IMO that's the strength of OSS games: they can evolve continuously rather than being discarded after a year due to marketing demands. Within a decade the best-of-breed in every gaming category will be an OSS game.
Like, my development box...I won't upgrade anything on it unless someone else has been running the upgrade for a while. That's what junior developers are for anyway. That and doughnuts.
Um, seriously. End-of-lifing a product is just a plain good idea, whether you're talking about open source, closed source, or something that isn't even computer software. In the real world, it costs way too much to keep a support infrastructure in place for a product that is only being used by a small amount of the population due to its having become "obsolete" (even if only as a marketing matter). While it sucks to be one of the people who still uses the product and doesn't want to upgrade, there's really no alternative but to cut people off eventually.
Way to miss the point, asshat. How many computer users, as a percentage of all users, write code? 0.01%? The original poster's point was that Windows might be inferior to Linux in many ways but for the AVERAGE PERSON, it allows them to do things they'd never be able to do in Linux due to lack of software and lack of technical knowledge. So you just reinforced his point by disagreeing with it.
The movie industry is different from the video game industry.
This is widely reported... and wrong. Yes, the entire game industry pulls in more than the theater BOX OFFICE of the movie industry. Meaning.... if you don't include video rentals, video sales, pay-per-view and cable fees for showing movies. Also the 'game industry' numbers include sales of console hardware (the actual XBOX, PS2, GCN, GBA, etc sales) whereas the movie industry does NOT include sales of movie-related consumer electronics (DVD players, VCRs, etc).
A patch that allows a WarCraft III player go up against an Age Of Mythology player. Better yet, make some sort of a patchwork quilt where you've got Sims Online to the north, Command & Conquer to the south, EverQuest to the east, and WarCraft to the west.
THAT would be fun.:)
No it wouldn't. It's hard enough to correctly balance the units in a single RTS game let alone trying to make multiple such games work together in a fair and consistent manner. The technical hurdles could be overcome using some open protocols (assuming all the developers coded to the protocols), but the game design issues would be immense.
Lets not forget dead-pixel syndrome and shitty refresh rates which cause ghosting in fast action games (this has been reduced in newer LCDs but NOT eliminated.. not by a long shot).
LCDs are great when you're space limited and need an office-work machine and are great for laptops of course, but I refuse to put on on my home system given the insane cost and all of the associated problems (particularly for gamers and graphics professionals).
Oh, FUD and nonsense. Perl is GPL, and nobody has even hinted that this means that perl programs must be GPL'd. Tcl and TK and GPL, and the same applies.
Perl - Artistic License first and foremost. GPL is available as an option for those who want it, but isn't required for exactly the reason I laid out (because if it were GPL only, all Perl scripts would thus have to be GPL).
TK/TCL - BSD License
Please go educate yourself before you post again. Thanks.
No it wouldn't. Does Emacs being GPL'd mean that everything you write in Emacs being GPL'd?
First of all emacs isn't even in the same ballpark as what we are talking about. gcc is.
Now... the gcc is GPL, and if Java were to go 'Free Software', javac and related tools could go GPL with no problem. The real issue is if the Java *APIs* were made GPL. This would force all Java programs that linked to the Java APIs (which is pretty much all of them) to be GPL as well. This is why glibc is NOT GPL but is instead LGPL, and why the Mono.NET APIs aren't GPL (but the tools to compile are). Making the whole of the Java runtime enviornment GPL would be a BAD thing for the future of Java's use by businesses even if you agree with it politically.
(Assuming all of Java is GPL) If I modify the core java APIs and write a product with it, I can SELL the product, but I'd have to supply everyone with the source to my modified java apis (not the source for the product).
Wrong. That would be true if the core Java API were LGPL, but not GPL. If it is GPL anything that links against it must also be GPL. Period.
Somebody wake me up when they post something interesting for a change!
Re:Java is NOT in danger, sun is.
on
The Future of Java?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What if the java platform became GPL ? I think this is an important distinction to make.
If the entirety of Java were placed under the GPL, including all of the Java API libraries, it would KILL Java because it would mean that virtually every Java program distributed would have to be released under the GPL as well. Even if you think this is a good thing, most businesses wouldn't. They'd run screaming from Java.
This is exactly why the runtime.NET APIs under Mono aren't GPL.. Only the tools themselves are.
What do you think about this? How can we attack errors of omission and commission in interfaces?
There are many products that do code coverage testing such as PureCoverage. Basically they analyze code as it is running and make note of which parts of your code have been executed and which haven't. This is very useful in making sure all possible code paths are tested, and if a code path isn't hit at all it gives you a good indication that you've got a 'dead' patch of code that you might want to look more closely at. Sadly such tools are generally very expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah just like any other urban legend...
We all gots problems.
Yeah that's what I thought!
Sorry but anyone who types 'loosing' when they mean 'losing' has no meaningful, valid opinion on any subject. In other words, shut the fuck up.
Shut up, asshole. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Hahahah! Hahahhaahha! Hahahahhahahahahahahahahaha!!!
In other words...No, you are quite wrong!
Lazy fat-ass.
Um, seriously. End-of-lifing a product is just a plain good idea, whether you're talking about open source, closed source, or something that isn't even computer software. In the real world, it costs way too much to keep a support infrastructure in place for a product that is only being used by a small amount of the population due to its having become "obsolete" (even if only as a marketing matter). While it sucks to be one of the people who still uses the product and doesn't want to upgrade, there's really no alternative but to cut people off eventually.
Way to miss the point, asshat. How many computer users, as a percentage of all users, write code? 0.01%? The original poster's point was that Windows might be inferior to Linux in many ways but for the AVERAGE PERSON, it allows them to do things they'd never be able to do in Linux due to lack of software and lack of technical knowledge. So you just reinforced his point by disagreeing with it.
Man, you're a retard.
This is widely reported... and wrong. Yes, the entire game industry pulls in more than the theater BOX OFFICE of the movie industry. Meaning.... if you don't include video rentals, video sales, pay-per-view and cable fees for showing movies. Also the 'game industry' numbers include sales of console hardware (the actual XBOX, PS2, GCN, GBA, etc sales) whereas the movie industry does NOT include sales of movie-related consumer electronics (DVD players, VCRs, etc).
Just sayin'
If Free Software is such a good idea, why are the people who make it so poor they can't afford a decent system?
Fuck you, whoremonger.
THAT would be fun. :)
No it wouldn't. It's hard enough to correctly balance the units in a single RTS game let alone trying to make multiple such games work together in a fair and consistent manner. The technical hurdles could be overcome using some open protocols (assuming all the developers coded to the protocols), but the game design issues would be immense.
Anime sucks the big donkey cock.
LCDs are great when you're space limited and need an office-work machine and are great for laptops of course, but I refuse to put on on my home system given the insane cost and all of the associated problems (particularly for gamers and graphics professionals).
Modded me down again, huh? You little jackass. I'll get you, punk! I'll GET YOU!
Make you feel like a big man eh?
Well you ain't! You ain't nothing, biatch!
Boooorrinngg!!
Perl - Artistic License first and foremost. GPL is available as an option for those who want it, but isn't required for exactly the reason I laid out (because if it were GPL only, all Perl scripts would thus have to be GPL).
TK/TCL - BSD License
Please go educate yourself before you post again. Thanks.
First of all emacs isn't even in the same ballpark as what we are talking about. gcc is.
Now... the gcc is GPL, and if Java were to go 'Free Software', javac and related tools could go GPL with no problem. The real issue is if the Java *APIs* were made GPL. This would force all Java programs that linked to the Java APIs (which is pretty much all of them) to be GPL as well. This is why glibc is NOT GPL but is instead LGPL, and why the Mono .NET APIs aren't GPL (but the tools to compile are). Making the whole of the Java runtime enviornment GPL would be a BAD thing for the future of Java's use by businesses even if you agree with it politically.
Wrong. That would be true if the core Java API were LGPL, but not GPL. If it is GPL anything that links against it must also be GPL. Period.
Somebody wake me up when they post something interesting for a change!
If the entirety of Java were placed under the GPL, including all of the Java API libraries, it would KILL Java because it would mean that virtually every Java program distributed would have to be released under the GPL as well. Even if you think this is a good thing, most businesses wouldn't. They'd run screaming from Java.
This is exactly why the runtime .NET APIs under Mono aren't GPL.. Only the tools themselves are.
There are many products that do code coverage testing such as PureCoverage. Basically they analyze code as it is running and make note of which parts of your code have been executed and which haven't. This is very useful in making sure all possible code paths are tested, and if a code path isn't hit at all it gives you a good indication that you've got a 'dead' patch of code that you might want to look more closely at. Sadly such tools are generally very expensive.