I was really making a comparison about UI design, not saying that you actually see Linux on Android. The point is that it's cumbersome compared to iOS, not that it looks like Linux.
I'm not sure what you mean. How is Android cumbersome? For the most part, it's pretty identical to the iPhone UI, and where it differs, it's more powerful and still pretty slick.
Which Linux distro has that streamlined desktop GUI? I used to have Ubuntu 8.4, and never really liked Gnome (nor KDE, for that matter) much. I love how OS X does it (though some configurability would have been nice).
Linux with a Mac OS UI? I'd definitely go for that.
I went from an iPhone 3G to a Milestone (the Nexus One wasn't out yet, and looked like it would be inferior anyway (I didn't know about the locked bootloader at that time)), and depite Motorola's fuckups, I'm reall happy with Android.
I don't think I'll ever buy anything from Motorola again (not until they get their act together, at least), and Android isn't as smooth and stable as it should be (not sure if that's an Android or Motorola issue), but for features, I love Android. Yeah, it still needs a bit of polish before it's completely perfect, and I still need to find a good visual voicemail client that's compatible with the iPhone way, but I don't think my iPhone sync'ed over the air like Android does. Independence from a PC is very nice. So it being able to install better SMS and email clients (I didn't like the iPhone email client). And pretty soon, I intend to have a look at fixing the (minor) OS issues that have been bugging me. Couldn't do that with an iPhone.
work is work. work sucks. nobody promised you work would be fulfilling. get over it.
You're doing it wrong.
Re:IBM PCs compared extremely poorly with Amigas
on
The Amiga Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
Parent needs to be modded up sky high.
At home, it's often the person with the most technical know-how that makes the decisions, but in business, it's the people whose job it is to make business decisions, and those are usually not the people who understand or appreciate technical specs. But they do know who the business leader is, and tend to go for the safe choice, big name, with managers/sales people who talk the talk and know how to play golf (or something).
And once people got used to something at work, they like having the same machine at home. Except for the small group that's aware of the superior computer.
If we're going to start considering devices to be "open" because you theoretically can hack them, then the iPhone is open too.
His point is exactly the opposite: the software is open, the devices are not. Tivo is another non-open device. PCs, on the other hand, are open devices; they're designed to make it easy to install whatever OS you want on it. And more than that: you can easily insert new hardware and replace existing hardware. Try that with your phone or Tivo.
What we need is a high quality, open phone that we can install our own stuff on. Or maybe we need a law that makes it illegal to deny people full access to their own stuff.
Which means that everyone else that submits work has essentially done so for free. No one would want to work like that, and such crowdsourcing is in no way a viable path for real, fulltime employment. Besides, I'd be just as worried as a client. I post vague specifications and hope for the best? That's asinine. Good design work requires that the artist and the client work back and forth, improving and changing the product little by little until both are satisfied.
Thing is, if you start out with a contract with one specific designer, the risk is that he may not understand what you want, or may lack the inspiration to give you the best thing you could possibly get. There are plenty of traditional professional designs that completely lack any inspiration.
If you let hundreds of designers compete for the design, there's a good chance one of them does have the inspiration to make it something really special. If you're in some hard-to-explain niche, it's possible that one of them will understand exactly what you need. If you're working with a single designer, you're stuck with him. You may invest a ton and still not get what you really want.
Of course you still need the feedback and discussion to polish the design, but it's easier to do that with someone who understands your needs and has the right inspiration for the job.
I thought the fact that these had to be explicitly manufactured and seemed to be a human-invented molecule meant that they'd never appear naturally in space.
Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.
More like your whole team loses. But these guys obviously don't care about that, they only care about maximising their kills to deaths ratio or whatever.
Ah, I thought it was the victims who hated it, but it's the team mates! Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense now.
A sniper rifle that gets you near-zero accuracy (floating barrel) when on the run / flying through the air would force those people to camp - and although that's exactly what snipers do, camping tends to be frowned upon in gaming
If you don't like the tactics for the weapons, then why include it in your game?
Games are, in the end, games. Inmersion is important, but inmersion withouth fun will be... well.. not fun.
What exactly is "fun" according to you? Fun is highly subjective. Lots of people like immersion and don't enjoy having their suspension of disbelief broken rudely because some designer thought something needed to be more "fun".
I think games should add some randomness to the aim of any weapon in any circumstances. And some games do. Guns are not dead accurate point and click weapons. The tiniest breath, tremble, whatever, can make your aim wander all over the place. For long range accuracy, you need to steady your gun. The quick snap shots in most games are only accurate at really short ranges.
I haven't played many FPS games, and most that I have played, weren't much fun to me. The original Doom was okay because it was new, but in Counterstrike and most other games, movement is ridiculously fast en jerky, and the way the fight happens isn't exactly convincing.
The only FPS I really enjoyed was America's Army. Movement speeds that I can believe (and they give me some to think about what the hell I'm doing too), you need to aim carefully at hazy silhouettes, and with a powerful scope, your aim wanders all over the place. And if you get shot, you're really hurt. The game itself is more about sneaking, outflanking and finding good cover than about who can fire the most bullets. I liked it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a cheap old plastic Nokia for that.
It's a really nice machine if you put a bit of tape on it.
There are some weird troll mods here. This one clearly needs to be about +3 Funny.
I was really making a comparison about UI design, not saying that you actually see Linux on Android. The point is that it's cumbersome compared to iOS, not that it looks like Linux.
I'm not sure what you mean. How is Android cumbersome? For the most part, it's pretty identical to the iPhone UI, and where it differs, it's more powerful and still pretty slick.
Which Linux distro has that streamlined desktop GUI? I used to have Ubuntu 8.4, and never really liked Gnome (nor KDE, for that matter) much. I love how OS X does it (though some configurability would have been nice).
Linux with a Mac OS UI? I'd definitely go for that.
I went from an iPhone 3G to a Milestone (the Nexus One wasn't out yet, and looked like it would be inferior anyway (I didn't know about the locked bootloader at that time)), and depite Motorola's fuckups, I'm reall happy with Android.
I don't think I'll ever buy anything from Motorola again (not until they get their act together, at least), and Android isn't as smooth and stable as it should be (not sure if that's an Android or Motorola issue), but for features, I love Android. Yeah, it still needs a bit of polish before it's completely perfect, and I still need to find a good visual voicemail client that's compatible with the iPhone way, but I don't think my iPhone sync'ed over the air like Android does. Independence from a PC is very nice. So it being able to install better SMS and email clients (I didn't like the iPhone email client). And pretty soon, I intend to have a look at fixing the (minor) OS issues that have been bugging me. Couldn't do that with an iPhone.
work is work. work sucks. nobody promised you work would be fulfilling. get over it.
You're doing it wrong.
Parent needs to be modded up sky high.
At home, it's often the person with the most technical know-how that makes the decisions, but in business, it's the people whose job it is to make business decisions, and those are usually not the people who understand or appreciate technical specs. But they do know who the business leader is, and tend to go for the safe choice, big name, with managers/sales people who talk the talk and know how to play golf (or something).
And once people got used to something at work, they like having the same machine at home. Except for the small group that's aware of the superior computer.
Is it? I thought the Android kernel is derrived from the linux kernel, and therefore GPL2.
If we're going to start considering devices to be "open" because you theoretically can hack them, then the iPhone is open too.
His point is exactly the opposite: the software is open, the devices are not. Tivo is another non-open device. PCs, on the other hand, are open devices; they're designed to make it easy to install whatever OS you want on it. And more than that: you can easily insert new hardware and replace existing hardware. Try that with your phone or Tivo.
What we need is a high quality, open phone that we can install our own stuff on. Or maybe we need a law that makes it illegal to deny people full access to their own stuff.
I love me some open Linux-y goodness, but Android isn't open.
The source of Android is open. The phones it comes pre-installed on aren't.
There's only source. There's no article that explains what the hell it does.
Which means that everyone else that submits work has essentially done so for free. No one would want to work like that, and such crowdsourcing is in no way a viable path for real, fulltime employment. Besides, I'd be just as worried as a client. I post vague specifications and hope for the best? That's asinine. Good design work requires that the artist and the client work back and forth, improving and changing the product little by little until both are satisfied.
Thing is, if you start out with a contract with one specific designer, the risk is that he may not understand what you want, or may lack the inspiration to give you the best thing you could possibly get. There are plenty of traditional professional designs that completely lack any inspiration.
If you let hundreds of designers compete for the design, there's a good chance one of them does have the inspiration to make it something really special. If you're in some hard-to-explain niche, it's possible that one of them will understand exactly what you need. If you're working with a single designer, you're stuck with him. You may invest a ton and still not get what you really want.
Of course you still need the feedback and discussion to polish the design, but it's easier to do that with someone who understands your needs and has the right inspiration for the job.
I thought the fact that these had to be explicitly manufactured and seemed to be a human-invented molecule meant that they'd never appear naturally in space.
Apparently there are no lab conditions on earth that are not duplicated somewhere else in the universe.
More like your whole team loses. But these guys obviously don't care about that, they only care about maximising their kills to deaths ratio or whatever.
Ah, I thought it was the victims who hated it, but it's the team mates! Thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense now.
"Ganstas" and drug traffickers have a lot of guns and use them regularly, and there's nothing professional about that.
There is if it's their main source of income.
I wish I could mod you up for that!
You sure? I think such a huge and cumbersome barrel should be a lot easier to dodge than a small pistol. Does a pistol always hit at 5 meters?
Camping to me is only really a problem when someone on an attacking team is ignoring the main objective and just going for kills.
I don't see why that's a problem. If you ignore the objective, you lose, right?
A sniper rifle that gets you near-zero accuracy (floating barrel) when on the run / flying through the air would force those people to camp - and although that's exactly what snipers do, camping tends to be frowned upon in gaming
If you don't like the tactics for the weapons, then why include it in your game?
This is a really good idea. I'd like to see that implemented in games.
Games are, in the end, games. Inmersion is important, but inmersion withouth fun will be... well.. not fun.
What exactly is "fun" according to you? Fun is highly subjective. Lots of people like immersion and don't enjoy having their suspension of disbelief broken rudely because some designer thought something needed to be more "fun".
I think games should add some randomness to the aim of any weapon in any circumstances. And some games do. Guns are not dead accurate point and click weapons. The tiniest breath, tremble, whatever, can make your aim wander all over the place. For long range accuracy, you need to steady your gun. The quick snap shots in most games are only accurate at really short ranges.
I haven't played many FPS games, and most that I have played, weren't much fun to me. The original Doom was okay because it was new, but in Counterstrike and most other games, movement is ridiculously fast en jerky, and the way the fight happens isn't exactly convincing.
The only FPS I really enjoyed was America's Army. Movement speeds that I can believe (and they give me some to think about what the hell I'm doing too), you need to aim carefully at hazy silhouettes, and with a powerful scope, your aim wanders all over the place. And if you get shot, you're really hurt. The game itself is more about sneaking, outflanking and finding good cover than about who can fire the most bullets. I liked it.
A gun is a tool, not a toy. Games are a toy.
Yet games focus a lot more on guns than on all other tools put together.