Indeed; nor should we expect them to. The vast majority of computer users want to use the computer in the same way that they use any other appliance; and frankly, they/should/ be able to. Unfortunately, the only way to give them that experience is to a) line up all malware authors and shoot them; or b) provide them with locked-down machines that can only run Authorized Content in an Approved Manner.
The problem with that is we've just spent the last 20+ years going through massive innovation because there's no particular approval to how this tech is used. Bolting on Approval could have ugly effects. Unless, of course, that approval is from the end user. Which puts us in the same place we are now.
The other issue is that we're not dealing with a toaster. Nobody expects their toaster to also become a calculator, telephone, and TV on demand. We're dealing with a complex and powerful machine. A computer is not a toaster (or a truck - but I digress).
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to simplify the tech. After all, an automobile is also a pretty advanced piece of machinery as well. But the key to this is making really intelligent and sufficiently paranoid choices on how to go about doing this so the end user doesn't have to. Part of the problem is that some aspects of the industry like to portray their products as toasters while making poor design choices; a customer base of monkeys with machineguns.
And why can't people comprehend that folks write this stuff to sell books and make money?
Wait - so he's writing because he IS a greedy bastard? And yet some people write because they are not. There's something almost Zen about that.
And why can't folks comprehend that Slashdot posts it in order to get page views and make money?
To be fair - Slashdot posted this kind of stuff well before page views made them money. Granted, they probably do make money doing it now. So maybe they are both and neither. Ohh. More Zen.
Another lovely phrase lost in translation. Ayatollah Khomeini labeled the US the great 'Shaitan', referring to a particular manifestation of the Devil: the Tempter.
Specifically, he meant that US culture was tempting the people of Iran into decadence and materialism. That's evil, to be sure, but not generically Evil.
I wouldn't be so quick to down-grade the meaning of the phrase. Your explanation makes it all sound like a mere difference in opinion. The label has a lot more power than that.
We're not just talking about culture. It was definitely a reference to US geopolitical involvement in the region as well. Anyone who disagrees with US policy is quick to label such involvement as meddling.
Although I think you do make a very important point; culture is the subtle issue. US influence goes beyond oil companies and military presence. It is also Baywatch. And in some eyes, that is just as much an affront as anything else that comes out of the United States.
I would also note - Satan is Satan under any other name. The mythology is the same. I don't know enough about Iranian culture to understand any subtle differences in how the mythos impacts the culture. But I would imagine it isn't all that different than how it impacts US culture. Both view the myth as a derogatory figure; one that is, ultimately, evil. I see little difference between the rhetoric of the US and Iran.
Diplomacy, economic engagement - both positive and negative - as well as armed deterrence all play a role. But as long as Iran is just plain old Evil, offensive measures are the only ones palatable to otherwise uninformed American voters.
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. And it seems the pivotal reason is the man who delivered the speech. If it had come from a leader that inspired more trust, who didn't portray overly simplistic views, who didn't present an uncomfortable stubborn disregard for fact... I would also find myself generally supporting the concept of an "Axis of Evil." It certainly fits the behavior of those named. But I do agree that it is much too blunt and unwieldy a political weapon to be brandished about by the likes of this Administration.
With the increased success of Talk Like a Pirate Day, it was only a matter of time before Microsoft took notice. Talk Like a Tool Day is Microsoft's first entry in to this new, exciting market.
Fair enough point. But let's keep some perspective.
None there just now, but what about the US-sponsored and supplied Iraqis a couple of decades ago?
Iraq got a lot more support from the French and Soviets during that time period than the US. Iraq was hardly a proxy for US action in the region. Although it was a natural choice to counter expanding Iranian influence. Iran had already set the tone with the US (although the US' involvement in pre-revolutionary Iran was a mistake).
There was some direct fighting between US and Iranian forces in that conflict too.
Certainly - after Iran had attacked US interests in the region. The US counter-attacked. Let's not make it appear that the US was involved in the Iraq-Iran War.
Right now, the USA is occupying Iraq to the West and Afghanistan to the East. They also have bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kyrgyzstan and are propping up the regime in Pakistan. So, Iran is pretty much surrounded by US influence and the US has declared them to be evil and made demands with an implicit threat of force.
Keep in mind that before the US declared Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil", Iran declared the US "The Great Satan." There's a lot of finger-pointing going on. And that's lead to a lot of saber rattling. I do, however, agree that this Administration has done more rattling than required.
Everything he talks about is just dealing with the symptoms. Terrorism is a symptom of very desperate people who feel that they're being shit on by someone.
Terrorism is a tactic. It is the amplification of force effectiveness by achieving psychological effect. It is used by the powerful and the powerless. However, I suspect that you're after the more politically charged use of the word. There are two issues with this.
First, you're assuming that the tactic itself can be stopped by solving a particular set of political issues. That assumes that one issue won't be supplanted by another. And that those in conflict won't study history and seek tactics used by others (with whatever perceived success).
Secondly, you're buying in to the situation as described by a particular political mindset. True - terrorism is an issue. Just like any other threat. But it is not an entity. The "war on terrorism" is as nonsensical as a "war on war."
Terrorism is the result of very desperate people who have lost all hope and feel powerless. The Middle East and its people have been shit on for a couple of millennia; whether by western powers, other in the Middle East (Persians and Turks), Asians. These are people who have felt shit on by the World and there's nothing they can do about it. The creation of Israel was the straw that broke the camels back - so to speak.
Keep in mind that a lot of terrorists are turning out to be rather well educated and otherwise well positioned. They are not the down-trodden masses. But they find it easy to draw from those masses as one would draw from an armory. The trick is methods of motivating desperate people to do desperate things. Sometimes that's trivial. Sometimes it takes a more subtle lever - Isreal and racism makes a very handy lever (which also works when you're drawing from other educated and well-positioned ranks... as is happening today).
To make a long story short, if we gave autonomy to the Middle east (Oil supplies be damned!), meaning pull out completely. I think terrorism would stop or at the very least, decrease dramatically.
Keep in mind that there's already a lot of autonomy in the Middle East; even with a history of US and Soviet meddling in the region. And despite this, conflict has been ongoing for millenia.
It's very likely we'd see a decrease in attacks against US interests - pull troops out of an area and you remove not only convenient targets, but a catalyst for motivation. But the question would then be - for how long?
The US is a world power. The military strength of the US is nothing compared its economic and cultural impact. US interests are global. Those who resent that influence are just as likely to move their targets from military to civilian.
And, in fact, they do so already. It doesn't have to be US citizens or property. Terrorism is conducted by Muslims against Muslims. If any of those targets happen to be allies or otherwise involved in US economic interests, the US remains a target. And that ignores the concept of destroying that hated influence by going directly to the source (not that I'm a big fan of the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" rhetoric... but the World Trade Center was economic as well as symbolic).
I also disagree with folks who think that if we were to leave the Middle East, others would gain control of the Oil thereby sending us into a depression or putting our military and defense in jeopardy. It won't happen.
Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil infrastructure. When Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, it torched oilfields. Iraqi insurgents have repeatedly attacked Iraqi oil infrastructure. Oil is an easy target and likely one of the first casualties in any conflict for power in the region. It's not just about who controls the oil (or at least is the one doing the selling).
It's only terrorism if non-christian brownish people do it. Didn't you get the talking points?
I'm kind of curious as to who you think are putting forward these talking points? It can't be Necons who are pretty quick to mention domestic terrorism when convenient.
Wow. Scientology. Keith Henson. Carolyn Meinel. Child abuse and incest. Its like getting caught in a bizarre intersection of The Twilight Zone and Geraldo.
If the internet did not exist and you could not pirate any given game, would you
A.) Not buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
or
B.) Buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
Back in the 80s when I was a punk kid, I had a huge collection of C=64 warez. We had no Internet access. And even the BBS scene was secondary to the swap meets where the real wheeling and dealing was going on. A lot of what got traded around was simply to trade stuff around. Heck - I remember ending up with some games that I had no idea where the hell they came from (even if they were interesting). The points here are that the Internet isn't required and "piracy" isn't just about deciding to buy or not (that we bypassed copy protection even back then and that the industry still managed to flourish and grow are more subtle points).
These days I have more disposable income than back in the 80s. I'm more inclined to buy a game just because I can (I still have ample access to illicit data). But I don't buy what I can't test.
I got an illegal copy of NWN before I went out and purchased several copies for my household (when the Linux port finally came out). I also purchased several copies of WoW after having played it at a friend's (and finding out I could run my copy on Windows via Cedega). I might check out Tabla Rasa now that I can download a demo (and see how well it runs under Wine - I'm seeing mixed reports on that). I purchased copies of Q3 and UT2004 after playing the teaser demos (although I don't play them anymore).
So... what does that all mean? Simply that the scenario you've described doesn't really fit my own experience. Although I will admit I might not be the target demographic. I'm no longer the rampant gamer (WoW takes up much of my gaming time) and I don't play anything that doesn't run on Linux (one way or another).
Which is exactly why they won't sell many. If they want to be like Bugatti and go bankrupt every other year, fine, build sports cars. If they want to become profitable, sell something people will actually buy.
The idea that they've put forward is to fund development with early-adopter bleeding-edge taxes. That is, the roadster isn't the goal. Its a first-run teaser. It helps pay for ongoing development of the technology by putting something exciting and attractive to early-adopters. It was also an attempt to stand out. Yet Another Econo-box would have been... well... yet another econo-box. The roadster also challenges the concept of what an electric vehicle is; that is to say, yet another econo-box.
I tried running WoW inside of WINE, but I was taking about a 20 FPS hit for doing so. I also have a handful of games that simply don't run inside of WINE, so for the foreseeable future I guess I'm stuck with at least one system running XP. Still, it is nice to know that in a pinch I can run WoW in Linux without too much of a hassle.
I don't have Windows on my box so I don't have a fair testing environment. I know some folks claim FPS boosts in Linux over Windows. However, I kind of suspect I'm taking a hit when comparing my performance to some less-beefy Windows systems also playing WoW in my household. Now - again this isn't a good test as I know I'm pushing a lot more pixels and particles than they are. There might also be some config tweaks I can do to give me some performance. But honestly - I could probably do myself a favor and dump a bunch of addons to give me a boost too. But versatility is more important to me than raw FPS assuming I'm in a playable environment - which I am.
On that note, Wine doesn't handle everything well... or everything at all. There's plenty of stuff out there that won't work. Vent used to cause me no small amount of aggravation until a later release. But I'm a one-game pony. WoW is enough for me.
Something I'd be interested in knowing is if doing development/testing against WINE actually leads to a more stable and bug free application.
In the past few weeks, one of the CS:S updates broke under Cedega. Upon looking into the problem, we discovered something interesting: the problem that caused the game to crash on Linux was actually a bug in the game itself - a 'handle leak' - not a bug in Cedega. This actually happens far more often then one might think, since changing platforms always results in some changes, however minor, to the environment that code is run in. Later in the week, we discovered that the cause of another longstanding problem in CS:S was a result of a different game bug - an un-initialized variable in that case. Another title that we had done some work on the previous week also had a similar bug.
This effect is really just one example of what many good developers already know: the more diverse your test environments are, the more bugs can be caught, and the more robust your code can be. If you design with portability in mind, and test on a wide variety of different hardware combinations, your code will be less likely to crash on your biggest target platforms.
Now, granted, Gavriel has a bridge to sell; namely Cedega. But one of the aforementioned bugs in WoW seemed to fit this description. Many Linux Cedega / Wine folks were hit by the bug. And over time, the bug was being reported by more and more Windows users. Something about how Wine handles things really shook the bug out while it only hit a small percentage of Windows users (although with WoW's numbers, that means a lot of customers).
It's true, but I don't see why it's sad. WINE lets me play some of my favourite games on Linux. Surely that's happy?
I play WoW (with Vent) on Wine (currently v1.0.0). I currently zip along fairly happy with narry a consideration for it.
But I have a niggling fear every patch day. What if Wine uncovers yet another unknown bug? It's happened before with nasty results. It could happen again and render my favorite game unplayable until it's all hashed out.
Granted - that's less likely to happen if the developer is officially (or quietly) also testing against Wine. There's been some indications (beyond this) that imply this sort of thing is going on. And it might explain why I haven't run in to one of these Wine show-stoppers for awhile now.
"We have a working Linux client. It's a pain in the ass to support, so we're not releasing it. But it is nifty."
I remember the early days of UO. There were native Linux clients to be found on Origin's public FTP servers. They were entirely unofficial - no support. Use at your own risk.
They worked wonderfully. But they didn't patch / update. So whenever an update came down, you had to visit the FTP site for a new version. That all ended when the devs who were creating that client moved on to greener pastures.
Would it be possible for Blizz to do the same kind of thing?
Even if WoW was distributed for Linux, most of the time, you couldn't install it off the CD on Linux and have it function correctly.
Sorry, but Linux has too much TIMTOWTDI to reliably release functional commercial software.
And yet, I never had a problem with my commercial release of Neverwinter Nights for Linux (at least the parts Bioware provided). Huh. Why do you think that is?
Maybe it was just a fluke. Except for the fact that Unreal Tournament 2004 was a joy. Oh - and Quake 3. And then there are quasi-commercial games like America's Army and Enemy Territory.
Maybe Tim Toady wasn't paying close attention during that time.
Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness.
While we're playing political fantasy - wouldn't it have been great if the Democrats could have produced candidates that could win? Even against a second-term George W.?
I know its probably just crazy talk but perhaps part of the reason we ended up with "Bushy shitness" is because what the Democrats were peddling seemed like just a different mixture of the same shit.
why would a company pay spammers to send out emails if it doesn't make them money?
I'm glad you asked. You see... I was once like you; confused and uninformed. I worked a 9-5 dead end job. But then I discovered the miracle of "unsolicited guerrilla electronic advertising" and made millions! Wouldn't YOU like to be like ME?!
For the first time ever, I'm willing to let you in on the secrets to my success with my spr0cket-Style Spam Success Strategy. To keep this offer exclusive, I have to charge you $2000 for the kit. But you'll make that back in the first HOUR of working at home, as you learn to apply the spr0cket-Style Spam Success Strategy!
I will even throw in a 3month supply of Herbal Pants Enchancers absolutely FREE. Could I afford to do this if my system wasn't successful?
I'm an anarchist. Of course "lack of anarchy" is going to be a problem for me. Of course, you may misunderstand what I mean by the term "anarchy". I was not using the term to be a synonym for "chaos".
OK - fair enough. I won't get in to a debate on the ideals of anarchy as a political movement.
As to why starvation, war etc. entering into a conversation about Microsoft, I've never seen it before personally. In this case, I brought it up because this is a stupid non-story about something that just doesn't matter, at all. It isn't even about new technology, just a fucking name.
I comment on this because it happens often. Some aspect of Microsoft maladjustment is discussed and someone claims the whole point is moot compared to a laundry list of humanity's ills. It strikes me as either a lack of perspective or some cognitive dissonance slight-of-hand. In any case, it's nonsense.
As for the why of this being a point for discussion - interesting question. I would hazard to guess that it is a reflection of the sort of scrutiny Microsoft is under these days. Some think it unfair. I'm inclined to believe it is well earned.
OK. I think I see your point. Its not the how that's important, it's the end product. I agree in so far as that's what's important to the end user. So if it means a better product (better construction quality), that's what will get consumer interest.
Having said that - the how of things ARE interesting. It might all be black boxes and magic to the consumer. But there's a lot of hobbiests and industry watchers who like to know the HOW of things as well. That makes it easier to understand where things are now and where things are going in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple: Call up your ISP and make the correct noises. Real men don't use modems.
Whistling in to a phone?! REAL men use butterflies.
Indeed; nor should we expect them to. The vast majority of computer users want to use the computer in the same way that they use any other appliance; and frankly, they /should/ be able to. Unfortunately, the only way to give them that experience is to a) line up all malware authors and shoot them; or b) provide them with locked-down machines that can only run Authorized Content in an Approved Manner.
The problem with that is we've just spent the last 20+ years going through massive innovation because there's no particular approval to how this tech is used. Bolting on Approval could have ugly effects. Unless, of course, that approval is from the end user. Which puts us in the same place we are now.
The other issue is that we're not dealing with a toaster. Nobody expects their toaster to also become a calculator, telephone, and TV on demand. We're dealing with a complex and powerful machine. A computer is not a toaster (or a truck - but I digress).
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to simplify the tech. After all, an automobile is also a pretty advanced piece of machinery as well. But the key to this is making really intelligent and sufficiently paranoid choices on how to go about doing this so the end user doesn't have to. Part of the problem is that some aspects of the industry like to portray their products as toasters while making poor design choices; a customer base of monkeys with machineguns.
Do I know what is good to run on my computers? And if the answer to that is "yes", then ...
The problem with that, of course, is that the answer is "no" for most people.
Not only do they not know - they likely don't have the wherewithal to make that determination.
Was "PornDoom"
Look... I enjoyed blowing away that purple monstrosity as well. But I'd hardly call Barney DOOM "porn."
And why can't people comprehend that folks write this stuff to sell books and make money?
Wait - so he's writing because he IS a greedy bastard? And yet some people write because they are not. There's something almost Zen about that.
And why can't folks comprehend that Slashdot posts it in order to get page views and make money?
To be fair - Slashdot posted this kind of stuff well before page views made them money. Granted, they probably do make money doing it now. So maybe they are both and neither. Ohh. More Zen.
Or maybe I just need more coffee.
I will donate $25 to his punch fund.
And now the TRUE power of "punch the monkey" is finally realized. Like many dot-com icons, they were ahead of their time.
Another lovely phrase lost in translation. Ayatollah Khomeini labeled the US the great 'Shaitan', referring to a particular manifestation of the Devil: the Tempter.
Specifically, he meant that US culture was tempting the people of Iran into decadence and materialism. That's evil, to be sure, but not generically Evil.
I wouldn't be so quick to down-grade the meaning of the phrase. Your explanation makes it all sound like a mere difference in opinion. The label has a lot more power than that.
We're not just talking about culture. It was definitely a reference to US geopolitical involvement in the region as well. Anyone who disagrees with US policy is quick to label such involvement as meddling.
Although I think you do make a very important point; culture is the subtle issue. US influence goes beyond oil companies and military presence. It is also Baywatch. And in some eyes, that is just as much an affront as anything else that comes out of the United States.
I would also note - Satan is Satan under any other name. The mythology is the same. I don't know enough about Iranian culture to understand any subtle differences in how the mythos impacts the culture. But I would imagine it isn't all that different than how it impacts US culture. Both view the myth as a derogatory figure; one that is, ultimately, evil. I see little difference between the rhetoric of the US and Iran.
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. And it seems the pivotal reason is the man who delivered the speech. If it had come from a leader that inspired more trust, who didn't portray overly simplistic views, who didn't present an uncomfortable stubborn disregard for fact... I would also find myself generally supporting the concept of an "Axis of Evil." It certainly fits the behavior of those named. But I do agree that it is much too blunt and unwieldy a political weapon to be brandished about by the likes of this Administration.
With the increased success of Talk Like a Pirate Day, it was only a matter of time before Microsoft took notice. Talk Like a Tool Day is Microsoft's first entry in to this new, exciting market.
Fair enough point. But let's keep some perspective.
None there just now, but what about the US-sponsored and supplied Iraqis a couple of decades ago?
Iraq got a lot more support from the French and Soviets during that time period than the US. Iraq was hardly a proxy for US action in the region. Although it was a natural choice to counter expanding Iranian influence. Iran had already set the tone with the US (although the US' involvement in pre-revolutionary Iran was a mistake).
There was some direct fighting between US and Iranian forces in that conflict too.
Certainly - after Iran had attacked US interests in the region. The US counter-attacked. Let's not make it appear that the US was involved in the Iraq-Iran War.
Right now, the USA is occupying Iraq to the West and Afghanistan to the East. They also have bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kyrgyzstan and are propping up the regime in Pakistan. So, Iran is pretty much surrounded by US influence and the US has declared them to be evil and made demands with an implicit threat of force.
Keep in mind that before the US declared Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil", Iran declared the US "The Great Satan." There's a lot of finger-pointing going on. And that's lead to a lot of saber rattling. I do, however, agree that this Administration has done more rattling than required.
Everything he talks about is just dealing with the symptoms. Terrorism is a symptom of very desperate people who feel that they're being shit on by someone.
Terrorism is a tactic. It is the amplification of force effectiveness by achieving psychological effect. It is used by the powerful and the powerless. However, I suspect that you're after the more politically charged use of the word. There are two issues with this.
First, you're assuming that the tactic itself can be stopped by solving a particular set of political issues. That assumes that one issue won't be supplanted by another. And that those in conflict won't study history and seek tactics used by others (with whatever perceived success).
Secondly, you're buying in to the situation as described by a particular political mindset. True - terrorism is an issue. Just like any other threat. But it is not an entity. The "war on terrorism" is as nonsensical as a "war on war."
Terrorism is the result of very desperate people who have lost all hope and feel powerless. The Middle East and its people have been shit on for a couple of millennia; whether by western powers, other in the Middle East (Persians and Turks), Asians. These are people who have felt shit on by the World and there's nothing they can do about it. The creation of Israel was the straw that broke the camels back - so to speak.
Keep in mind that a lot of terrorists are turning out to be rather well educated and otherwise well positioned. They are not the down-trodden masses. But they find it easy to draw from those masses as one would draw from an armory. The trick is methods of motivating desperate people to do desperate things. Sometimes that's trivial. Sometimes it takes a more subtle lever - Isreal and racism makes a very handy lever (which also works when you're drawing from other educated and well-positioned ranks... as is happening today).
To make a long story short, if we gave autonomy to the Middle east (Oil supplies be damned!), meaning pull out completely. I think terrorism would stop or at the very least, decrease dramatically.
Keep in mind that there's already a lot of autonomy in the Middle East; even with a history of US and Soviet meddling in the region. And despite this, conflict has been ongoing for millenia.
It's very likely we'd see a decrease in attacks against US interests - pull troops out of an area and you remove not only convenient targets, but a catalyst for motivation. But the question would then be - for how long?
The US is a world power. The military strength of the US is nothing compared its economic and cultural impact. US interests are global. Those who resent that influence are just as likely to move their targets from military to civilian.
And, in fact, they do so already. It doesn't have to be US citizens or property. Terrorism is conducted by Muslims against Muslims. If any of those targets happen to be allies or otherwise involved in US economic interests, the US remains a target. And that ignores the concept of destroying that hated influence by going directly to the source (not that I'm a big fan of the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" rhetoric... but the World Trade Center was economic as well as symbolic).
I also disagree with folks who think that if we were to leave the Middle East, others would gain control of the Oil thereby sending us into a depression or putting our military and defense in jeopardy. It won't happen.
Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil infrastructure. When Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, it torched oilfields. Iraqi insurgents have repeatedly attacked Iraqi oil infrastructure. Oil is an easy target and likely one of the first casualties in any conflict for power in the region. It's not just about who controls the oil (or at least is the one doing the selling).
It's only terrorism if non-christian brownish people do it. Didn't you get the talking points?
I'm kind of curious as to who you think are putting forward these talking points? It can't be Necons who are pretty quick to mention domestic terrorism when convenient.
Security can be bought
The price is usually money, time, emotional energy, study, and perhaps reduced functionality.
Wait a minute. Emotional energy? Reduced functionality? Sounds like someone's buying themselves a whole lot of insecurity.
Wow. Scientology. Keith Henson. Carolyn Meinel. Child abuse and incest. Its like getting caught in a bizarre intersection of The Twilight Zone and Geraldo.
Thought exercise:
If the internet did not exist and you could not pirate any given game, would you
A.) Not buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
or
B.) Buy a game you were fairly interested in but not positive about?
Back in the 80s when I was a punk kid, I had a huge collection of C=64 warez. We had no Internet access. And even the BBS scene was secondary to the swap meets where the real wheeling and dealing was going on. A lot of what got traded around was simply to trade stuff around. Heck - I remember ending up with some games that I had no idea where the hell they came from (even if they were interesting). The points here are that the Internet isn't required and "piracy" isn't just about deciding to buy or not (that we bypassed copy protection even back then and that the industry still managed to flourish and grow are more subtle points).
These days I have more disposable income than back in the 80s. I'm more inclined to buy a game just because I can (I still have ample access to illicit data). But I don't buy what I can't test.
I got an illegal copy of NWN before I went out and purchased several copies for my household (when the Linux port finally came out). I also purchased several copies of WoW after having played it at a friend's (and finding out I could run my copy on Windows via Cedega). I might check out Tabla Rasa now that I can download a demo (and see how well it runs under Wine - I'm seeing mixed reports on that). I purchased copies of Q3 and UT2004 after playing the teaser demos (although I don't play them anymore).
So... what does that all mean? Simply that the scenario you've described doesn't really fit my own experience. Although I will admit I might not be the target demographic. I'm no longer the rampant gamer (WoW takes up much of my gaming time) and I don't play anything that doesn't run on Linux (one way or another).
Which is exactly why they won't sell many. If they want to be like Bugatti and go bankrupt every other year, fine, build sports cars. If they want to become profitable, sell something people will actually buy.
The idea that they've put forward is to fund development with early-adopter bleeding-edge taxes. That is, the roadster isn't the goal. Its a first-run teaser. It helps pay for ongoing development of the technology by putting something exciting and attractive to early-adopters. It was also an attempt to stand out. Yet Another Econo-box would have been... well... yet another econo-box. The roadster also challenges the concept of what an electric vehicle is; that is to say, yet another econo-box.
I tried running WoW inside of WINE, but I was taking about a 20 FPS hit for doing so. I also have a handful of games that simply don't run inside of WINE, so for the foreseeable future I guess I'm stuck with at least one system running XP. Still, it is nice to know that in a pinch I can run WoW in Linux without too much of a hassle.
I don't have Windows on my box so I don't have a fair testing environment. I know some folks claim FPS boosts in Linux over Windows. However, I kind of suspect I'm taking a hit when comparing my performance to some less-beefy Windows systems also playing WoW in my household. Now - again this isn't a good test as I know I'm pushing a lot more pixels and particles than they are. There might also be some config tweaks I can do to give me some performance. But honestly - I could probably do myself a favor and dump a bunch of addons to give me a boost too. But versatility is more important to me than raw FPS assuming I'm in a playable environment - which I am.
On that note, Wine doesn't handle everything well... or everything at all. There's plenty of stuff out there that won't work. Vent used to cause me no small amount of aggravation until a later release. But I'm a one-game pony. WoW is enough for me.
Something I'd be interested in knowing is if doing development/testing against WINE actually leads to a more stable and bug free application.
Gavriel State of TransGaming noted an example of this and claimed:
Now, granted, Gavriel has a bridge to sell; namely Cedega. But one of the aforementioned bugs in WoW seemed to fit this description. Many Linux Cedega / Wine folks were hit by the bug. And over time, the bug was being reported by more and more Windows users. Something about how Wine handles things really shook the bug out while it only hit a small percentage of Windows users (although with WoW's numbers, that means a lot of customers).
It's true, but I don't see why it's sad. WINE lets me play some of my favourite games on Linux. Surely that's happy?
I play WoW (with Vent) on Wine (currently v1.0.0). I currently zip along fairly happy with narry a consideration for it.
But I have a niggling fear every patch day. What if Wine uncovers yet another unknown bug? It's happened before with nasty results. It could happen again and render my favorite game unplayable until it's all hashed out.
Granted - that's less likely to happen if the developer is officially (or quietly) also testing against Wine. There's been some indications (beyond this) that imply this sort of thing is going on. And it might explain why I haven't run in to one of these Wine show-stoppers for awhile now.
"We have a working Linux client. It's a pain in the ass to support, so we're not releasing it. But it is nifty."
I remember the early days of UO. There were native Linux clients to be found on Origin's public FTP servers. They were entirely unofficial - no support. Use at your own risk.
They worked wonderfully. But they didn't patch / update. So whenever an update came down, you had to visit the FTP site for a new version. That all ended when the devs who were creating that client moved on to greener pastures.
Would it be possible for Blizz to do the same kind of thing?
Even if WoW was distributed for Linux, most of the time, you couldn't install it off the CD on Linux and have it function correctly.
Sorry, but Linux has too much TIMTOWTDI to reliably release functional commercial software.
And yet, I never had a problem with my commercial release of Neverwinter Nights for Linux (at least the parts Bioware provided). Huh. Why do you think that is?
Maybe it was just a fluke. Except for the fact that Unreal Tournament 2004 was a joy. Oh - and Quake 3. And then there are quasi-commercial games like America's Army and Enemy Territory.
Maybe Tim Toady wasn't paying close attention during that time.
Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness.
While we're playing political fantasy - wouldn't it have been great if the Democrats could have produced candidates that could win? Even against a second-term George W.?
I know its probably just crazy talk but perhaps part of the reason we ended up with "Bushy shitness" is because what the Democrats were peddling seemed like just a different mixture of the same shit.
why would a company pay spammers to send out emails if it doesn't make them money?
I'm glad you asked. You see... I was once like you; confused and uninformed. I worked a 9-5 dead end job. But then I discovered the miracle of "unsolicited guerrilla electronic advertising" and made millions! Wouldn't YOU like to be like ME?!
For the first time ever, I'm willing to let you in on the secrets to my success with my spr0cket-Style Spam Success Strategy. To keep this offer exclusive, I have to charge you $2000 for the kit. But you'll make that back in the first HOUR of working at home, as you learn to apply the spr0cket-Style Spam Success Strategy!
I will even throw in a 3month supply of Herbal Pants Enchancers absolutely FREE. Could I afford to do this if my system wasn't successful?
Order today.
I'm an anarchist. Of course "lack of anarchy" is going to be a problem for me. Of course, you may misunderstand what I mean by the term "anarchy". I was not using the term to be a synonym for "chaos".
OK - fair enough. I won't get in to a debate on the ideals of anarchy as a political movement.
As to why starvation, war etc. entering into a conversation about Microsoft, I've never seen it before personally. In this case, I brought it up because this is a stupid non-story about something that just doesn't matter, at all. It isn't even about new technology, just a fucking name.
I comment on this because it happens often. Some aspect of Microsoft maladjustment is discussed and someone claims the whole point is moot compared to a laundry list of humanity's ills. It strikes me as either a lack of perspective or some cognitive dissonance slight-of-hand. In any case, it's nonsense.
As for the why of this being a point for discussion - interesting question. I would hazard to guess that it is a reflection of the sort of scrutiny Microsoft is under these days. Some think it unfair. I'm inclined to believe it is well earned.
Actually, 6 is the first perfect number so they missed it.
Well - you know that most perfection goes up to 6. Microsoft's goes to 7!
There are far more important things to get upset about (war, hunger starvation, capitalism, the state, the lack of anarchy, etc.).
Why is it that whenever the foibles of Microsoft get highlighted, starvation, war, etc. enter the conversation?
(And for that matter - how the hell is a "lack of anarchy" on that list?)
OK. I think I see your point. Its not the how that's important, it's the end product. I agree in so far as that's what's important to the end user. So if it means a better product (better construction quality), that's what will get consumer interest.
Having said that - the how of things ARE interesting. It might all be black boxes and magic to the consumer. But there's a lot of hobbiests and industry watchers who like to know the HOW of things as well. That makes it easier to understand where things are now and where things are going in the future.