It's more complicated than you suggest. "Natural selection" has not really been in effect in "modern" societies. You have to look at the occurence of something like hemophilia in a primitive society.
I guess you only bought the t-shirt and never read his book on Guerilla Warfare. To advance his political goals he was willing to put innocent peasants into harms way and sacrificing them. He considered that a legitimate sacrifice to achieve socialism.
And why, pray tell, did you include Guevarra in your little list? (Hint: Read your own link)
Have you read his book on Guerilla Warfare? Intentionally putting innocent peasants in harms way and sacrificing them is an acceptable tactic. I guess that sort of info didn't come on the tag that accompanies the Che t-shirts that all the posers wear.
It was late, end of a long day, I was thinking '07 but the fingers have far more experience typing '97. Weird sort of typo. It's only two years, I hope I didn't cause you to run down to the local PC store this morning.;-)
How thick do you have to be to not even know which millennium you're living in? What the flying fsck do you mean by "not until '97"? Is that some crappy joke?
Have you considered therapy? Sufferring such emotional distress over a typo is a significant warning sign.
If they're announcing an archtecture this radical at next week's IDF, what are the chances that it will be available and running well in time for Apple's announced timeline for desktops?
Apple's pro class machines are not going Intel until '97, there could be plenty of time. The consumer machines go Intel in '96 and a Pentium M would work quite nicely.
"And finally why you expect one employer to allow you to take something they paid for to your next employer?"
Because in the country where I live, we are not all lobotomized between jobs. When I move from one job to another, I am able to provide something called "experience"...
When you fail to understand the topic in the first place a labotomy is not required. Clue: The topic was taking finished scripts and other source code to your next job, not the experience needed to rewrite new scripts and source.
... (When you grow some pubes, maybe you'll know what it means...
Perhaps if you spent less time contemplating and inspecting pubes you wouldn't have your reading comprehension problem. Apologies if pubes are a national fixation in your country and I'm being culturally insensitive. Good luck.
No, it works for many vendors. Having a selective list of supported devices does make life easier. Unless you are catering to hobbyists it doesn't really matter.
yeah because doing so was obviously so detrimental to linux. riiiiiiight.
If consumers were rushing to get Linux desktops you might have a point, they aren't, so you don't. If the fraction of the technically inclined who do install Linux were not frequently complaining about this device not working or not being supported, you might have a point, they do, so you don't. Now I'm not slamming Linux, I use it myself, but it's mostly a server platform and it's desktop userbase and Apple's are quite different. What Linux can get away with Apple can not.
You ignore the fact that having to support every questionably piece of PC hardware would make their software less reliable and reduce their competitive edge and reduce the number of people willing to switch.
Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them.
No. This is only possible now because the dev systems are using off the shelf parts. This dev version of OS X is the only one that will run correctly on generic PCs. Once Apple starts shipping proprieatary non-PC/AT architecture hardware OS X will expect and require that hardware.
Intel CPUs, and even Intel PCI chipsets and embedded Video, do not make a system PC/AT compatible. Apple has lots of opportunity for customization and they certainly have the know how after decades of making their own motherboards.
My biggest hope is that my company doesn't enforce their "all your copyright are belong to us" policy...
That's nice but irrelevant. GPL doesn't invalidate a copyright, it relies on a copyright holder to offer the source as GPL. Whether that is a person or a company does not matter.
... wherein every little unix script I write, no matter how small, and even if nobody at the company will ever make money off of it or even use it, can't be taken with me to my next job.
If you don't like the company owning everything you write don't take their money, their health insurance, etc. That's the tradeoff, every relationship has some give-and-take. "Size" doesn't really matter, why should the company spend time/money evaluating your code and scripts to determine what is worth keeping and what is worth letting go? And finally why you expect one employer to allow you to take something they paid for to your next employer?
As I programmer I understand being emotionally attached to what one writes but come on, be realistic. Sure I would like to have some of the stuff I wrote in the past but damn I sure did like those regular paychecks that never bounced and just kept on coming so predictably.
The low end Dell I see on their page is $600 not $500. The display is 15" not 17". Have a link for the model you referenced?
I ignored the $360 nForce, a stripped down FreeDOS box.
With the Mini you also pay for a small form factor, your full sized desktop comparison is not that useful. Anything larger than a Shuttle is probably not a useful comparison.
No, I am not a system bigot. I buy parts at a local computer show and assemble my own PCs. It doesn't really save money compared to Dell but I have complete control over the components. Usually I'm on your side of this argument, that's why I don't toss out things like where's the Firewire in the Dell, the Mini really is the exception.
No, it is a small pond. Compare the number of programmers doing games to those working in aerospace and defence. Also the flow of technology is not as simple as you suggest. Sometimes the PC crowd is commoditizing a technology that was formerly the exclusive domain of high end workstations, special purpose flight sims, etc. Read up on the origins of OpenGL.
Is this a waste of a special and rare talent? Sadly, the answer is yes.
No, there are many as talented and more talented people working for NASA and the DoD. Most of these people don't opt for video games and in other fields of programming you don't get "rockstar" press. You are merely looking at one of the bigger fish in a small pond.
It's a little higher but not double as previously claimed. That 17" flat panel is a small incremental cost not another $500.
The speed comparison is far more complicated than you suggest. You cannot compare GHz. PowerPC CPUs are generally 25-30% faster than Pentiums of the same clockrate. That Dell probably has a Celeron which will fall short of a real Pentium.
In any case my argument is not price equivalency. My argument is that while most Macs command a high premium the Mini does not, it's a small premium.
What most people around here fail to consider are the ongoing costs. Testing for example, a Linux port would add 50% to their testing burden as they target three platforms rather than two (Win32 and Mac OS X). Now which Linux distributions do you test against? How will technical support deal with the various distributions? How will they deal with custom kernels? All of this would have to be paid for by the people who refuse to dual boot or emulate, do you honestly think there are enough of those purists? I realize it is convenient not to have to reboot but if you buy and run the Windows version of a game you have effectively voted against a native Linux port. I realize that is the last thing Linux gamers want to do but that is the reality of the situation.
Actually it was not me that said that, I was quoting the original poster who was formulating a question for Blizzard.
As for recently introduced problems. They are presumably in Cedega code not WoW, the Cedega developers will surely fix it. I don't think any of this changes the business case for a native Linux client.
Every post you make is against a native Linux version.
No, things are more complicated than your simplistic understanding. The posts merely state that there is no business case for a Linux version. That's the facts, you may not like the facts, but as you grow up you'll learn that your heartfelt desires and the real world don't always agree. If someone is going to do a Linux version they should be motivated by platform advocacy, charity, or some other non-business reason as is the case with id.
You're in likeness to a troll: claiming to quote from sources you don't reveal, advocating existing markets and not more reputable growing markets.
How is referring to an id interview in Game Developer Magazine not revealing sources? I get the magazine as dead trees so I don't have a URL. I'm sure you're a big enough boy/girl that you can manage to do your own homework with the info I provided.
Redundancy is the key to software development: don't put all your software in one baskette, let it span multiple planes in the case that a bug not in your control brings the entire service down.
Now you probably picked up the phrase "talking out of your ass" on the schoolyard recently but you haven't learned how to use it. Your quote above is a good example of where to use it, unlike you previous emotional attempt. The above is completely irrelevant to game clients. The developer doesn't get to pick the target platforms, the customers do, and if 9x% of your customers have a problem with the Windows version one day a Linux version doesn't help you, you still have to fix or work around the Windows problem. The market has chosen Windows and Linux gamers have chosen to emulate or dual boot negating the need for a native Linux client. Unlike Mac users who need a native client, well to be honest the platform made that decision for them. Emulation on the Mac is not feasable for games like it is under Linux, on the Mac you have to emulate a CPU not just an API. In 4-5 years that may change as the Mac population moves to Intel.
Many(/most?) linux people just dual boot because the games don't run on linux, that's all. If they had the choice not to dual boot or emulate to make the game run, they wouldn't.
That is irrelevant. They buy and run Windows games, that is all that matters to developers. There is no *new* money in getting these people a Linux version, but there are *new* expenses. It's a loss. Linux development and support is *only* paid for by people who refuse to dual boot or emulate.
A good starting point for a company would be to publish that linux client but telling there is not QA or support under linux
That is sleezy. I don't blame any company for not going that route.
We are now unfortunately in a chicken and egg situation.
Agreed, but that is not a developer's problem. It is not their role to promote any particular operating system.
ID does such a good job of making Linux releases - what will it take for you to do the same?
ID has said that they support Linux because they think it is cool to do so and that there is no business case for it. Old Game Developer Magazine quote.
I am glad to help out the Cedega folks, but it would be nicer to not have to use a band-aid.
But what is the business case? If Linux gamers are already buying the Windows version and posting things like "It runs great under cedega (transgaming wine), even better in opengl mode" http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159086&c id=13323538 why bother? Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not pay for the development, testing, and ongoing support costs. Between dual booting and emulation there is not really much of a Linux *market* ("market" as in a business opportunity). The Linux market is only those who refuse to dual boot or emulate.
Why are you alienating a market which is most likely more dense in players than your other target platforms?
Keep in mind that the Linux market is *not* anyone who will play a game under Linux. It is *only* the subset of that group that refuses to emulate or dual boot. Given the fact that the majority of Linux users dual boot or emulate the market is far far smaller than you suggest. Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not generate any new income and does not defray the ongoing costs.
In short, why bother, why add the QA and tech support issues when the community is *already* saying "It runs great under cedega (transgaming wine), even better in opengl mode."
Slashdot Mirror
It's more complicated than you suggest. "Natural selection" has not really been in effect in "modern" societies. You have to look at the occurence of something like hemophilia in a primitive society.
Why is Che on this list? Socialist != psychopath.
I guess you only bought the t-shirt and never read his book on Guerilla Warfare. To advance his political goals he was willing to put innocent peasants into harms way and sacrificing them. He considered that a legitimate sacrifice to achieve socialism.
And why, pray tell, did you include Guevarra in your little list? (Hint: Read your own link)
Have you read his book on Guerilla Warfare? Intentionally putting innocent peasants in harms way and sacrificing them is an acceptable tactic. I guess that sort of info didn't come on the tag that accompanies the Che t-shirts that all the posers wear.
"Heroin", you mean "Elixir of Euphoria"? ;-)
I wonder if "medicinal patches" for a mouse have been patented yet, quick, where's a lawyer?
Yeah, "Brilliant", hit line length limit
Doesn't this assume that players can drag themselves away from the computer to play the CCG in the first place?
You have to give players something to do during server maintenance, internet outages, power failures, etc.
It was late, end of a long day, I was thinking '07 but the fingers have far more experience typing '97. Weird sort of typo. It's only two years, I hope I didn't cause you to run down to the local PC store this morning. ;-)
How thick do you have to be to not even know which millennium you're living in? What the flying fsck do you mean by "not until '97"? Is that some crappy joke?
Have you considered therapy? Sufferring such emotional distress over a typo is a significant warning sign.
If they're announcing an archtecture this radical at next week's IDF, what are the chances that it will be available and running well in time for Apple's announced timeline for desktops?
Apple's pro class machines are not going Intel until '97, there could be plenty of time. The consumer machines go Intel in '96 and a Pentium M would work quite nicely.
"And finally why you expect one employer to allow you to take something they paid for to your next employer?"
...
... (When you grow some pubes, maybe you'll know what it means ...
Because in the country where I live, we are not all lobotomized between jobs. When I move from one job to another, I am able to provide something called "experience"
When you fail to understand the topic in the first place a labotomy is not required. Clue: The topic was taking finished scripts and other source code to your next job, not the experience needed to rewrite new scripts and source.
Perhaps if you spent less time contemplating and inspecting pubes you wouldn't have your reading comprehension problem. Apologies if pubes are a national fixation in your country and I'm being culturally insensitive. Good luck.
only in the apple universe is choice a bad thing.
No, it works for many vendors. Having a selective list of supported devices does make life easier. Unless you are catering to hobbyists it doesn't really matter.
yeah because doing so was obviously so detrimental to linux. riiiiiiight.
If consumers were rushing to get Linux desktops you might have a point, they aren't, so you don't. If the fraction of the technically inclined who do install Linux were not frequently complaining about this device not working or not being supported, you might have a point, they do, so you don't. Now I'm not slamming Linux, I use it myself, but it's mostly a server platform and it's desktop userbase and Apple's are quite different. What Linux can get away with Apple can not.
You ignore the fact that having to support every questionably piece of PC hardware would make their software less reliable and reduce their competitive edge and reduce the number of people willing to switch.
Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them.
No. This is only possible now because the dev systems are using off the shelf parts. This dev version of OS X is the only one that will run correctly on generic PCs. Once Apple starts shipping proprieatary non-PC/AT architecture hardware OS X will expect and require that hardware.
Intel CPUs, and even Intel PCI chipsets and embedded Video, do not make a system PC/AT compatible. Apple has lots of opportunity for customization and they certainly have the know how after decades of making their own motherboards.
My biggest hope is that my company doesn't enforce their "all your copyright are belong to us" policy ...
... wherein every little unix script I write, no matter how small, and even if nobody at the company will ever make money off of it or even use it, can't be taken with me to my next job.
That's nice but irrelevant. GPL doesn't invalidate a copyright, it relies on a copyright holder to offer the source as GPL. Whether that is a person or a company does not matter.
If you don't like the company owning everything you write don't take their money, their health insurance, etc. That's the tradeoff, every relationship has some give-and-take. "Size" doesn't really matter, why should the company spend time/money evaluating your code and scripts to determine what is worth keeping and what is worth letting go? And finally why you expect one employer to allow you to take something they paid for to your next employer?
As I programmer I understand being emotionally attached to what one writes but come on, be realistic. Sure I would like to have some of the stuff I wrote in the past but damn I sure did like those regular paychecks that never bounced and just kept on coming so predictably.
The low end Dell I see on their page is $600 not $500. The display is 15" not 17". Have a link for the model you referenced?
I ignored the $360 nForce, a stripped down FreeDOS box.
With the Mini you also pay for a small form factor, your full sized desktop comparison is not that useful. Anything larger than a Shuttle is probably not a useful comparison.
No, I am not a system bigot. I buy parts at a local computer show and assemble my own PCs. It doesn't really save money compared to Dell but I have complete control over the components. Usually I'm on your side of this argument, that's why I don't toss out things like where's the Firewire in the Dell, the Mini really is the exception.
No, it is a small pond. Compare the number of programmers doing games to those working in aerospace and defence. Also the flow of technology is not as simple as you suggest. Sometimes the PC crowd is commoditizing a technology that was formerly the exclusive domain of high end workstations, special purpose flight sims, etc. Read up on the origins of OpenGL.
Is this a waste of a special and rare talent? Sadly, the answer is yes.
No, there are many as talented and more talented people working for NASA and the DoD. Most of these people don't opt for video games and in other fields of programming you don't get "rockstar" press. You are merely looking at one of the bigger fish in a small pond.
It's a little higher but not double as previously claimed. That 17" flat panel is a small incremental cost not another $500.
The speed comparison is far more complicated than you suggest. You cannot compare GHz. PowerPC CPUs are generally 25-30% faster than Pentiums of the same clockrate. That Dell probably has a Celeron which will fall short of a real Pentium.
In any case my argument is not price equivalency. My argument is that while most Macs command a high premium the Mini does not, it's a small premium.
What's the freaking problem with a native port?
What most people around here fail to consider are the ongoing costs. Testing for example, a Linux port would add 50% to their testing burden as they target three platforms rather than two (Win32 and Mac OS X). Now which Linux distributions do you test against? How will technical support deal with the various distributions? How will they deal with custom kernels? All of this would have to be paid for by the people who refuse to dual boot or emulate, do you honestly think there are enough of those purists? I realize it is convenient not to have to reboot but if you buy and run the Windows version of a game you have effectively voted against a native Linux port. I realize that is the last thing Linux gamers want to do but that is the reality of the situation.
Actually it was not me that said that, I was quoting the original poster who was formulating a question for Blizzard.
As for recently introduced problems. They are presumably in Cedega code not WoW, the Cedega developers will surely fix it. I don't think any of this changes the business case for a native Linux client.
Every post you make is against a native Linux version.
No, things are more complicated than your simplistic understanding. The posts merely state that there is no business case for a Linux version. That's the facts, you may not like the facts, but as you grow up you'll learn that your heartfelt desires and the real world don't always agree. If someone is going to do a Linux version they should be motivated by platform advocacy, charity, or some other non-business reason as is the case with id.
You're in likeness to a troll: claiming to quote from sources you don't reveal, advocating existing markets and not more reputable growing markets.
How is referring to an id interview in Game Developer Magazine not revealing sources? I get the magazine as dead trees so I don't have a URL. I'm sure you're a big enough boy/girl that you can manage to do your own homework with the info I provided.
Redundancy is the key to software development: don't put all your software in one baskette, let it span multiple planes in the case that a bug not in your control brings the entire service down.
Now you probably picked up the phrase "talking out of your ass" on the schoolyard recently but you haven't learned how to use it. Your quote above is a good example of where to use it, unlike you previous emotional attempt. The above is completely irrelevant to game clients. The developer doesn't get to pick the target platforms, the customers do, and if 9x% of your customers have a problem with the Windows version one day a Linux version doesn't help you, you still have to fix or work around the Windows problem. The market has chosen Windows and Linux gamers have chosen to emulate or dual boot negating the need for a native Linux client. Unlike Mac users who need a native client, well to be honest the platform made that decision for them. Emulation on the Mac is not feasable for games like it is under Linux, on the Mac you have to emulate a CPU not just an API. In 4-5 years that may change as the Mac population moves to Intel.
Many(/most?) linux people just dual boot because the games don't run on linux, that's all. If they had the choice not to dual boot or emulate to make the game run, they wouldn't.
That is irrelevant. They buy and run Windows games, that is all that matters to developers. There is no *new* money in getting these people a Linux version, but there are *new* expenses. It's a loss. Linux development and support is *only* paid for by people who refuse to dual boot or emulate.
A good starting point for a company would be to publish that linux client but telling there is not QA or support under linux
That is sleezy. I don't blame any company for not going that route.
We are now unfortunately in a chicken and egg situation.
Agreed, but that is not a developer's problem. It is not their role to promote any particular operating system.
ID does such a good job of making Linux releases - what will it take for you to do the same?
c id=13323538 why bother? Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not pay for the development, testing, and ongoing support costs. Between dual booting and emulation there is not really much of a Linux *market* ("market" as in a business opportunity). The Linux market is only those who refuse to dual boot or emulate.
ID has said that they support Linux because they think it is cool to do so and that there is no business case for it. Old Game Developer Magazine quote.
I am glad to help out the Cedega folks, but it would be nicer to not have to use a band-aid.
But what is the business case? If Linux gamers are already buying the Windows version and posting things like "It runs great under cedega (transgaming wine), even better in opengl mode" http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159086&
Why are you alienating a market which is most likely more dense in players than your other target platforms?
Keep in mind that the Linux market is *not* anyone who will play a game under Linux. It is *only* the subset of that group that refuses to emulate or dual boot. Given the fact that the majority of Linux users dual boot or emulate the market is far far smaller than you suggest. Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not generate any new income and does not defray the ongoing costs.
In short, why bother, why add the QA and tech support issues when the community is *already* saying "It runs great under cedega (transgaming wine), even better in opengl mode."