I thought that was pretty funny too. Still, it's not there's a whole lot to see if you're running Linux already. Xgl demos, I guess. I liked seeing that.
Yep. Why would you want to make it progress? "Japanese Scientists Make Progress With Alzheimer's," would have been better, since there's no such thing as "Alzheimer's progress" anyway.
Why not just read through the archives at a pace of one comic per day? Ten years should give you enough time to get used to the idea that it's going to end.
But I think the point was that one person could produce a game in a reasonable length of time back then. While today's system's are easier to code for (judging by your anecdote about the Atari and my own experience with modern systems), it wasn't necessary to be a jack of all trades like a person would have to be to produce a competetive game today. It's easier to make a game do what it needs to now, but you have to make it do a lot more, and produce a lot more content on top of that.
You got your car analogy backwards. Assembler is like a Ferrari: it's fast, but hard to get work done with. Other languages are like the diesel truck: they're slower, but their power lets you get stuff done.
Of course, that problem goes away if the VM is pretty much always in use, since it's been loaded already. Especially if the whole OS is coded on top of it. Then you do have the problem of it always sucking resources though.
Exactly right. I've had the same experience you had with wmii (although I did like the way it showed possible completions when typing commands), so I don't use it, but I do use Ratpoison, another keyboard-centric window manager.
But it's pretty slow to do anything but move to the next item, so it's not an interface I like to use unless I'm filling in answers on a form or something. Hotkeys are better for selecting from a small group of actions.
Actually, I nearly did say that, but couldn't figure out what I would mean by it. I think that what I want is a non-spatial interface (i.e. no moving or pointing) with a 2d display. 2d displays are good because that's the largest number of dimensions the eye can take in at a glance (barring making everything transparent). Spatial interfaces are mostly just slow. There are situations in which they make sense, like computer graphics, but they're generally a pain in the ass. Much shallower learning curve, which matters to some people, but it's not the most important thing to me. I'd rather climb the hill once than for the rest of my life.
Trying to improve the web by letting us rotate it is just senseless. 3d is good for one thing: representing information that has three dimensions. Text does not. Graphics do not. Those are what the web is made of. Unless someone can think up an amazing way to map them to a 3d environment, or a completely new 3d approach to communication, the 3d web will remain a technologist's wet dream.
3d's biggest feature is making stuff hard to reach. Why we want to do that to the web is beyond me.
With immersive 3d displays, it might make some sense to put web pages all around ourselves on the surface of a sphere (which is what one of the browsers in TFA tries to do), but even then it's not a 3d web. Not any more than Asteroids was a 3d game. It's a 2d web in a 3d display. The inner surface of a sphere is just two dimensional.
Not really. You'd have to first browse to the parent of the folder you want to move, then cut that folder, then browse to the folder you want to put it in, then paste the folder there. Or you could open the source and destination in two windows and drag. With a CLI it will go something like "mv porn/.hidden_stuff/". That's with the aid of tab completion, of course. I don't think this is one of the situations where a CLI is always faster, but it's not slower either.
While it's a neat effect, it's not (nor is Exposé) really what I'd call a 3d interface, even if it does make use of the computer's 3d hardware to render it. The interface is still constrained to the same old flat plane. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if you believe (as I do) that a 3d interface is pointless without 3d hardware to make use of it.
But the point of a 3d game isn't to convey information in a clear way. They aim to create an experience. We might as well add a "fog of war" to the web as well, and only display text near the cursor.
For that matter, a 3d interface isn't usually the best way to access information in real life either. I don't page through dictionaries anymore because it's quicker to look words up on the web. Picking up books and moving them around and taking notes is a lot of work! It's usually a lot faster to shuffle information around on a computer, precisely because it dispenses with real life's 3d interface, and all the baggage that comes with it. 2d interfaces are pretty problematic too, I might add. Having to deal with anything besides the information at hand degrades the experience. Paging through books, and moving the mouse, to a lesser degree, are just unneeded distractions. There's no reason to have a 3d interface unless you're dealing with 3d data.
I think that simply removing unlockable elements is the wrong way to go though. A better solution would be to change the game's timing. Instead of building them to fit into the schedule of a kid with hours to kill, make the high points come every twenty minutes or so.
Slashdot Mirror
For that matter, how is it that so much Free Software is available for Windows as well?
Me too! I'd like to play Valve's games, but I'm certainly not going to install something like Steam on my computer.
I admire its grammar.
I thought that was pretty funny too. Still, it's not there's a whole lot to see if you're running Linux already. Xgl demos, I guess. I liked seeing that.
Yep. Why would you want to make it progress? "Japanese Scientists Make Progress With Alzheimer's," would have been better, since there's no such thing as "Alzheimer's progress" anyway.
Why not just read through the archives at a pace of one comic per day? Ten years should give you enough time to get used to the idea that it's going to end.
Yeah, I looked through the archive and wasn't impressed. There were a couple that made me come close to chuckling. Quantity over quality for sure.
No need to bash open source games. You're only betraying your ignorance.
Cube: a really fast FPS; the world is fully editable from within the game. Its sequel is playable although still buggy.
Warsow: a "tricks" based FPS. The tricks are much like those in the Quake games, with the addition of wall jumping.
Xpilot: a little like multiplayer game of asteroids, except with land masses and more weapons. Also like Continuum, except older and better.
BZFlag: needs no introduction. Multiplayer capture the flag.
There are many other good games, of course. This is just a short list of some of the most original.
But I think the point was that one person could produce a game in a reasonable length of time back then. While today's system's are easier to code for (judging by your anecdote about the Atari and my own experience with modern systems), it wasn't necessary to be a jack of all trades like a person would have to be to produce a competetive game today. It's easier to make a game do what it needs to now, but you have to make it do a lot more, and produce a lot more content on top of that.
You got your car analogy backwards. Assembler is like a Ferrari: it's fast, but hard to get work done with. Other languages are like the diesel truck: they're slower, but their power lets you get stuff done.
Of course, that problem goes away if the VM is pretty much always in use, since it's been loaded already. Especially if the whole OS is coded on top of it. Then you do have the problem of it always sucking resources though.
Exactly right. I've had the same experience you had with wmii (although I did like the way it showed possible completions when typing commands), so I don't use it, but I do use Ratpoison, another keyboard-centric window manager.
I think we generally stick to modding posts up for *being* funny, not just for trying.
But it's pretty slow to do anything but move to the next item, so it's not an interface I like to use unless I'm filling in answers on a form or something. Hotkeys are better for selecting from a small group of actions.
Actually, I nearly did say that, but couldn't figure out what I would mean by it. I think that what I want is a non-spatial interface (i.e. no moving or pointing) with a 2d display. 2d displays are good because that's the largest number of dimensions the eye can take in at a glance (barring making everything transparent). Spatial interfaces are mostly just slow. There are situations in which they make sense, like computer graphics, but they're generally a pain in the ass. Much shallower learning curve, which matters to some people, but it's not the most important thing to me. I'd rather climb the hill once than for the rest of my life.
"In a game you would label the dimension something like 'z axis turn'."
Or "roll".
Netcraft confirms it, the 3d web is dead.
Trying to improve the web by letting us rotate it is just senseless. 3d is good for one thing: representing information that has three dimensions. Text does not. Graphics do not. Those are what the web is made of. Unless someone can think up an amazing way to map them to a 3d environment, or a completely new 3d approach to communication, the 3d web will remain a technologist's wet dream.
3d's biggest feature is making stuff hard to reach. Why we want to do that to the web is beyond me.
With immersive 3d displays, it might make some sense to put web pages all around ourselves on the surface of a sphere (which is what one of the browsers in TFA tries to do), but even then it's not a 3d web. Not any more than Asteroids was a 3d game. It's a 2d web in a 3d display. The inner surface of a sphere is just two dimensional.
Not really. You'd have to first browse to the parent of the folder you want to move, then cut that folder, then browse to the folder you want to put it in, then paste the folder there. Or you could open the source and destination in two windows and drag. With a CLI it will go something like "mv porn/ .hidden_stuff/". That's with the aid of tab completion, of course. I don't think this is one of the situations where a CLI is always faster, but it's not slower either.
While it's a neat effect, it's not (nor is Exposé) really what I'd call a 3d interface, even if it does make use of the computer's 3d hardware to render it. The interface is still constrained to the same old flat plane. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if you believe (as I do) that a 3d interface is pointless without 3d hardware to make use of it.
But the point of a 3d game isn't to convey information in a clear way. They aim to create an experience. We might as well add a "fog of war" to the web as well, and only display text near the cursor.
For that matter, a 3d interface isn't usually the best way to access information in real life either. I don't page through dictionaries anymore because it's quicker to look words up on the web. Picking up books and moving them around and taking notes is a lot of work! It's usually a lot faster to shuffle information around on a computer, precisely because it dispenses with real life's 3d interface, and all the baggage that comes with it. 2d interfaces are pretty problematic too, I might add. Having to deal with anything besides the information at hand degrades the experience. Paging through books, and moving the mouse, to a lesser degree, are just unneeded distractions. There's no reason to have a 3d interface unless you're dealing with 3d data.
Doesn't Emacs weigh in at about six times Vim's size?
Couldn't he have ripped you off without access to the source? Now tell me again how your version being open source has anything to do with him.
I think that simply removing unlockable elements is the wrong way to go though. A better solution would be to change the game's timing. Instead of building them to fit into the schedule of a kid with hours to kill, make the high points come every twenty minutes or so.
I imagine it went something like this.