And now, somebody like you suddenly jumps in, claims the opposite, and immediately gets modded up to Insightful just because you're not anti-MS. *sigh* Slashdot is not an anti-MS site anymore! How else do you explain that people like you always get modded up, even though you claim that Slashdot is an anti-MS site?
People do the oddest things.
Back when the Browser Wars were just beginning to heat up, I had a friend who was a big fan of IE. He expressed his preference with the zeal of a fan of an underdog. In fact, he very much thought IE was the underdog compared to Netscape. Netscape unfairly controlled the web - IE was a welcomed alternative. His web site read "escape the Net".
I asked him if he knew who Microsoft was.
Slashdot is fairly well known these days - its almost a given as it gets mentioned more and more in the mainstream press. Its also a given that this will attract more mainstream computer users / IT types. It shouldn't be any suprise that at least some of these new readers will be fans of the dominant desktop OS (and its producer).
What's amusing is seeing a pro-MS mentality getting an underdog treatment.
The spam laws are actually getting this strict. For instance in Texas, effective 1 September 2003, it seems that spammers can get jail time for sending unsolicited obscene material.
Way to go Texas. Abusing resources and invading privacy is OK as long as it doesn't offend my religious sensibilities.
Oh come on. Can you really say there is anything non-spammy about any business sending you email? If they make money off you and they send you email, it is spam. Period.
Yeah. That's how the spammer propoganda goes. Its not about privacy - its all about those anti-business godless communists. Its not that these people value your rights. Its that they hate business.
That's right, New Zealand businesses! Software Images has helped you make a decission towards reliable outsourcing for your data duplication needs. If you need an outfit who can be trusted to handle your order, even important rush orders, Software Solutions is not your provider.
Data duplication is an important last step to any project that requires physical media for distribution. You need to know that your order is accepted and being handled and processed quickly, efficiently, and reliably. At Software Images, your data duplication order may be green-flagged by their expert account managers... only to be refused at a later date.
Your order may be refused because, on a "case by case basis", the data in question might be considered in competition with Microsoft. And as Microsoft continues to reach in to new sectors and attach new niches... who's to say if one is in direct competition or not? But you'll find out. After your order has been rejected and you are forced to scramble for another outsource provider.
Your order may also be refused if an industry competitor makes unfounded alligations as to owner of the intellectual property contained in your duplication order. No need to wait for a court ruling. No need for proof of a currently valid license. Your important job will be rejected, leaving your business high and dry.
In this tough economy, every business needs reliable outsource providers. They need to know that services will be there for that important job or rush order.
With Software Images, you won't know.
Software Images. They're not there for you. They're there for their major account - Microsoft.
That's just demonstrative of the entire problem with *NIX -- it's too difficult to learn and use. That's why Windows or even Mac OS X would be used by companies (as long as PCs or Macs will suit their needs) rather than Linux, because you don't have to have "l33t software gods" to simply set the systems up or run them.
I completely disagree. I went from Windows centric support to supporting Unix environments. That learning process included having to adjust to a new system. Heck, it was pretty much learning a new CULTURAL outlook. I now find Linux the simple to understand and configure system.
Setting up and running a Linux system is easy. Especially if you're performing a basic and very well defined task. But ease of use isn't the whole issue.
Even when you're dealing with a simple system, you need to understand whats going on. I've watched the trap unfold a number of times. We have a cadre of Windows (and even some Unix) admins with very basic understandings of the systems they admin. They're able to handle basic functions. But when things get squirely, it all falls back on a hand-full of very knowledgable individuals. Yes - they do exist in the Windows world too. Heaven forbid you ask these individuals to manage something that's a little beyond the standard task.
Support is important. It doesn't matter what systems you rely on. You either have the help in-house to do it, or you need to know where to go to rent it as-needed.
I tried the driver and promptly removed it. Now, I wasn't expecting crystal clarity but I was also hoping for something more than a novel way of playing "guess that tune". YMMV. I'm sticking with headphones.
please people, wake up! can't you see it's obvious what SCO is doing?
...
all SCO wants to do is jack the stock high enough, long enough for their CEO, VPs, etc to cash out nice and RICH, and leave a burning twisted pile of rubble at the end....
they probably figured IBM (or someone - say Mr. Bill at M$) might buy them out, but either way, they're getting fat and rich off the share prices.
Yes. It is obvious. This is discussed again and again each time SCO comes up. Thanks for restating it.
But you, in turn, are missing another point. It doesn't matter what their intent is. What matters is their claims and actions.
Another initial theory floated when this whole thing cropped up is that its all being orchistrated by Microsoft. After all, it would appear to be validation of MS' most recent anti-Linux strategy claims. I'm more inclined to think that Caldera/SCO took a pointer from Microsoft's sales propoganda. But in any case, there will now be CIOs making purchasing and deployment policy based on both Microsoft and SCO propoganda.
so now you know the truth... what are ya gonna do about it?
What we are already doing about it. Keeping informed. Discussing claims. Being prepared to offer a counter-perspective if the oportunity arises.
Part of this situation is a publicity stunt. That's where we come in. But the other part will, most likely, be an actual trial in court. That will be up to IBM.
One final point...
its a stock scam, and the securities people should be all over this!
Keep in mind that the SEC is a governmental agency. These guys work on a very different time schedule than we do. They're slow and deliberate - but if they come down, they'll come down hard (whether it sticks or not is another point entirely).
The good thing about all this will be that SCO will be so deep in dept that it will die and take it's damn Unix IP with it into the grave, no more Unix legalese crap.
That's the fun thing about "intellectual property". It doesn't burn to the ground. It survives corporate implosion - at pennies on the dollar. With a fire-sale price, such "property" can even be snatched up by those with relatively little to lose and a lot to gain if they can leverage their new holdings in a creative manner.
And, of course, it doesn't stop there. Even if a company remains intact one shouldn't depend on the benevolence of that company. Company leadership changes. There could be a personnel shuffling in management. Or perhapse someone in Legal discovers a particularly "clever" way of making more money and gets top-level support.
Seriously though, this is my greatest concern about Linux. Are we just recreating unix wars? Already, there is *significant* variance amongst different linux distros, even ignoring forking those. Argue against this all you want. The fact of the matter is that anyone writing to Linux needs to do a lot of testing/QA to have any confidence that their software will work on distro X version Y. Unless like 99.9% of our community, you want to just throw some source up and hope that an *end user* can 'make' it.
...but have you run in to this being a real issue? I haven't.
Now, granted, a lot of my Linux software is Open Source. Its almost (almost) a given that such software is going to be available on whatever Linux variation you prefer. But what about commercial binaries?
OK. Not as many of those. But I do have a few on my desktop. Flash plugin (tightly controlled by Privoxy - but that's another subject). And several games. One of which is the newly released Neverwinter Nights client. And I've even disabled the locally-provided SDL library and have the client picking up my Debian SDL package. And even the Gentoo Games release of America's Army played nicely on my Debian desktop once it was transferred over. Keep in mind that none of this is packaged for or compiled specifically for my Debian desktop. And then there's a few older games from Loki - all working flawlessly.
Now... I suppose this might be more of a concern in the Enterprise. After all, its much more damaging to have one's database or mirroring software keel over than an unfortunate lock-up during a particularly nasty pixel-rendered battle. And that's where strategies like RedHat's Advanced Server product comes in.
At that level, the commercial software I've encountered is running on very specific distros. Its either a part of a package or the manufacturer specifies a suggested distro. Or its Open Source and available for whatever distro we happen to want to run at the time. It would be interesting to shuffle it around a bit and see if our Enterprise solutions can manage to keep up with notoriously finicky game software.
For years, Unigraphics (currently owned by EDS), was available on RISC-based Unix workstations only. They wanted to develop the stuff for Intel processors, so the first Intel platform they ported to was Solaris x86. They had a fully-working Linux port in progress. Then they started doing a Windows port. The first Windows port required Hummingbird Exceed (or other X server) to be running on the NT machine.
One of my first responsibilities at a certain major US Government agency was administering a small lab of HP/UX machines running Unigraphics. One of the designers wanted to try out that very same WinNT solution. He got the funding, made the purchase, got everything running... and then asked for his old HP/UX workstation back within 4 months of use. It was a horrid solution.
Now - this was quite a few years ago. I hope Win2K helped deal with some of the issues. And I'd also hope the software itself improved with time.
However, oddly enough, the engineers seem to really like their Unix work environment. The Engineering directorate is doing a lot of stuff with Linux - going for Unix-like environment and commodity hardware. If this trend continues (and I understand it is increasing momentum), then vendors like EDS will loose out. But that's OK. There's always been a Unigraphics / ProE jihad going on here. Looks like ProE just might win after all.
So, to you and the majority of/., realize that Microsoft is not the only company that relases binaries. Most companies do and most companies profit. Do the math.
Most starting businesses fail. If that business was distributing binaries, does that mean distributing binaries creates some profit but ultimately leads to failure?
No. Obviously not. There is no guarentee in business. Just because you have something to sell, doesn't mean people are going to buy.
Even in the world of proprietary software, binaries are not the end-all and be-all of business. Sure - there are plenty of companies who do it. There are also libraries, consulting, custom applications (often including source code as well as binaries), and other associated services.
I know some people like to obsess over Microsoft - and yet others like to obsess over this obession with Microsoft. But its not just Microsoft-blinders involved here. Its about business in general. There is more than one way to conduct it.
No, obviously, since something like 90% of all gamers are on a Windows platform. They could not have ignored Windows. But they certainly could have ignored Linux.
They certainly could have ignored Windows. There's an entire market flourishing off of console-only sales. I'm sure your 90% guess is based off of PC gamers... not the entire gamer marketplace. But yes, ignoring Linux would have been an easy decission to make.
But that's not the point.
Again - if the Windows release had the same issues, they would have suffered as much if not more criticism.
Choosing to make a cross-platform product is not a small decision. If you've read some of the things Bioware have said about the development of Aurora, the engine Neverwinter Nights is based on, you will understand how big an impact the compatibility considerations have had on the design process.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming this was a trivial feat. I think very highly of them for tackling the issue. Again - I'll be showing my appreciation within an hour with a purchase. But they did blunder. They made bad decissions. Ignoring these mistakes won't help.
So, some of us are asking ourselves, why did they make a Linux version at all? Perhaps the suits figured it would make the company look cooler - think John Carmack. But if all it got them was bad publicity, will they (and other developers watching them) ever try walking that road again?
You'll note that Carmack can pull this multi-platform stuff off. So can Epic. Kudos to them. If Bioware wants those kudos also, they need to deliver.
Will they walk that road again? I hope so. They certianly paid for the experience. It would be a shame to waste that knowledge. And now they have an engine that'll enable them to make future cross-platform releases that use that engine.
Ya know what. Kudos to Bioware too. With caveats. But still. I did mention that I'll be buying my copy (and the expansion), didn't I?
I'm not a developer or a publisher, but it seems to me that, except for products for consoles, cross-platform isn't that important to the people in the industry (bold for emphasis, not shouting). Neverwinter Nights took a long time to complete - it was even announced for BeOS, an OS long dead by the ship date. Along the way tons of decisions had to be made, and I'm sure Bink or InstallSheild didn't make any efforts to point out their little licensing snags. And why didn't Bioware notice? It might have had to do with their legal tussles with changing publishers. Plus ultimately they delivered for the biggest customers.
The fact that being cross-platform isn't an industry-wide consideration is pretty plain. If it was, Windows wouldn't have the clear lead in the shere amount of games available. But that's not the point.
Bioware announced that they would be releasing their product for multiple platforms. This alone should have impacted the development process. At all aspects of the development cycle, the basic question "but will this work with X platform?" should have been asked.
BeOS dying out is a non-issue. And while its fortunate they managed to deliver to their biggest market, it still doesn't negate the fact that they stumbled.
Ergo, when a publisher sees 10,000 angry penguins headed their way, their first instinct will be to pull the plug. Constructive criticism is fine, but wanting Bioware's head on a stick for taking too long to deliver on their promise isn't going to advance the cause.
When a publisher attract the attention of 10,000 penguins they should expect to deliver. Sure - some people are taking this whole episode too far. But you'll note that I'm the one going out to buy a copy in another hour.
There will be unreasonable criticisms. There will be blinded fan-boys. And there will be justified criticism. If that criticism is fair - Bioware should be adult and thick-skinned enough to accept it. And you know what - it seems that they are.
I hope Bioware learns a valuable lesson from this. I hope they do more multi-platform releases and, having learned from this attempt, they will be far smoother.
The toolset is hardly part of the game client is it?
I always kind of thought that is was like, you no, an editor and not the game client, am I wrong?
I would suggest that you're missing a LOT of what NWN if you focus on the game client alone. After all, the stand-alone module that comes with the game is a nice introduction to the environment. But it is hardly a compelling game (and not up to the standards of other Bioware releases like Baldur's Gate).
NWN is not just a game. It is a complete gaming arhictecture package. The ability to create, edit, and run one's own modules is a major part of that.
The gaming world is a tough place. Games often become passe in less time than it takes to develop them. But there are exceptions.
One noticeable exception is Quake. There are STILL people playing with the origional Quake engine. Its not because Quake was such an amazing game that no others could take its place. Its because iD made the engine accessible. Quake could be, and was modifiable. Mods built a community - one that still exists, even if it is shrinking. And an approximate 7 year run is pretty impressive for any game.
What Quake was for first-person shooters, NWN could be for computer RPGs. It is more than just a client.
Right, so instead of delaying the entire game for a year so they could deliver it to the other 10% of the gaming public they did that horrible thing people do and release it to the other 90% of the gaming public.
And what do they get in return? Well if this thread is to be believed, nothing but gripes and complaints. No wonder they don't want to break their nuts getting a Linux port out the door - they'll get headaches either way.
Bioware got a lot of press around these parts for their promise of concurrent Linux and MacOS releases. They screwed up. Badly. Not only did they miss a concurrent release... but they've missed it by over a year (considering the MacOS isn't 1.0 yet and the caveats with the Linux version).
It is also a valid point that they got further delayed by technology they didn't own. Borland, Bink, and InstallSheild didn't help. But then, Bioware is supposed to be a professional outfit. Where was the process that ensured the technology being used would be cross platform?
Bioware's savings grace is that they've slogged through the experience and are finally delivering... more or less. It seems they are trying to make good, despite obvious inexperience in doing this kind of thing. Maybe they've learned enough to make the next time (and I hope there is a next time) go smoother. After all, other game houses have managed to pull this off.
The Bioware guys seem to be honest enough to admit to their mistakes and take the criticism. And they deserve that criticism. Keep in mind that they are selling commercial software. If their Windows release had the same issues as the Linux version, they'd get the same criticism and more. You wouldn't have people saying "we should all buy this despite how rough it is... after all, they could have just made a version for the PS2 and ignored Windows."
Having said all that - there is that saving's grace. Its a good game. They're trying. And they're doing a decent enough job at delivering. I'll be buying my copy today after work. I'll even buy the expansion set if its available.
But I'll still point out when and where they screwed up. As well as where they succeeded.
The Slashdot Community is nauseatingly evangelistic about Linux to the point of modding down people who don't join in with their pitchforks.
On the flip side... this also highlights that all platforms has its own fans, its evangelists... and its zealots. Slashdot can be a focal point for Linux zealotry. But it also attracts a fair amount of Windows fanaticism.
What I find amusing is when Windows zealots cry of Linux zealotry.
That's not to say Linux enthusaists shouldn't worry about cleaning their own house. Negative moderation in lieu of expressing disagreement is one symptom. Linux has had to face that kind of attitude from Windows zealots for years. Behaving in the same manner provides little value.
Having said that, expressing a pro-Windows opinion in a Linux-friendly forum does not make such opinions automatically insightfull. Nor does it make the poster a martyr. Such posts can be uninformed and pretentious as often as any other (sometimes more often). Even if the poster doesn't realize it.
The trick, of course, is picking out dissenting opinion from the usual uninformed banter and trolling. Discussion seems to offer a better way to handle these situations. And, shocking as it may seem, it may provide some interesting conversation. Trouble is - its easier to go clicky-clicky and mod down than reply.
One side thought - a part of this issue seems to have always involved trolling and conversation-jamming. It would seem that pro-Windows trolls tend to focus on specific themes if not direct cut-and-paste. Perhapse a shared library of standard responces would be a fitting responce. But then, it just provides another game for trolls. And its much more difficult than modding down.
I've tried Linux on notebooks a few times and it never really works out well, even ones that they claim are supported. Windows just works better. Linux is for servers not desktops.
Notebook environments are rough. The amount of specialized hardware can offer quite a challenge to a Linux install. Some notebooks are easier than others - sometimes its a fairly straight-forward install while other times I've had to go through several distros to find one that'll handle that particular notebook somewhat gracefully. And even then, I've found myself doing a bit more than average tweaking to get everything working just right (and even then, there can be an occasional trade-off). One caveat - I haven't tried any of the very latest (ie: RedHat 9) distros on a notebook.
Having said all that - I'm glad that I can have Linux toated around with me. Its definately my preferred desktop. And I find myself missing features found in Linux environments when on a Windows-only machine at work.
Windows does tend to work better if the laptop manufactorer supports it (I've been bitten by laptops w/ support only for WinME or WinXP - I prefer Win2k). Its a shame more support isn't out there for Linux.
Like a lot of technology, Linux works fine on the desktop if you're aware of the caveats (and that goes for any environment - Windows included).
Of course, it will be years before I'm not also lugging around Windows. I've got to be able to support that environment and that means having Windows available. I need to get some more VMWare licenses.
So you dont agree to the GPL license of the code you are using? That is a EULA.
The GPL is not a EULA. Go read the GPL. Note the second paragraph under the Terms and Conditions. It reads:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
But what happened to the whole "give the os away, sell the service" model?
What do you think Advanced Server is? Its a service model. Part of this service is fairly obvious - support for your installed environment. But there are also other aspects of service. Creating and packaging binaries. Testing and certifying an environment so that other developers (like Oracle) have a stable target they feel comfortable developing for.
What if I want redhat advanced server, which in theory is mostly GPL'd, and one would assume that the differences in the software on the distro's are based on / compiled against GPL'd libraries? What if I want it, and I understand that I won't get support. What if I don't want support? What if I can't afford support? Shouldn't I have access to free software (beer and speech), as long as I'm willing to be my own support?
Sure. The GPL source is available from RedHat. Download it. Compile it. Run it. Create your own RedHat Advanced Server-like environment. Enjoy.
As you noted, you won't get support for it. You'll have to handle your own upgrades. You probably won't get (for example - I have no idea of official requirements) Oracle or Veritas to approve of it. But you'll have it to work with and in full compliance with the GPL.
The page notes it is for IE5.5+ (a quick check with IE6 shows your page rendering fine). Having said that, I'm pretty sure I only have IE5.0 at home and it worked OK for a few odd sites - but I'd have to check on it.
I'd still prefer not dealing with IE at all. But hey.:)
Rumsfeld himself used this line when discussing the entire WMD issue - pre-invasion, I believe. I'm sure Bill Hicks would have loved hearing the Bush administration using his material too.
Microsoft is not paranoid of open source, just anything GPL'd. If you read the documentation that comes with Windows, you'll discover that Microsoft uses some BSD licensed code in Windows...
However, I'd be very surprised if Microsoft used anything from Linux...
Prepare to be suprised. Well, with one caveat. Microsoft may not use Linux kernel code but it definately uses GPL tools in one of its current commercial products: Services for Unix. Also keep in mind this product is the reason given for Microsoft's desire to license SCO code.
Yeah, and IE6 has the exact same support. PNG, no alpha transparency. The single most-used browser in the world is the only one lacking the most attractive feature of PNG files.
Since there seems to be a lot of coding pages for IE anyway, one can help IE out where they can't (or won't) do it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
People do the oddest things.
Back when the Browser Wars were just beginning to heat up, I had a friend who was a big fan of IE. He expressed his preference with the zeal of a fan of an underdog. In fact, he very much thought IE was the underdog compared to Netscape. Netscape unfairly controlled the web - IE was a welcomed alternative. His web site read "escape the Net".
I asked him if he knew who Microsoft was.
Slashdot is fairly well known these days - its almost a given as it gets mentioned more and more in the mainstream press. Its also a given that this will attract more mainstream computer users / IT types. It shouldn't be any suprise that at least some of these new readers will be fans of the dominant desktop OS (and its producer).
What's amusing is seeing a pro-MS mentality getting an underdog treatment.
Way to go Texas. Abusing resources and invading privacy is OK as long as it doesn't offend my religious sensibilities.
Yeah. That's how the spammer propoganda goes. Its not about privacy - its all about those anti-business godless communists. Its not that these people value your rights. Its that they hate business.
That... and the lumber cartel.
That's right, New Zealand businesses! Software Images has helped you make a decission towards reliable outsourcing for your data duplication needs. If you need an outfit who can be trusted to handle your order, even important rush orders, Software Solutions is not your provider.
Data duplication is an important last step to any project that requires physical media for distribution. You need to know that your order is accepted and being handled and processed quickly, efficiently, and reliably. At Software Images, your data duplication order may be green-flagged by their expert account managers... only to be refused at a later date.
Your order may be refused because, on a "case by case basis", the data in question might be considered in competition with Microsoft. And as Microsoft continues to reach in to new sectors and attach new niches... who's to say if one is in direct competition or not? But you'll find out. After your order has been rejected and you are forced to scramble for another outsource provider.
Your order may also be refused if an industry competitor makes unfounded alligations as to owner of the intellectual property contained in your duplication order. No need to wait for a court ruling. No need for proof of a currently valid license. Your important job will be rejected, leaving your business high and dry.
In this tough economy, every business needs reliable outsource providers. They need to know that services will be there for that important job or rush order.
With Software Images, you won't know.
Software Images. They're not there for you. They're there for their major account - Microsoft.
I completely disagree. I went from Windows centric support to supporting Unix environments. That learning process included having to adjust to a new system. Heck, it was pretty much learning a new CULTURAL outlook. I now find Linux the simple to understand and configure system.
Setting up and running a Linux system is easy. Especially if you're performing a basic and very well defined task. But ease of use isn't the whole issue.
Even when you're dealing with a simple system, you need to understand whats going on. I've watched the trap unfold a number of times. We have a cadre of Windows (and even some Unix) admins with very basic understandings of the systems they admin. They're able to handle basic functions. But when things get squirely, it all falls back on a hand-full of very knowledgable individuals. Yes - they do exist in the Windows world too. Heaven forbid you ask these individuals to manage something that's a little beyond the standard task.
Support is important. It doesn't matter what systems you rely on. You either have the help in-house to do it, or you need to know where to go to rent it as-needed.
I tried the driver and promptly removed it. Now, I wasn't expecting crystal clarity but I was also hoping for something more than a novel way of playing "guess that tune". YMMV. I'm sticking with headphones.
Yes. It is obvious. This is discussed again and again each time SCO comes up. Thanks for restating it.
But you, in turn, are missing another point. It doesn't matter what their intent is. What matters is their claims and actions.
Another initial theory floated when this whole thing cropped up is that its all being orchistrated by Microsoft. After all, it would appear to be validation of MS' most recent anti-Linux strategy claims. I'm more inclined to think that Caldera/SCO took a pointer from Microsoft's sales propoganda. But in any case, there will now be CIOs making purchasing and deployment policy based on both Microsoft and SCO propoganda.
What we are already doing about it. Keeping informed. Discussing claims. Being prepared to offer a counter-perspective if the oportunity arises.
Part of this situation is a publicity stunt. That's where we come in. But the other part will, most likely, be an actual trial in court. That will be up to IBM.
One final point...
Keep in mind that the SEC is a governmental agency. These guys work on a very different time schedule than we do. They're slow and deliberate - but if they come down, they'll come down hard (whether it sticks or not is another point entirely).
I'm reminded of the spammer Rodona Garst who's legendary pump-and-dump spam eventually lead to action by the SEC.
That's the fun thing about "intellectual property". It doesn't burn to the ground. It survives corporate implosion - at pennies on the dollar. With a fire-sale price, such "property" can even be snatched up by those with relatively little to lose and a lot to gain if they can leverage their new holdings in a creative manner.
And, of course, it doesn't stop there. Even if a company remains intact one shouldn't depend on the benevolence of that company. Company leadership changes. There could be a personnel shuffling in management. Or perhapse someone in Legal discovers a particularly "clever" way of making more money and gets top-level support.
Which, of course, sounds awfully familiar.
Now, granted, a lot of my Linux software is Open Source. Its almost (almost) a given that such software is going to be available on whatever Linux variation you prefer. But what about commercial binaries?
OK. Not as many of those. But I do have a few on my desktop. Flash plugin (tightly controlled by Privoxy - but that's another subject). And several games. One of which is the newly released Neverwinter Nights client. And I've even disabled the locally-provided SDL library and have the client picking up my Debian SDL package. And even the Gentoo Games release of America's Army played nicely on my Debian desktop once it was transferred over. Keep in mind that none of this is packaged for or compiled specifically for my Debian desktop. And then there's a few older games from Loki - all working flawlessly.
Now... I suppose this might be more of a concern in the Enterprise. After all, its much more damaging to have one's database or mirroring software keel over than an unfortunate lock-up during a particularly nasty pixel-rendered battle. And that's where strategies like RedHat's Advanced Server product comes in.
At that level, the commercial software I've encountered is running on very specific distros. Its either a part of a package or the manufacturer specifies a suggested distro. Or its Open Source and available for whatever distro we happen to want to run at the time. It would be interesting to shuffle it around a bit and see if our Enterprise solutions can manage to keep up with notoriously finicky game software.
One of my first responsibilities at a certain major US Government agency was administering a small lab of HP/UX machines running Unigraphics. One of the designers wanted to try out that very same WinNT solution. He got the funding, made the purchase, got everything running... and then asked for his old HP/UX workstation back within 4 months of use. It was a horrid solution.
Now - this was quite a few years ago. I hope Win2K helped deal with some of the issues. And I'd also hope the software itself improved with time.
However, oddly enough, the engineers seem to really like their Unix work environment. The Engineering directorate is doing a lot of stuff with Linux - going for Unix-like environment and commodity hardware. If this trend continues (and I understand it is increasing momentum), then vendors like EDS will loose out. But that's OK. There's always been a Unigraphics / ProE jihad going on here. Looks like ProE just might win after all.
Most starting businesses fail. If that business was distributing binaries, does that mean distributing binaries creates some profit but ultimately leads to failure?
No. Obviously not. There is no guarentee in business. Just because you have something to sell, doesn't mean people are going to buy.
Even in the world of proprietary software, binaries are not the end-all and be-all of business. Sure - there are plenty of companies who do it. There are also libraries, consulting, custom applications (often including source code as well as binaries), and other associated services.
I know some people like to obsess over Microsoft - and yet others like to obsess over this obession with Microsoft. But its not just Microsoft-blinders involved here. Its about business in general. There is more than one way to conduct it.
They certainly could have ignored Windows. There's an entire market flourishing off of console-only sales. I'm sure your 90% guess is based off of PC gamers... not the entire gamer marketplace. But yes, ignoring Linux would have been an easy decission to make.
But that's not the point.
Again - if the Windows release had the same issues, they would have suffered as much if not more criticism.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming this was a trivial feat. I think very highly of them for tackling the issue. Again - I'll be showing my appreciation within an hour with a purchase. But they did blunder. They made bad decissions. Ignoring these mistakes won't help.
You'll note that Carmack can pull this multi-platform stuff off. So can Epic. Kudos to them. If Bioware wants those kudos also, they need to deliver.
Will they walk that road again? I hope so. They certianly paid for the experience. It would be a shame to waste that knowledge. And now they have an engine that'll enable them to make future cross-platform releases that use that engine.
Ya know what. Kudos to Bioware too. With caveats. But still. I did mention that I'll be buying my copy (and the expansion), didn't I?
The fact that being cross-platform isn't an industry-wide consideration is pretty plain. If it was, Windows wouldn't have the clear lead in the shere amount of games available. But that's not the point.
Bioware announced that they would be releasing their product for multiple platforms. This alone should have impacted the development process. At all aspects of the development cycle, the basic question "but will this work with X platform?" should have been asked.
BeOS dying out is a non-issue. And while its fortunate they managed to deliver to their biggest market, it still doesn't negate the fact that they stumbled.
When a publisher attract the attention of 10,000 penguins they should expect to deliver. Sure - some people are taking this whole episode too far. But you'll note that I'm the one going out to buy a copy in another hour.
There will be unreasonable criticisms. There will be blinded fan-boys. And there will be justified criticism. If that criticism is fair - Bioware should be adult and thick-skinned enough to accept it. And you know what - it seems that they are.
I hope Bioware learns a valuable lesson from this. I hope they do more multi-platform releases and, having learned from this attempt, they will be far smoother.
I would suggest that you're missing a LOT of what NWN if you focus on the game client alone. After all, the stand-alone module that comes with the game is a nice introduction to the environment. But it is hardly a compelling game (and not up to the standards of other Bioware releases like Baldur's Gate).
NWN is not just a game. It is a complete gaming arhictecture package. The ability to create, edit, and run one's own modules is a major part of that.
The gaming world is a tough place. Games often become passe in less time than it takes to develop them. But there are exceptions.
One noticeable exception is Quake. There are STILL people playing with the origional Quake engine. Its not because Quake was such an amazing game that no others could take its place. Its because iD made the engine accessible. Quake could be, and was modifiable. Mods built a community - one that still exists, even if it is shrinking. And an approximate 7 year run is pretty impressive for any game.
What Quake was for first-person shooters, NWN could be for computer RPGs. It is more than just a client.
Bioware got a lot of press around these parts for their promise of concurrent Linux and MacOS releases. They screwed up. Badly. Not only did they miss a concurrent release... but they've missed it by over a year (considering the MacOS isn't 1.0 yet and the caveats with the Linux version).
It is also a valid point that they got further delayed by technology they didn't own. Borland, Bink, and InstallSheild didn't help. But then, Bioware is supposed to be a professional outfit. Where was the process that ensured the technology being used would be cross platform?
Bioware's savings grace is that they've slogged through the experience and are finally delivering... more or less. It seems they are trying to make good, despite obvious inexperience in doing this kind of thing. Maybe they've learned enough to make the next time (and I hope there is a next time) go smoother. After all, other game houses have managed to pull this off.
The Bioware guys seem to be honest enough to admit to their mistakes and take the criticism. And they deserve that criticism. Keep in mind that they are selling commercial software. If their Windows release had the same issues as the Linux version, they'd get the same criticism and more. You wouldn't have people saying "we should all buy this despite how rough it is... after all, they could have just made a version for the PS2 and ignored Windows."
Having said all that - there is that saving's grace. Its a good game. They're trying. And they're doing a decent enough job at delivering. I'll be buying my copy today after work. I'll even buy the expansion set if its available.
But I'll still point out when and where they screwed up. As well as where they succeeded.
Nobody is above contructive criticism.
I think there's a "BSD is dead" joke in there somewhere.
On the flip side... this also highlights that all platforms has its own fans, its evangelists... and its zealots. Slashdot can be a focal point for Linux zealotry. But it also attracts a fair amount of Windows fanaticism.
What I find amusing is when Windows zealots cry of Linux zealotry.
That's not to say Linux enthusaists shouldn't worry about cleaning their own house. Negative moderation in lieu of expressing disagreement is one symptom. Linux has had to face that kind of attitude from Windows zealots for years. Behaving in the same manner provides little value.
Having said that, expressing a pro-Windows opinion in a Linux-friendly forum does not make such opinions automatically insightfull. Nor does it make the poster a martyr. Such posts can be uninformed and pretentious as often as any other (sometimes more often). Even if the poster doesn't realize it.
The trick, of course, is picking out dissenting opinion from the usual uninformed banter and trolling. Discussion seems to offer a better way to handle these situations. And, shocking as it may seem, it may provide some interesting conversation. Trouble is - its easier to go clicky-clicky and mod down than reply.
One side thought - a part of this issue seems to have always involved trolling and conversation-jamming. It would seem that pro-Windows trolls tend to focus on specific themes if not direct cut-and-paste. Perhapse a shared library of standard responces would be a fitting responce. But then, it just provides another game for trolls. And its much more difficult than modding down.
Notebook environments are rough. The amount of specialized hardware can offer quite a challenge to a Linux install. Some notebooks are easier than others - sometimes its a fairly straight-forward install while other times I've had to go through several distros to find one that'll handle that particular notebook somewhat gracefully. And even then, I've found myself doing a bit more than average tweaking to get everything working just right (and even then, there can be an occasional trade-off). One caveat - I haven't tried any of the very latest (ie: RedHat 9) distros on a notebook.
Having said all that - I'm glad that I can have Linux toated around with me. Its definately my preferred desktop. And I find myself missing features found in Linux environments when on a Windows-only machine at work.
Windows does tend to work better if the laptop manufactorer supports it (I've been bitten by laptops w/ support only for WinME or WinXP - I prefer Win2k). Its a shame more support isn't out there for Linux.
Like a lot of technology, Linux works fine on the desktop if you're aware of the caveats (and that goes for any environment - Windows included).
Of course, it will be years before I'm not also lugging around Windows. I've got to be able to support that environment and that means having Windows available. I need to get some more VMWare licenses.
The GPL is not a EULA. Go read the GPL. Note the second paragraph under the Terms and Conditions. It reads:
What do you think Advanced Server is? Its a service model. Part of this service is fairly obvious - support for your installed environment. But there are also other aspects of service. Creating and packaging binaries. Testing and certifying an environment so that other developers (like Oracle) have a stable target they feel comfortable developing for.
Sure. The GPL source is available from RedHat. Download it. Compile it. Run it. Create your own RedHat Advanced Server-like environment. Enjoy.
As you noted, you won't get support for it. You'll have to handle your own upgrades. You probably won't get (for example - I have no idea of official requirements) Oracle or Veritas to approve of it. But you'll have it to work with and in full compliance with the GPL.
The page notes it is for IE5.5+ (a quick check with IE6 shows your page rendering fine). Having said that, I'm pretty sure I only have IE5.0 at home and it worked OK for a few odd sites - but I'd have to check on it.
:)
I'd still prefer not dealing with IE at all. But hey.
Rumsfeld himself used this line when discussing the entire WMD issue - pre-invasion, I believe. I'm sure Bill Hicks would have loved hearing the Bush administration using his material too.
Prepare to be suprised. Well, with one caveat. Microsoft may not use Linux kernel code but it definately uses GPL tools in one of its current commercial products: Services for Unix. Also keep in mind this product is the reason given for Microsoft's desire to license SCO code.
Take a look at a previous posting of mine on this subject.
How was SCO wronged by the Linux community?
Since there seems to be a lot of coding pages for IE anyway, one can help IE out where they can't (or won't) do it themselves.