simply a PIII 700 with a GeForce 3, 64MB of Ram and 32 MB of video texture RAM, as well as Ethernet and USB I.O, that the hardware alone will sufficiently beat a PS2. The Playstation 2 lacks ethernet out, has only 8MB of texture and 38MB of system RAM. and firewire/USB out.
That said, I love my PS2. I plop a disk in and play, no screwing around. The biggest dissapointment came when I discovered that I can't attach a usb keyboard and mouse for use with Quake III Revolution, which is a problem with Quake III, not the PS2. I'm also dubious that Sony will sell an ethernet card which doesn't require Sony ISP service, or some other subscription model... so if the X box is open enough to allow me to hook it up to my home network and play across the Internet I'll consider it a significant improvement over the PS2.
Except for lacking Ethernet, the hardware differences between the two appear to be noise and not significant. However, I'm willing to bet that the ease of porting x86 games over to the X-box (almost no porting whatsoever) will give this system the majority of games titles very quickly. I just hope my PS2 purchase doesn't bocome obsolete as quickly as all those Dreamcast owners...
All that said, I still love my PS2 and I hope Sony does the right thing.
I'm sorry you don't like being forced to release your code if you include any of mine (or any other word released under the GPL). You know, all you have to do is rip my code (any GPL'd code) out of your project and you can release your code under any license you like. I don't charge you a financial fee for using my code in your projcet -- my fee is your code in return. That's right, you can't take my work for nothing. As I wrote before, why do you think you should have the right to MY hard work for nothing, when you won't recipricate? Will Microsoft, Oracle, or any other proprietary software producers give you such a deal? No? Then why the fuck should I?
You've simply taken my quote out of context in order to repeat yourself. Since writing my original post I've gone through and read your many comments, all of which repeat the same mantra. You're like those pundits on TV who just shout their opinions over the moderator and their opponent without any concern for their thread of argumet, only their presentation. You have no ideas to exchange, only a position to state -- again and again.
Am I to understand that if you repeat these ridiculous claims enough you'll change public opinion? Maybe so, but you won't change the facts (content) underlying what the GPL permits and restricts. Here's a hint: the GPL only restricts distribution of content released under the GPL. But, of course, you'll only respond to a statement which you can take out of context, won't you? Your words are without merit because you don't argue content, only position. Do you have a talking points memo on hand to guide how you frame your posts? Sure reads like it.
As for Stallman's talk of compatibility" -- it's primarily there because stallman hopes to co-opt other software, inasmuch as he can, into GPLed software so as to further his agenda. When RMS says a license is "GPL-compatible," it means that he thinks he can get away with incorporating the code into GPLed software, thus increasing the size of his arsenal of GPLed code. Which he'll then use to attack programmers' livelihoods.
I'm astonished by this line of argument. No one -- not rms, Linus, esr, et all -- demand that you to release your software under any license at all. If you create program, wholly on your own, you may license the work however you wish. You may even use all of the free tools created by various Free Software and Open Source projects toward your own end, without legal constraint. rms would certainly prefer that you license your work under the GPL, but he'll have nothing to say on the issue should you choose a proprietary commercial license.
When I use a commercial product such as Oracle, I'm restricted in what I may say about the product, how I might duplicate a copy of the product, under what conditions I may run the product, and there's even software created to force compliance to some of these terms. One deals with none of this while using Free Software. You may USE Free Software any way you wish.
You may NOT modify a GPL'd program and then redistribute your results without making your modifications available under the same license. Period. How the hell does this threaten your right to distribute and/or sell software you create wholly on your own? Would you argue that Microsoft should give you IE source so you can redistribute and sell a proprietary fork? No? Then why the hell should rms give you source to readline for your proprietary product? And there's nothing stopping you from offering the FSF MONEY for a special license to the source... that you have as much chance at convincing the FSF to sell you a proprietary license to readline as you might have at buying a license to the source of Microsoft's IE is irrelevant -- nothing stops a developer from releasing his/her source tree under multiple licenses.
The point is: you're expecting something for nothing from the FSF so that you can take the work for personal gain. This doesn't happen in the business world, why the hell do you think it's appropriate among cooperative communities?
I clicked on your link, half thinking it was just another goatse.cx redirect, and what do I find? A professional attorney who is heading up the OpenLaw forum and fighting for fair use rights. Thank God not every lawyer has sold out our society for a few measley bucks. You're doing good work. I wish I could help out beyond my donations to EFF and the ACLU, but you have my support, respect, and thanks.
Your first reply consisted of not much more than "Fuck you loser." and now you call him a "Communist". In neither of your replies DO YOU ADDRESS HIS FIVE QUESTIONS. These questions are relevant to the discussion at hand, but your only reply is one of derogatory retorts. This speaks volumes of your critical thinking skills, and nothing of your opponent's claimed relationship to the communist party. Is this how you're going to respond to an intelligent post? Are you serious??? Well, hat's off to rational debate and serious discussion. What you seem to be saying is that any relevant debating points your opponent may make in the course of discussion are to be disregarded with a flippant 'We Disagree', "Fuck you loser.", calling him an "arrogant asshole" and a 'communist'. Frankly, based on this reply chain if/. preferences had killfile support, you'd be tops on my list.
Answer his questions, forget the baiting. He's received a high score for his comment, and deservedly so, for debating your post on factual grounds. Reply in kind or not at all.
We may disagree on whether my course of action has been appropriate or whether I've over-reacted. We may also disagree on the relative value of Loki's contribution to the Free Software community. But the derogatory (and sometimes threatening) comments I've received over this issue has only strengthened my resolve. I thank you for your apology over the name calling and accept that you disagree with my conclusions and course of action. I hope that if we meet at a Linux or USENIX conference we'll shake hands and simply agree to disagree on this one issue.
Many for-profit businesses release some free code along with their proprietary goods. See Corel, IBM, Sun... they get no special consideration beyond having done a good deed when it comes to fulfilling their customer service requirements to this customer. So, to Loki and it's programmers I say good for you -- you have done a good deed. Thank You for OpenAL. But this doesn't release Loki from their obligation to this, and other, customers. I contacted Loki privately several times before I complained in a public forum. The Loki rep then claimed I had misrepresented our private communication(s) in my submission, and requested permission to post our correspondence. I replied with the correspondence, and the rep never replied back. The story and comment tree is still in Kuro5hin's archives -- read it for yourself.
All of that wouldn't matter to me if they had fixed their web page to make certain others couldn't get into the same bind I found myself in with their ordering and distribution system. They continue to allow these sorts of orders even after having had problems in the past. I do not respect this, nor will I stop my criticism. A lone voice, maybe. But I don't criticize for personal gain, nor out of hatred for the people who work for Loki. I do this entirely because I think it's the right thing to do; your (and many other's) derogatory name calling notwithstanding. And I will enjoy Alpha Centauri from Windows today, bought at a fraction of the cost off of a discount shelf I might add.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim they stole code from someone (unnamed), changed the citation of authorship, and then gave it away (presumably under the GPL). Do you have any published references for this, AC? A link, please... --M
That makes me really uneasy. So the FSF or Eric Raymond or Cowboy Neal is going to be in charge of which project receives support from a huge pool of "Free Software" donations? Can you imagine the nightmare of nepotism and political squabbling that will create? --update()
This is really a minor debating point. Personally, I disagree with you that selecting some general purpose funds to go to all projects under the umbrella would turn into a financial and political debacle. However, if those general purpose funds were used strictly for community disk, CVS, and project web space similar to sourceforge, this alone would be a good start. We all hope sourceforge continues providing it's excellent service, but should VA Linux go out of business something similar ought to be re-created by a tax exempt charity as I describe above. JMO.
Cheers,
--Maynard
However, gratis is also incompatible with most rational business models. That Redhat wants to sell support instead of software might be a sustainable business model, but I think no one yet knows this for sure. That Eazel wanted to sell network storage and "services", just like Microsoft intends, and spent it's entire vulture capital outlay on a loss leader file manager is clearly not a viable business model; their bankruptcy attests to this fact. We'll see if any of the other support/service business models actually succeed... they may or may not.
So given Mandrake's position with its huge user base, free ISO images offered before boxed versions hit the shelves, and a development staff paid for by those sales -- how is Mandrake going to position it's product in order to generate revenue while it gives the product away for free (before commercial release) via ftp?
This is the quandry -- do we (as a community) value hiring developers to manage and enhance Free Software toward specific community (or end-user) driven goals, or should it all be created haphazard by volunteers in a great bazzaar? I think we're at the point where for free OS's and applications to succeed, we'll HAVE to create a system whereby developers are hired and paid to create community sponsored projects which then get released under the GPL (or other free licenses).
Bruce Perens, among others, has argued for a street performer type system, whereby developers request donations for the value of the projects they create. The only serious problem with this mechanism is that it could force each project to hire a lawyer in order to obtain tax deductible charity status (such as the Free Software Foundation possesses). I think a better aproach would be for either the FSF, or some other umbrella organization, to be created with the express purpose of funneling donations to most any free project. Donors could specify who they wanted receive the donation, or it could be spread about the entire collection of projects under the umbrella. I like this for several reasons:
It's voluntary. Just like it's voluntary to use and write free software, so should it be voluntary to donate.
It creates a positive economic feedback loop for each project. However much money is donated to the SAMBA project (for example) is by definition a statement of their "value" to the community as a whole. However much money they receive is what can be spent on developers, administrative costs, and conferences. As long as financial community support persists, the project has a functional business model for hiring staff.
It evens out the success of certain low profile projects that are still critical, for example the DRI project over at sourceforge. There's no economic model supporting DRI whatsoever, other than developer interest. The best they get is maybe some money from the distributions which are relying on 3D support to succeed. Thus donations become a mechanism whereby USERS can target economic incentives toward specific projects they consider necessary for their future use and needs.
Frankly, all those who deride Mandrake for sticking their hat out begging miss the point. I've never given money to Mandrake, but then again I don't use Mandrake. I have given money to the OpenBSD project, the FSF, the EFF, the ACLU, and I've bought numerous Redhat distributions; because I agree with and want to support these projects. Those individuals who donate to Mandrake might have very good economic and personal reasons for doing so. They have an OS investment in Mandrake, a desired feature set they wish implemented in the next release, and are part of a community they wish to see succeed. If those community members decide that offering donations (among box sales) will support Mandrake well enough to meet its budgetary needs for hiring developers and staff, why not pursue that revenue stream? It's no different from NPR or PBS holding their hat out to their listeners/viewers, and over the last twenty years NPR and PBS have shown that their pledge drives do succeed at paying a significant portion of their budget.
I encourage all free software projects to request donations; and most of all I encourage the creation of some charity as described above which could be used to funnel money toward any and every free project around. Maybe this is where sourceforge should go if/when VA Linux goes down the tubes?
J. Maynard Gelinas
"By oneself evil is done; by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is undone; by oneself one is purified." --Gautama Sakyamuni
This PS/2 owner won't buy an X-box. Not because of loyalty to Sony or hatred toward MS, but because I suspect the X-box will be junk. Prove me wrong in November and maybe I'll reconsider... for now I'll play SSX and enjoy. --M
Employers should not have access to my private medical records for the same reason they shouldn't have the right to dictate how I live my life in my private time. Can you imagine what kind of society we'd have if corporations cherry picked only the healthiest individuals, worked them to death for a short duration, and then fired them before they grew old enough to lose their health? Just like only insuring the healthy, it distorts the very foundation of equal access and pay for equal work across society as a whole.
--Maynard
Mr. AC:
I'm flying out on business tomorrow morning, so if you actually do write back know that I'm not blowing you off but am simply out of town and unable to access the net.
Feel free to contact me via email, the address listed here is correct; I'll reply when I get a chance. If you must, send the note from an anonymous email account as well, just reference this post so I know the context.
I've been thinking about what you said WRT loki fixing their web site. You're right, if they've taken action to prevent the problem from happening to others, I might have prefered a more open statement to that effect, but I'm certainly impressed. Loki's problems with DR are really their affair, I'm more concerned about customers getting screwed by placing an order which appears to be reasonable on loki's web order form without knowing the potential consequences. The more I think about it the more I realize that I'm amenable to resolution by such a policy change.
I'd really like to be able to comment on Loki (good or bad) without having this whole mess come up again. If it's true that they've taken steps to resolve the problem then I really don't have much reason to bitch any longer.
Cheers,
--Maynard
If you read the first post I wrote in this thread I summarized my personal annoyance with Loki, but I didn't dwell on it. That post was primarily a note regarding my regret over seeing the linux gaming scene in it's current state and my desire and wish to see it succeed. Of course, I know nothing about Loki's internal situation beyond what's been posted publicly, but based on their inability to get new product out the door, the large number of engineers who have left, and this apparent firesale of SMAC and Tribes 2 I can only assume the worst.
I honestly don't want loki to go bankrupt, or their staff to lose their jobs. However, I can't imagine any business succeeding given the assumption that I'm not the only one who's had a problem with them. I assume that if I've had a problem with customer service, other must have as well. In fact, while I received some threatening emails, I also received several emails from others who had problems with loki too. So, I wouldn't call what I've written a vendetta against loki or their staff. More a response to the overwhelming unreasonable calls to support loki no matter what -- even to the point of buying games that one wouldn't want or couldn't use. Linux users are wearing blinders that somehow if we all just buy one more game we don't want or need we'll somehow save the linux gaming scene. No... it doesn't work that way; that kind of market distortion is bound to fail across the long haul. A viable gaming scene will emerge once economic market conditions allow, and once the necessary software infrastructure is in place. Also, reasonable customer service helps.
I never saw a note in any of their newsgroups which suggested that customers not pre-order games. And the thought that a customer should know beforehand that something like this might happen is simply ludicrous. One can say "caveat emptor", but once done the notion of a higher calling WRT a for profit venture is out the door. They are a business. Which is good... businesses employ people and are a necessary part of a civilized society. But just because they are a linux business doesn't make them any more (or less) responsible to their customers. That's my attitude about the whole thing. I'm a critic of the policy presented by my communication with Kayt and most especially by the virulent response from the linux gaming community; one doesn't forget death threats easily. I also write letters to my congresspersons, other businesses which behave in ways I consider inappropriate, etc... so this isn't strictly about Loki. I waste time on this because I think it's the "right thing to do". Quixotesque, I suppose; and arguably childish here given that it's six months after the fact and I've been trolled into this debate once again.
Some of the engineering work in the games loki has released is just wonderful. The free software Loki has released, such as ALSA, is of real benefit to the Linux community as a whole as well. I don't argue that they've produced bad products, or that they've done a terrible disservice to the linux community through fraud or some other financial scandal. Loki has produced an honest product for the buck. But the customer support hasn't been satisfactory to my taste. I'm playing the role of critic here and hoping that with enough bitching some policy will change. Also, I hope to provide a balance to the absurd RAH RAH RAH that goes on WRT loki.
You know, if a rep from Loki had attempted to nip this in the bud -- for example, contacting DR and just canceling the order and re-reinstating it into two separate orders -- this whole thing would never have happened. Seriously.
If Loki won't let that kind of thing happen again (which honestly was probably a pretty rare event anyway), I'll be pleased and certainly won't claim that others might continue to get into that kind of mess. Can you publicly present a factual basis for that claim? I say this because you've been posting AC...
Cheers,
--Maynard
ps -- I honestly DO want to see the linux gaming market succeed. I like playing games!
They were anonymous, I have no idea who sent those emails. --M
Since you didn't use quotes, you only imply that I used those exact words -- which I didn't. The links you provide most certainly do stand up on their own as to the veracity of the response against my original post, and the complete facts of my position at that time, and today. As for the suggestion that Loki is "out to get me", that's patently ridiculous. They're a business; at most they should be out to get my dollar. Whether they actually want my business or not I can't speak to.
I stand by what I wrote then and today.
--Maynard
I dunno... I have a particular position regarding Loki and I repeat it when it seems appropriate; free speech and all. Why did Kayt Sorhaindo call me a liar on K5 and then never reply to back up her claim? Why did I recieve hate emails with threats to my life after my K5 post? Beats me.
However, I don't hate loki, or the people who work for them. I simply consider them a business out to turn a profit. Therefore, I give them no special consideration that I might offer to the FSF, the GNOME foundation, Debian, KDE, or any of a number of other non-profits and/or individuals supporting the Linux community with code, documentation, artwork, etc. If Redhat and/or their staff had acted in the same way in their official capacity I'd be out on my soapbox regarding them as well. It's not a distaste for Linux games that promotes this behavior, but a deep rooted feeling that a company who publically insults its customers doesn't deserve the same kind of "slack" that a non-profit should within the Linux community.
--Maynard
Q3A runs beautifully under RH7.1 with my Voodoo 3/2k. Some of the other Loki games, such as Myth II, have problems with running in 16bpp mode under GL (you have to update to the latest patch to support GL) with the Voodoo 1/2/3, however for the first time getting 3D support working under Linux is as simple as installing a distribution. If you've got an NVIDIA card you'll want to download the NVIDIA drivers, as the XFree4 drivers aren't anywhere near as good... but Voodoo and Radeon support out of the box is basically here.
This is *much* more important than just being able to play games... it's critical to the scientific community that requires 3D support for molecular modeling, data analysis, simulations, etc as well as the graphics rendering and modeling community. The long term consequences of out of the box 3D support in Linux for the graphics and scientific communities means far greater Linux penetration within these markets. And that's where the Linux desktop is heading -- on the desks of engineers, scientist, and artists... not business users. JMO.
--Maynard
I don't dispute this fact one bit. While Loki's web form never made it directly clear that DR was responsible for shipping the product until after I confirmed my order, nor did it state the results of combining orders in the manner, I do recognize that Loki formed an arrangement with DR to handle their distribution. So we agree on these facts.
So what?
I placed a bundled order once, complained, and was told by Loki staff to please resubmit broken up and that they would resolve this problem with their distributor. Afterwards I re-ordered two other games which were on pre-order because of that promise. Then I waited several months without any response or update as to what was going on. Digital River was rude as hell to me and when I contacted Loki they offered me a ridiculous subscription to every game they might ever release as a "solution". Thank God I turned them down on that offer...
These are the facts. You, and the other apologists for Loki continue to blame Digital River for the problem. I pulled up Loki's web page, placed an order by filling in the available boxes, and expected to receive some kind of product (or at least a regular update) like any other customer attempting a transaction with any other business. "Fault" and "blame" are irrelevant. No other online firms like L.L Bean, Land's End, etc etc etc behave like this because they want repeat customers. As I said before, I've bought ten games from Loki, which shows that I'm a repeat customer -- IOW, a gold mine to most online and mail order firms. In business the transaction is king, and those who forget their customers wind up losing transactions. Then it's bankruptcy.
That's the real world of business. Fault is irrelevant.
--Maynard
I bought the windows version of SMAC with Alien Crossfire boxed at CompUSA for ~$15.00 several months back. It's a great game, no doubt... but lack of demand has brought the price down to bargain bin levels. --M
I've just ordered from your company for the first time, I wish I had done so previously.
It looks like you're going to be the next company to hold the linux gaming torch; you need to find an alternative revenue stream from selling Loki games. Maybe you could work out an arrangement with id for providing support for their upcoming Doom 3 release? They release a windows CD and the binaries to play on Linux, you offer support in exchange for a fee -- either by a 900 number or some other scheme.
There are other companies producing cross platform games out there -- tribesoft and vicarious visions being the two best known at the moment. I hope you're able to find a revenue stream through while the linux gaming market recovers. It's important to note that for the first time we're seeing distributions which actually support 3D out of the box. RH7.1 does a pretty good job, I'm impressed. So the software infrastructure is now in place for install and play gaming.
Good luck to you, sir.
--Maynard
Businesses succeed by taking money for a product and/or service and then delivering said product to the customer. Should the equation "money for product and services" be disrupted, a business failure will soon follow. --M
When I click on the shopping cart icon at www.lokigames.com when attempting a purchase, the URL I see is:
http://store.lokigames.com/dr/v2/[...]
Not Digital River at all. I realize that DR is their distributor (and, if you read my post you'll note that my lastest purchase was handled through tuxgames), however Loki needs to take responsibility for purchases handled through the ordering form on their web site. I've NEVER seen a company behave like this. Imagine Lands End or L.L. Bean taking an order from their web site, not shipping, and then blaming a distributor. However, the issue now is not Loki's order management and customer service troubles, but how the Linux gaming community will rebound through these tough times.
That said, I wish Loki's former engineers and programmers good luck in their new careers.
--Maynard
This is terrible. I've ranted in the past about Loki's awful customer service, and I claimed I would never buy another game from them again. That is after having bought ten games from Loki.So I suppose their demise is justified, given how badly they've judged the Linux market and how poorly they served this customer. But it's terrible just the same.
Loki screwed up in so many ways, which shouldn't have been obvious only in hindsight. For example, they focused on far too many 3D game ports like Heavy Gear 2, Soldier of Fortune, Descent 2, etc, when the driver support wasn't integrated in by the popular linux distributors like Redhat, Mandrake, et all. This meant that average users trying to install and play their games had to go through all sorts of hoops to get the stuff running on XFree-3.3.x, which further limited their market to only the most knowedgeable of the Linux community. If they had focused on porting more strategy games like CivCTP, which had a real potential market, they might still be financially solvent.
They *still* have refused to fix their web page and still take orders which they know they can't ship. What I mean by this is that if you order a released product bundled with something that's to be released at a future date, they will hold the released product until the new title is available. I'm sure this is primarily a problem with their distributor, but they could have set up their order form to either prevent these kinds of orders, or at least inform the customer of his/her potential wait.
All this said, I'm a hypocrite: after claiming I would never buy another Loki title again, I ordered the SMAC/Tribes 2 bundle from TuxGames recently primarily because I really like SMAC. I've got it running under Windows, but I like the game enough to bring it over to the linux side of my box... I have no idea how good Tribes 2 will be. Hope I enjoy the game.
I very much want to see the linux gaming market succeed. However, I recognize that if the market is only large enough to support one porting vendor it's not a sustainable market. One economic downturn and *poof!*. It's not reasonable for Linux gamers to be begging folks to go out and buy any and every game to help support loki. The market should support Loki (or any other company for that matter) on its own. Go ahead and buy these games if they're what you want (I did). But to buy these games just to "save loki" is foolish, and a failed strategy over the long haul.
I'm encouraged by John Carmack repeatedly stating that he will provide a port of Doom 3 to Linux. He probably won't sell a boxed version, but at least Linux gamers will be able to buy the Windows version and play under Linux. This is the seed that will keep the Linux gaming movment alive until the necessary drivers migrate out to the user community. Once XFree 4.x.x is ubiquitous we'll have the software infrastructure in place to support a 3D gaming market... at that point the primary issue will be whether there are enough users and buyers to support a company, not whether the market has the requisite skills necessary to configure their OS in order to play the game.
--Maynard
It looks to me that with the X-box being a simply a PIII 700 with a GeForce 3, 64MB of Ram and 32 MB of video texture RAM, as well as Ethernet and USB I.O, that the hardware alone will sufficiently beat a PS2. The Playstation 2 lacks ethernet out, has only 8MB of texture and 38MB of system RAM. and firewire/USB out.
That said, I love my PS2. I plop a disk in and play, no screwing around. The biggest dissapointment came when I discovered that I can't attach a usb keyboard and mouse for use with Quake III Revolution, which is a problem with Quake III, not the PS2. I'm also dubious that Sony will sell an ethernet card which doesn't require Sony ISP service, or some other subscription model... so if the X box is open enough to allow me to hook it up to my home network and play across the Internet I'll consider it a significant improvement over the PS2.
Except for lacking Ethernet, the hardware differences between the two appear to be noise and not significant. However, I'm willing to bet that the ease of porting x86 games over to the X-box (almost no porting whatsoever) will give this system the majority of games titles very quickly. I just hope my PS2 purchase doesn't bocome obsolete as quickly as all those Dreamcast owners...
All that said, I still love my PS2 and I hope Sony does the right thing.
--Maynard
It's not like Salon can't afford some professional fact checkers among their editorial staff. --M
I'm sorry you don't like being forced to release your code if you include any of mine (or any other word released under the GPL). You know, all you have to do is rip my code (any GPL'd code) out of your project and you can release your code under any license you like. I don't charge you a financial fee for using my code in your projcet -- my fee is your code in return. That's right, you can't take my work for nothing. As I wrote before, why do you think you should have the right to MY hard work for nothing, when you won't recipricate? Will Microsoft, Oracle, or any other proprietary software producers give you such a deal? No? Then why the fuck should I?
You've simply taken my quote out of context in order to repeat yourself. Since writing my original post I've gone through and read your many comments, all of which repeat the same mantra. You're like those pundits on TV who just shout their opinions over the moderator and their opponent without any concern for their thread of argumet, only their presentation. You have no ideas to exchange, only a position to state -- again and again.
Am I to understand that if you repeat these ridiculous claims enough you'll change public opinion? Maybe so, but you won't change the facts (content) underlying what the GPL permits and restricts. Here's a hint: the GPL only restricts distribution of content released under the GPL. But, of course, you'll only respond to a statement which you can take out of context, won't you? Your words are without merit because you don't argue content, only position. Do you have a talking points memo on hand to guide how you frame your posts? Sure reads like it.
--Maynard
When I use a commercial product such as Oracle, I'm restricted in what I may say about the product, how I might duplicate a copy of the product, under what conditions I may run the product, and there's even software created to force compliance to some of these terms. One deals with none of this while using Free Software. You may USE Free Software any way you wish.
You may NOT modify a GPL'd program and then redistribute your results without making your modifications available under the same license. Period. How the hell does this threaten your right to distribute and/or sell software you create wholly on your own? Would you argue that Microsoft should give you IE source so you can redistribute and sell a proprietary fork? No? Then why the hell should rms give you source to readline for your proprietary product? And there's nothing stopping you from offering the FSF MONEY for a special license to the source... that you have as much chance at convincing the FSF to sell you a proprietary license to readline as you might have at buying a license to the source of Microsoft's IE is irrelevant -- nothing stops a developer from releasing his/her source tree under multiple licenses.
The point is: you're expecting something for nothing from the FSF so that you can take the work for personal gain. This doesn't happen in the business world, why the hell do you think it's appropriate among cooperative communities?
--Maynard
I clicked on your link, half thinking it was just another goatse.cx redirect, and what do I find? A professional attorney who is heading up the OpenLaw forum and fighting for fair use rights. Thank God not every lawyer has sold out our society for a few measley bucks. You're doing good work. I wish I could help out beyond my donations to EFF and the ACLU, but you have my support, respect, and thanks.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Your first reply consisted of not much more than "Fuck you loser." and now you call him a "Communist". In neither of your replies DO YOU ADDRESS HIS FIVE QUESTIONS. These questions are relevant to the discussion at hand, but your only reply is one of derogatory retorts. This speaks volumes of your critical thinking skills, and nothing of your opponent's claimed relationship to the communist party. Is this how you're going to respond to an intelligent post? Are you serious??? Well, hat's off to rational debate and serious discussion. What you seem to be saying is that any relevant debating points your opponent may make in the course of discussion are to be disregarded with a flippant 'We Disagree', "Fuck you loser.", calling him an "arrogant asshole" and a 'communist'. Frankly, based on this reply chain if /. preferences had killfile support, you'd be tops on my list.
Answer his questions, forget the baiting. He's received a high score for his comment, and deservedly so, for debating your post on factual grounds. Reply in kind or not at all.
--Maynard
We may disagree on whether my course of action has been appropriate or whether I've over-reacted. We may also disagree on the relative value of Loki's contribution to the Free Software community. But the derogatory (and sometimes threatening) comments I've received over this issue has only strengthened my resolve. I thank you for your apology over the name calling and accept that you disagree with my conclusions and course of action. I hope that if we meet at a Linux or USENIX conference we'll shake hands and simply agree to disagree on this one issue.
Take Care,
--Maynard
Many for-profit businesses release some free code along with their proprietary goods. See Corel, IBM, Sun... they get no special consideration beyond having done a good deed when it comes to fulfilling their customer service requirements to this customer. So, to Loki and it's programmers I say good for you -- you have done a good deed. Thank You for OpenAL. But this doesn't release Loki from their obligation to this, and other, customers. I contacted Loki privately several times before I complained in a public forum. The Loki rep then claimed I had misrepresented our private communication(s) in my submission, and requested permission to post our correspondence. I replied with the correspondence, and the rep never replied back. The story and comment tree is still in Kuro5hin's archives -- read it for yourself.
All of that wouldn't matter to me if they had fixed their web page to make certain others couldn't get into the same bind I found myself in with their ordering and distribution system. They continue to allow these sorts of orders even after having had problems in the past. I do not respect this, nor will I stop my criticism. A lone voice, maybe. But I don't criticize for personal gain, nor out of hatred for the people who work for Loki. I do this entirely because I think it's the right thing to do; your (and many other's) derogatory name calling notwithstanding. And I will enjoy Alpha Centauri from Windows today, bought at a fraction of the cost off of a discount shelf I might add.
Cheers,
--Maynard