There's one little thing though. If the -full- Linux version would be priced higher than the full Windows version and/or be released after, as has been the normal case with Loki releases, chances are that people will buy the Windows version, then the cheap Linux binary package, and that will still amount to less money than the full Linux package. That way, the user would get both the Linux AND Windows version, legally, both in nice glossy boxes, and Hyperion would probably sell far less full Linux versions.
Sure, that makes sense. What I thought you were saying ("Ship it in the same way you ship the full boxed version," I guess I misinterpreted that) was that they should sell the binaries only, boxed in the exact same way as a full version. That would not make any sense at all.
I have a feeling the original game manufacturers wouldn't like what you're suggesting, though, but I agree it would probably be better for most of us (Linux users and Linux game developers.)
...And this would do precisely nothing except lower Hyperion's income by 80%. The data files need not be ported, and do not really cost Hyperion anything; the binaries do. So what's the point of supplying the binaries only on a full boxed CD?
What I said was that computer manufacturers and/or retailers should be able to let the customer choose which web browser he wants, not that the OS should be shipped entirely without the OS. But OTOH, even if it WAS shipped without a web browser, you'd always have C:\WINDOWS\FTP.EXE.;)
Microsoft killed competition in the web browser market. Microsoft has more than 90% of the PC operating system market. When Microsoft includes a free web browser with their operating system, which is as good as the commercial alternative, they kill all competition.
Now, your analogy would be good if GM had 90% of the market share for cars, and suspension systems had previously only been sold separately, but they suddenly started including them to kill off the suspension system manufacturers.
This crap against Microsoft is getting old. If people didn't want to use IE on most WIN32 PCs, and programmers didn't want to code for IE, there's nothing stopping them from using something else.
This has been said millions of times already, still people do not get it. Joe Blow will not download a 15 Mb alternate web browser with a dialup connection if there's already an adequate web browser included with the operating system.
After all, Microsoft as a company that makes both an OS ans a Web-browser (which happens to be fully integrated with the OS). Who's to say they have to give the option to package the OS with someone else's browser?
Noone says so. What some people suggest, though, is that Microsoft stop including IE with Windows, so that computer manufacturers/retailers and/or consumers can choose the best web browser for their need. In a perfect world, you would be able to get your new Windows PC with Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera, [...] or no web browser at all.
Re:Not so far fetched a thought..
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
...what would happen if I created a Linux distribution (with FVWM95) which crashed once in a while with an exact clone of the Microsoft Blue Screen of Death? Would that cause customer confusion?;)
Except for the fact that X has always been just that; X, or The X Window System. Read the man page X(7) to see for yourself; it's right there in the beginning. The only thing the X Window System name implies is that it's a window system, just like Microsoft Windows was back in the day.
The name LindowsOS can be interpreted as a name of a LINux based Operating System utilizing a GUI with wINDOWS.
You know, there aren't really that many "development releases" of commercial unices. There's Solaris 8, and then a couple of years later there's Solaris 9. Neither are there anywhere near as many "development releases" of any of the free BSD's.
Saying that Come On DEBIAN people, get that kernel moving, dont you know its guys like you that give linux a good name, stable, secure and a little archane ????
And WHY do you think Debian's stable? That's right, because they don't include every new package as soon as it's released, *cough*GCC*cough* like certain others. The "old" kernels are not broken, they are tried, testen and proven stable.
MY GO there are like 10 security fixes in this release !!!! (Im used to 10 a week !)
That's because Debian IS secure, because the Debian guys prefer fixing security holes and bugs instead of cramming every new package they can find into the base system.
Slashdot Mirror
There's one little thing though. If the -full- Linux version would be priced higher than the full Windows version and/or be released after, as has been the normal case with Loki releases, chances are that people will buy the Windows version, then the cheap Linux binary package, and that will still amount to less money than the full Linux package. That way, the user would get both the Linux AND Windows version, legally, both in nice glossy boxes, and Hyperion would probably sell far less full Linux versions.
Sure, that makes sense. What I thought you were saying ("Ship it in the same way you ship the full boxed version," I guess I misinterpreted that) was that they should sell the binaries only, boxed in the exact same way as a full version. That would not make any sense at all. I have a feeling the original game manufacturers wouldn't like what you're suggesting, though, but I agree it would probably be better for most of us (Linux users and Linux game developers.)
...And this would do precisely nothing except lower Hyperion's income by 80%. The data files need not be ported, and do not really cost Hyperion anything; the binaries do. So what's the point of supplying the binaries only on a full boxed CD?
What I said was that computer manufacturers and/or retailers should be able to let the customer choose which web browser he wants, not that the OS should be shipped entirely without the OS. But OTOH, even if it WAS shipped without a web browser, you'd always have C:\WINDOWS\FTP.EXE. ;)
Microsoft killed competition in the web browser market. Microsoft has more than 90% of the PC operating system market. When Microsoft includes a free web browser with their operating system, which is as good as the commercial alternative, they kill all competition.
Now, your analogy would be good if GM had 90% of the market share for cars, and suspension systems had previously only been sold separately, but they suddenly started including them to kill off the suspension system manufacturers.
This crap against Microsoft is getting old. If people didn't want to use IE on most WIN32 PCs, and programmers didn't want to code for IE, there's nothing stopping them from using something else.
This has been said millions of times already, still people do not get it. Joe Blow will not download a 15 Mb alternate web browser with a dialup connection if there's already an adequate web browser included with the operating system.
After all, Microsoft as a company that makes both an OS ans a Web-browser (which happens to be fully integrated with the OS). Who's to say they have to give the option to package the OS with someone else's browser?
Noone says so. What some people suggest, though, is that Microsoft stop including IE with Windows, so that computer manufacturers/retailers and/or consumers can choose the best web browser for their need. In a perfect world, you would be able to get your new Windows PC with Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera, [...] or no web browser at all.
...And it has happened. Debian GNU/w32
Oh, yeah. THAT'LL lower "piracy."
...what would happen if I created a Linux distribution (with FVWM95) which crashed once in a while with an exact clone of the Microsoft Blue Screen of Death? Would that cause customer confusion? ;)
Actually, before The X Window System, there was the W Window System. .
Except for the fact that X has always been just that; X, or The X Window System. Read the man page X(7) to see for yourself; it's right there in the beginning. The only thing the X Window System name implies is that it's a window system, just like Microsoft Windows was back in the day.
The name LindowsOS can be interpreted as a name of a LINux based Operating System utilizing a GUI with wINDOWS.
From the X(7) manual page:
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
You know, there aren't really that many "development releases" of commercial unices. There's Solaris 8, and then a couple of years later there's Solaris 9. Neither are there anywhere near as many "development releases" of any of the free BSD's.
Saying that Come On DEBIAN people, get that kernel moving, dont you know its guys like you that give linux a good name, stable, secure and a little archane ???? And WHY do you think Debian's stable? That's right, because they don't include every new package as soon as it's released, *cough*GCC*cough* like certain others. The "old" kernels are not broken, they are tried, testen and proven stable. MY GO there are like 10 security fixes in this release !!!! (Im used to 10 a week !) That's because Debian IS secure, because the Debian guys prefer fixing security holes and bugs instead of cramming every new package they can find into the base system.
Maybe Linnux isn't that great, never tried it. I do like GNU/Linux though.