I meant "people actually believe that there are supernatural reasons for doing this."
Well, same thing, and just as ridiculous.
As the supernatural is unfalsifiable, I am leery of attempting to regulate it.
Russel's Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are all laughing at you. (Yes, even the teapot.)
And again, you have no problem regulating it when it's particularly bad. It's only under certain circumstances where you think it's reasonable to bow to someone's belief -- and again, it seems weird that you'd be that specific.
The wine is a good example -- you don't mind it because it's a small amount with adult supervision. While it'd be hard to come up with a law, it seems you wouldn't have a problem with a small amount, with adult supervision, regardless of the religious (or nonreligious) setting.
Limiting people's ability to practice religion/come to their own understanding of grand philosophical issues/go to heaven is a far more serious limitation.
Only if you seriously believe there's a chance they're right -- but that way lies absurdity.
Take the turban -- it's a hat.
But how much pressure ought be brought to bear to get that flexible time? Or to change company policy to allow a four-day work week as an exception.
Well, again, why not allow that exception for everyone?
Because in one case you believe that you know something about the nature of the universe, and in the other case you simply want to drink more.
Except it's, again, all about belief. In this case, I specifically said "deluded" -- in particular, this is encouraging people to have unreasonable faith in things so that they can apply these things as pressure to get what they want...
Basically, the religious person cares more, so Utilitarian analysis suggests he be allowed to force society to incur more costs than the person who doesn't care very much.
A quick counter to utilitarianism: Say I cheat on my hypothetical wife, she never finds out, and I don't feel guilty. Was it still wrong?
Because religion is unscientific... you cannot prove the existence of a supreme deity, but you cannot disprove it either.
There are a lot of things you can't disprove. Have you ever been around someone who actually is having paranoid delusions? There's really very little you can do to prove to them that they're wrong -- but you seek psychiatric help anyway, you don't support their belief that the termites are out to get them.
I think we both know in spite of your strong atheism, there's no way for you to be sure.
I'd be interested to know if you heard me say I'm a strong atheist. I can't say I never said that, but I doubt it.
There are certain god-claims which are logically impossible, and I assert that those do not exist. There are others which are possible, but unlikely, so I don't know, but I also don't believe -- so "weak atheist" if you like. There are other claims which I can certainly say exist, but I don't agree are God -- in that case, you could call me a theist, but it's a matter of semantics.
I adopt the label "atheist" because at the moment, atheists are the least trusted group in America -- less trusted, even, than homosexuals.
Unrelated note: Do you buy into Pascal's Wager? It sounds as if you don't. Why not?
There's an implicit assumption about the nature of God -- a false dichotomy. Pascal is claiming that either there is no God, or there is the Christian God, and a specific kind of Christian God.
My favorite counter to Pascal is this: Imagine instead a god which, having endowed us with logic and reason, and having left no hard evidence of his existence for us to examine, will actually reward those who don't blindly believe in him, and
buddhism and taoism are freedom from devotions, rituals, don't contain any moral code and don't govern the conduct of human affairs?
Let's see... Depending on the sect, at least a few of those. Certainly, neither requires any supernatural agency, which you conveniently ignored.
and what's that bullshit about "you people?" who are my people you ignorant ass....
You tell me.
I was referring to people who share your belief that we should be forced to pick a religion -- generally, the driving force behind that claim is the assumption that there is something religions have in common -- thus the "under God" part.
maybe you're not as progressive as you think you are... racist fuck....
And what race did I accuse you of being?
Are you just looking for an excuse to pick a fight on the Internet? If so, you win -- congratulations. I hope you feel better about yourself.
If you'd like to have some actual communication, maybe learn something, you're going to have to stop, read, think, absorb, even learn something, and then type your response -- not the other way around.
i don't care.. you want a cookie? don't cry to me about your religious oppression and then go all grammar nazi on me... hypocrite...
I only point these things out because you seem to be expecting me to take you seriously -- calling me an "ignorant sheep" and then presuming to educate me. You'd have a lot more credibility if you could follow even the most basic courtesies of the language you're using.
It's really not that difficult.
Instead, it's clear that you aren't even trying, so why should I bother to pay attention?
so you've read Thoreau.... have you ever actually read the Bill of Rights?
Several times. What about it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Did you catch that? It's subtle.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Any establishment of religion. Respecting multiple establishments of religion doesn't help, any more than multiple infringements of the freedom of speech help.
Your claim is essentially that Congress is free to make laws respecting all establishments of religion, so long as they respect all equally -- which is exactly as moronic as saying Congress should be able to restrict speech, so long as it restricts all speech. It's a perversion of the intent of the law, which is spelled out pretty clearly in the language.
With that in mind, let's deal with the second part:
*yawn* no, you pay your taxes because if you don't you'll be sharing a jail cell with richard hatch...
don't pretend otherwise....
I very quickly lose patience with people who call me a liar to my face -- so to speak. I've explicitly said that the law is not the reason.
There are certainly other laws I don't hesitate to break.
no... though we've already established that you are ignorant, quick to snap judgements based on zero facts
I realize I occasionally seem to lose you when I mention people or ideas you're not familiar with, but you really should look up the psychological phenomenon of "projection". You're doing it right now, and it's fascinating to watch.
what i'm trying to claim, is that this political correctness bullshit that has pre-occupied this country is a waste of time and resources
I'm in agreement there.
Notice what you did there -- ignorant of a few people I mentioned (and apparently unwilling to learn), quick to snap to judgments based on zero facts. This is hardly the first strawman you've pulled on me.
to claim our nation's founding fathers were secular atheists
The basic legal standard (IANAL, but I have made it my business to understand the law in this area) is that the state must show a compelling interest before it interferes with a religious practice.
Replace the words "religious practice" with "freedom" and it still works.
this interest has to be balanced agains the right of religious freedom.
Remove the word "religious" and it still works.
So, for example, the state can require me to educate my children, but it can't require them to say that they believe in evolution.
Aside from answers on tests.
And again, this makes sense, without the need to invoke religion -- I recently had a philosophy exam involving Descartes. I disagree with Descartes in a lot of ways, but the question wasn't what I think, but what the answer would be according to Descartes.
Nor can the state require my children to say the pledge of allegiance (offensive to some Christians) in public schools.
It can, however, present significant social and societal pressure on your kids to conform -- never mind that the pledge is, in its current form, unconstitutional. Even if you believe freedom of religion doesn't require freedom from religion, the statement "under God" is, as you said, offensive -- there are religions which have no gods, and religions which have many.
What little bit I've learned of law is that we laypeople tend to want to argue from principles to cases. Lawyers always argue from cases to principles.
I don't know a lot about case law. I do know that the most recent case involving the Pledge made it to the Supreme Court, and was then dismissed for reasons unrelated to the Pledge -- thus, there's still an opportunity for someone else to set that precedent.
However, you seem to have pretty clearly missed the point. I probably ranted and wandered, but I thought I underscored it pretty clearly...
The kinds of freedoms you are talking about do not need to have anything whatsoever to do with religion. In cases where the government does not see fit to override religious freedom, it would seem that they shouldn't override individual freedom, either. In cases where the government does override individual freedom, it clearly should (and often does) override religious freedom.
Talking about specifically religious freedom is missing the point.
It's possible you were merely trying to clarify the existing legal system, but your tone said otherwise -- you seemed to be defending it, not just clarifying it.
Franklin also invented the glass harmonica which was banned due to it's demonic sounds and he flew kites in lightning storms
So he invented stuff and carried out scientific experiments. Anything else to add?
was a patron of every whorehouse in France...
...so I have to ask, what's your point, with any of these particular facts? Franklin also invented the Franklin stove, discovered the connection between lightning and electricity, and was a diplomat, probably most directly responsible for the French coming to our aid -- doubtful we could've won the revolution without them.
Buddhism and Taoism aren't systems of beliefs? really? honestly?
Didn't say that. However, there's a point to be made here -- many Christians are appalled by atheists, something about having no basis for morality, that we think the Universe "just happened", et cetera, et cetera.
Buddhism requires no deities, nor does Taoism, so most of the arguments Christians like to use against atheists apply equally to Buddhism and Taoism.
If your argument is merely that we should all be forced to choose some random irrational belief, I think it's moronic, and I think I'll probably choose something like Jedi. The point is that the existing religions of the world have very, very little in common that we don't all have in common as humans.
Dogma is "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle." (go buy a dictionary, put the iPhone down you sheep)
I don't own an iPhone, and won't.
And let's see:
a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma" Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed...
With me so far?
So yes, there are sects without dogma, in which there is established belief or doctrine which is actively disputed, where questions are encouraged, and where you are encouraged to accept things after careful examination, not simply because someone told you.
Take Buddhism -- the Buddha said:
Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.
Does that really sound like a religion founded on dogma?
"we don't believe anything!"
Who are you quoting? Not me, apparently, but some strawman you've invented.
that in itself is a belief....
What, the belief that I don't hold any particular belief on a given subject? Yes, that's a belief, for which I have direct evidence.
What you are trying to spin it as is something else -- a dogmatic belief for which no evidence is required, as a faith. If the statement your strawman said was "We believe there's nothing!" then yes, that would be a positive statement of belief. But "We don't believe anything" is not, other than a statement of belief about your own state of mind. It's difficult to reasonably suspect that you could be wrong about the state of your own mind, and have any certainty about anything else.
a great philosopher once said "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
Indeed, you've made a choice, but it's a choice in a different sense -- "the only way to win is not to play the game."
my tax dollars go to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, public welfare programs, social security and were GREATLY wasted affording YOU a public education whic
These sorts of religions aren't faiths. They're social playgrounds for bored agnostics and atheists who don't really believe in religion per se, but they miss the silly ritualism, dress codes, and liturgy.
Depends on the individual. I've known several who do believe Wicca. Jedi actually isn't that far-fetched.
However, I seem to remember LaVey acknowledged that it was exactly that -- that it was an atheistic religion, on the assumption that humans need ritual.
Freedom of religion is a great thing.
I'm with you on your conclusion, but I don't see this here -- freedom of religion is focusing on the wrong thing. Yes, we should have freedom of religion, to a point, within relevant laws -- in other words, we should have freedom, period, and freedom of religion should be incidental to that.
How is that outrageous? Presumably those jobs have a requirement of "being a good Catholic".
Some yes, some no. If you're a janitor, it shouldn't matter.
No alcohol while under a certain age, fine. An exception when taking Communion, also fine.
That actually doesn't make a lot of sense. Why is it that you're OK with that exception while taking Communion? I'm guessing it's something which could be framed such that it doesn't specifically mention a specific religion -- for example, the amount and infrequency of the consumption.
The Jewish community I grew up with solved it in a different way -- if you don't want (or can't have) alcohol, you use grape juice for the "blessing over the wine" instead.
I would you want an exemption, I would imagine the burden of proof that it's a real belief, and not one ginned up for the exemption is on a sliding scale.
Scientology is a real belief. So is neo-Naziism.
I suppose I should clarify -- I read that as "people actually believe this." Did you mean something else? If so, what determines it as "real"?
If your religion requires you to wear a hat, I think the burden of proof should be very low. If your religion requires that you take every Thursday off to drink, I would imagine it is quite high. If your religion requires human sacrifice, it shouldn't matter because it's beyond the pale.
All of these could be dealt with in a much simpler way by examining what's being asked for and whether it matters.
For example, I see no reason not to simply allow wearing hats -- and if you don't, I see no reason to make an exception for religious reasons. And if you want to take every Thursday off to drink, the question shouldn't be whether you have religious reasons, but whether you're a productive worker every other day of the week, and whether your salary has been adjusted to missing a day of work (or whether you make it up in other ways). Some companies have flexible schedules, and some people simply work slightly longer days and take an extra day off each week.
And again, notice your reaction to human sacrifice. It doesn't matter to you how strongly someone holds that belief, you simply dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because we're not willing to budge on the laws against murder that we've agreed on.
questioning the validity of the religious view as truly religious vs. pragmatic makes sense.
I don't see how. Or what do you mean by "truly religious"? If I'm deluded into thinking there's a deity commanding me to take every Friday off to drink, why should I get special privilege over someone who simply wants to start the weekend early? Why shouldn't I instead be considered for special therapy, and possibly a special padded room?
without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.
I don't see how. This wouldn't be the state saying, for example, that you can't be Jewish or Muslim. Rather, it would be the state saying that, religion or not, it is unacceptable for parents to mutilate the genitalia of their children.
That's all very well and good when you happen to agree with the religious and cultural perspectives of the state--for example, from the sound of your posts, you seem to hold to "liberal democracy" (in the technical sense, not the pundit sense.) But what happens when George W. Bush takes over and he and the Republicans from the Bible Belt start defining what's acceptable religious belief?
That's why it's important to not frame it in terms of religion.
Yes, it'd be bad if the Republicans from the Bible Belt started defining that -- but not particularly worse than if atheists also started unilaterally defining that all religion is unacceptable.
Rather, what you need is a standard whereby laws are not built around religions, either by deliberately trying to control them, or by deliberately trying to avoid touching them. For example, if you're going to institute a dress code, you should not have to create exceptions for any religion, Jedi, Muslim, Hasidic Jew, anyone. If you have a problem with this, the rational solution would be to stop requiring dress codes.
allowing freedom of religion--allowing religious groups the freedom to have mixed services, or women in the pulpit, or roller-skating as a religious service, or damned near anything so long as you can make some sort of argument that it serves a religious function--becomes the place where unpopular viewpoints can be expressed.
It's also an ad-absurdum.
Again, either allow freedom for the sake of freedom, or I will start to define damned near anything as a religion or a religious service. And right now, the response seems to be religious intolerance (towards Jedi, but how long before it's towards Muslims?) rather than taking a step back and rethinking this.
It's worth remembering that all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches, at a time when these views were very unpopular.
I don't see how that's particularly relevant -- though it is useful to remember them when I wish to point out that they aren't some "atheist agenda", but are rather what's best for all of us. But as another poster said, these were simply the centers of community, and it was effectively a secular use of those churches. I can see how they might have been framed in religious terms, but I don't see that they in any way had to be, and I think we've outgrown the need for churches as the sole place to gather and share ideas.
Moreover, what does this have to do with freedom of religion, or certainly the extreme freedom of religion you're suggesting? Do you honestly think that the right to declare rollerskating a religious service was a contributing factor to the civil rights movement?
So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose.
The problem is, like so many supposed good things to come out of religion, it's something which can be served without religion at all. Instead of granting special privileges to religious belief, you could grant those freedoms which it makes sense to grant (like freedom of dress, if you need it). As another example, instead of requiring equal opportunity for people of all religions, and for people of all sexual orientations, and so on, you could require that people cannot discriminate based on personal philosophies or habits unrelated to the job -- and hey, presto, you've also en
Wow, read a history book. (Or maybe not, given the revisionism that's happening in Texas...)
The founding fathers were Deists at best, and a few were likely atheists. Google "Jefferson's Bible" for an education -- or maybe note that Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
And even if it were true, where's the relevance? They had the balls to start a state which was never intended to be a Christian nation, but rather, was intended to keep religion the fuck out of politics. That was a huge part of the great American experiment, and what makes this country so great. You, sir, are an unpatriotic bigot.
we are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.....
Bullshit. That's a slogan concocted by people with a specifically anti-atheistic bent, who are ignorant of the sheer variety of religions that exist. Buddhism and Taoism are "freedom from religion" in every sense that matters to you people -- there are sects without dogma, and there certainly aren't any gods to pray to, that you hope will save you in the afterlife.
Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, or it descends into absurdity like this -- unless you're OK with your tax dollars going to the Church of Scientology, or the Church of the FSM, or just maybe, to a new order of Jedi.
plan your partitions and file groups well you can great performance out of affordable hardware. Now you do need to maintain this thing or develop the automation around building those partitions and moving data into and out of them...
At which point you're basically killing a lot of the advantages of relational databases, and reinventing a lot of the advantages of the newer databases. At some point, it makes sense to move off of RDBMS altogether.
I can complain on Linux demos - try downloading not-so-recent ones from Pouet [pouet.net] and see for yourself.
Demoscene stuff... I wonder if Windows sees similar problems, but I'm going to guess that this isn't going to be the highest-quality, most-portable stuff -- rather, it's going to be a hobby project, tightly optimized for size, right?
Okay, we were talking about slightly different problems, but see, that's also a compatibility issue and it does not work "out of the box":)
Fair enough -- except that, again, there are many examples of programs which work fine everywhere. Another example would be Flash -- worst case, it's slow, but Flash is always slow -- Adobe Reader, Google Chrome, and many others.
Because user is free to install different kernel?
Ubuntu only has a few supported kernels, only one of which is intended for their desktop OS (any 'buntu -- ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, anything). On Windows, the user is free to install a different explorer.exe, or even run the programs under a different kernel (Wine, ReactOS), but anyone who does obviously accepts the consequences.
If you said "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu", you might have a point -- except, again, the number of kernels you're likely to see a user install are relatively small. Crazy Gentoo users can't really demand support, can they?
Or whatever else he wishes, even replacing GNOME with a later version?
Erm, WTF would GNOME have to do with a game -- or, really, with any app you're shipping?
so that's why I stated that you should stick with Canonical-supported stuff...
Right. But then, your complaint is no longer an issue, is it?
or you are going to bundle everything that your game relies on
Which is how it's generally done on every other OS, and how many Linux games do it. It's not necessarily the best way, but it'll work. One possible compromise is to bundle shared libraries (rather than statically-compiling), so that users can upgrade libstdc++ if they have a good reason to, but by default, it'll use what you ship, not what the host OS has.
that's a problem if you want to integrate it with the rest of system (in more or less Games For Windows way).
Maybe I've been out of touch, but what, exactly, do you need to do here? What does Games for Windows actually provide, and what are you actually trying to do that's going to depend on GNOME at all?
(I'll give you a hint: Most Debian packages seem to be able to automagically add a menu entry regardless of desktop environment -- they're intended for GNOME, but they show up just fine in my KDE menu, and under alt+f2.)
Well, Quake is a C program which only depends on OpenGL - IIRC it has zip (for packages) and whatever they used for cinematics linked in.
Yes -- and it depends on OSS, which is a fairly dumb sound API. These days, the smart bet would probably be ALSA or OpenAL, but my point here is that even though this is kernel-level integration, and even though it's been deprecated, it continues to work over ten years later.
Oh, and IP, and DNS, which of course still works.
Nowadays, games have grown a lot large... There's plenty of third-party software, like various voice-over-ip libraries, codecs, telemetry, physics, custom input devices support, some games even incorporate custom version of flash player etc.
Yeah, and?
The points of contact with the system should be exactly the same.
That stuff is much harder to keep working when you can have your default audio output changed to pulse audio without notice...
Erm, what?
I don't see how that's an issue -- as far as you're concerned, as a developer, all you need to do is pipe all that stuff's audio through something like OpenA
Windows XP users who don't have directx 10 alone accounts for a higher number of potential customers than _all Linux users_.
Within that base, you're still going to have some variance. I wasn't attempting to counter the point that Linux has a smaller userbase -- that would just be ignoring reality -- though I did link to an article countering the claim that smaller userbases are not worth the effort.
even if one just targets a subset of Windows users and upset the other users, your target market is still greater than _all Linux users combined_.
Unlikely. Maybe I'm strange, but if I saw a new game that required XP (and refused to work on Vista/7), I'd be very wary, even though I have access to all of those versions. I want some guarantee that the game will work on a reasonable spectrum of OSes that I might want to use now, and that it will continue to work well into the future.
If that were reversed, I would again be wary. Yes, I have 7, and I'm happy with it, but do I really want to start playing a game that my friend running XP won't be able to? And do I really want to be supporting a studio that, in a few more years, won't support 7 when there's a shiny new OS that I don't like?
I mean, for all I know, the game that insists on Vista/7 now might decide to drop 7 support in the future, forcing me to downgrade to one of the worst OSes ever if I want to continue to play it.
That is why most games tend to list a reasonable minimum system requirement -- XP or greater, typically -- which means inevitably supporting at least three platforms within Windows.
So if you want to go for the size argument, go right ahead, but the post I was replying to was trying to claim (somehow) that the fact that more than one Linux distro exists is a reason Linux is hard/impossible/not worth supporting. That argument, in particular, is bullshit -- distros really aren't a factor, when you get right down to it.
Well, making something "work" and making something "work out-of-the box for dumb user" are pretty different things.
Both of which have happened, for every Linux game I've tried in recent memory. Do you have a counterexample?
You can do compatibility testing with XP SP3, Vista SP1, Win7 to make sure that game runs on each of those (sometimes you need hacks, too). With Ubuntu, you may make much less assumptions.
How so?
Realistic option is to stick to particular Ubuntu release (perhaps an LTS one) and only declare support for things installed from Canonical-supported repositories.
Yeah, which kind of falls under a "duh" heading.
Of course, it's very likely that it will continue to work with future releases -- again, I cite pretty much every game released for Linux, ever.
weaker backward compatibility between releases (some distros have no well-defined release at all).
Weaker than Win7's "backwards compatibility" called "XP Mode"?
You will have to link statically as much as possible (to minimize damage of incompatible or just newer libraries)
...just like on Windows. Or include the libraries inside your installation directory, just like OS X -- I'd prefer that, actually, as it allows them to be patched individually, or by users -- but again, I cannot remember that ever being needed.
you are still facing problems like significant driver changes that break sound or video for you.
...just like on Windows. And again, a counterexample: Quake 3 still works. In case you've forgotten, Quake 3 was released in 1999.
Those games that work between distros... well, good for them. But do they work right after unpacking/installing or do you need to find things like older libstdc++ yourself?
Right after installing. Every time.
So yeah, your whole argument is based on FUD and completely imaginary scenarios, as in, things which do not actually happen in the real world. In the real world, people port to Linx as a platform, and it tends to work -- and other people don't even try, because of imagined problems.
May be, I haven't really tested (haven't used ATI with Linux for ages). I was making comparison mostly to that new "nouveau" thing which is gaining popularity.
Gaining popularity, but no one ever claimed it was ready for games yet.
Well, this was just an example.
In other words, a flawed one.
I wanted to show that developers need much more control over the system than traditional Linux/Unix program is allowed to have.
And you haven't. Please, find another example.
Not only because of copy protection (though this is also a strong reason),
Plenty of reasons not to do DRM on any platform, but if you're going to do it at a level that doesn't fuck with my drivers -- that is, at a level I'd actually permit you to do it (rather than downloading a crack instead) -- it's probably something you can do portably on Linux.
For example, there's no good reason Steam wouldn't work on Linux.
because of games trying to provide smooth, "console"-like experience on the PC. We want sustainable FPS rate and go to great lengths to fight occasional FPS hitches which usually happen because of resource streaming.
Because of resources being pulled from the disk, implying you need an understanding of the disk IO scheduler. Is that what you're saying?
I'm curious, what do you do to mitigate this that wouldn't also be portable? Seems the most obvious thing would be to change how the files are physically laid out on disk, but unless you're actually going under the hood to defrag things (and there are even portable ways to do that on Linux), you're talking about the internal format you store your game in, which is something I'd assume you'd be porting anyway.
Ubuntu, Fedora, particular LSB release might be a platform, but still, it's too vague for games.
Wait, what? Ubuntu is "too vague for games"?
WTF do you call "XP or newer" then?
And frankly, there seem to be plenty of games which work well across many platforms, even without relying on things like LSB. Games from years ago still work. Just what is it that's so different about desktop Linux distros?
with binary NVIDIA drivers - there're no other options currently
The binary ATI drivers don't work?
set "realtime" priority for our process
Do you actually need that? Or would it work to simply give you a non-bloated system with an intelligent scheduler? I run plenty of games without realtime that seem to work well, and it's nice to know that if they freeze, my system won't.
Wine runs Windows programs, not Mac programs. Suggesting what you're suggesting is about as intelligent as suggesting that you could just tweak a setting somewhere to make a Mac program run on Windows 7.
No, what I'd hope is that they'd expose the OpenGL functionality on their Windows port, thus making their Windows versions run faster under Wine -- though maybe not making it easier to run them.
An application developer literally cannot make any useful predictions about the end user's configuration,
Aside from just targeting Ubuntu, or Debian, there's the FHS.
And, as a counterexample, many binary-only games for Linux exist which continue to work on modern distros -- and there's even things like Flash. The argument that there are just too many distros of Linux is pure FUD.
When you start asking for money, you need to make sure that your software is Suitable for a Particular Purpose.
Or you can simply provide a disclaimer. I know many of the Linux ports of various games have basically said that there's no support for running the game on Linux -- though not all, so it apparently isn't such a huge problem. Keep in mind that most Linux people are going to have some idea what they're doing.
Installation needs to be easy and it needs to work everywhere.
That's easy -- rely on the package manager. Or, as another poster suggested, Steam should become that way -- they'd fill an (according to you) obvious niche, and instantly become dominant on Linux.
I'm offering 10:1 I get modded flamebait for not drinking the Linux Kool-Aid.
I wish you got modded flamebait for that. Just about every time someone says that, without fail, they get modded +5. It's disgusting.
XP? Then you don't have DirectX 10. Vista/7 Only? Then XP people hate you. And professional, business, personal, what?
What sound system?
OpenAL, which will run on anything, including Windows and OS X. That's about as retarded as asking what graphics library you should use.
Lack of easy to install 3d drivers for nVidia and ATI. Actually the drivers for nVidia and ATI are pretty easy to install but probably beyond what some people will want to do.
Same exact thing, word for word, applies to Windows. The only difference is whether or not the OS was preloaded -- so buy a Dell with Ubuntu, problem solved.
I would love to see it but Linux and OSX are not that alike.
They're both Unix. They both use OpenGL.
on OSX you just target quicktime for audio and video playback.
According to another poster, quicktime for audio is deprecated in favor of a few APIs, including OpenAL -- in other words, if they've done this right, it is exactly the same on Linux and OS X. What else you got?
No need to worry what "legal" codecs are available.
Two big duh moments here.
First, you're a game developer. You can include codecs with your game, and you can encode your audio however the fuck you want. There is nothing stopping you from using Vorbis and Theora, as other developers have in the past.
If you really need the superior quality-per-bit, and you don't want to rely on your customers having a certain codec installed -- might fly for OS X, certainly won't for Windows -- you license. And that same exact license will cover your use of that codec on any OS.
Is Valve going to start targeting OpenGL?
No, their OS X port runs on magical pixie dust. Of course they're targeting OpenGL!
So basically every technical argument of yours is pure, unadulturated FUD and BS. Why are you still at +5 insightful?
But the real issue is lack of customers. I just don't see that many Linux users that don't dual boot into Windows for gaming.
And Mac users don't? Given the demographic, I'd expect Mac users to be able to afford the extra Windows license, even Parallels so they don't have to reboot.
If you don't get new customers it doesn't pay off.
That's just off the top of my head. It's not terribly difficult -- just statically-compile, follow the FHS, ignore the distro, and give the full executables with the demo, with a license that allows redistribution.
End result: Even if you can't do that demo part, a tarball will work. But if you can, your demo will be included in every distro's repository. Worst case, people have to download other pieces of the full game (or buy it in a store, like with id games) and drop the files into place -- but it's not terribly difficult to automate that, either.
But really, I haven't seen any more problems than people have with Windows. If it's really that bad, say "Works with Ubuntu or Fedora" and let other distros work around it.
Also, open source your old games. There will be Linux ports, and people will likely buy the game to run it on Linux.
Sometimes, I make an effort to block individual ads and ad networks, but sometimes it's easier to just block ads on a given site, especially when they've clearly demonstrated they don't care how much they annoy me.
I'll admit there may be a lot of cutting and pasting in a language with as much boilerplate as Java, but go even higher-level, to something like Ruby...
Cutting and pasting is non-DRY, and is thus (rightly) discouraged. In fact, I'd almost argue that new programmers should have to spend a few months with copy and paste disabled, so they learn proper code re-use.
In fact, you're describing two very different mentalities. Having your language or libraries handle "the hard stuff" is actually the exact opposite of cutting and pasting. If you're doing it right, you notice when you're tempted to cut and paste some code, and you extract that functionality into a library so you don't have to. On the contrary, "cut-and-paste" programmers would be equally at home in C, since they don't care about proper code re-use -- to them, "code re-use" means, as you suggested, finding something on Google they can copy, paste, and modify to their needs.
Now, to address your real argument: I don't know about you, but I only have so much time. I mean, forget the excuses, I'm only going to live so long. Why would I waste my life solving the same problems over and over? Why would I want to implement a sorting algorithm yet again when other people (like Knuth) have done it better, and there are other, much more interesting problems to solve?
I mean, that's almost like bitching that no one has to do the limit of the difference quotient anymore, now that we have these fancy things called "derivatives" -- or that no one has to do Reimann sums anymore, now that we have the Fundamental Theorum of Calculus. Hey, if you want to do derivatives as limits-of-difference-quotients for the rest of your life, go right ahead, but if you're going to do math, wouldn't you rather invent the next grand physics theory?
There's nothing intrinsically "harder" about programming at a low level, it's just less productive.
The registry, which you shouldn't even have to touch anymore, seems obtuse until you start looking at some of the horrendous conf files scattered across the linux file system.
Given that each conf file generally comes with comments (more than you can say for the Registry), and is easily and trivially searchable (it's just text, and much quicker to run a fulltext search on than the Registry), I don't see what your problem is.
I'm not going to say that every conf file is perfect, and it's possible I just don't know, but...
There's a reason they're plaintext, and there's a reason that's better. I can write a sed script to edit a config file, I can do it quickly, and I can then distribute that to however many Linux machines I have. I can also write a script to generate a conf file, and build that into my deploy script. I can back up any particular config file, or the entire/etc hierarchy, using standard backup tools, because they're just files -- I can even stick them into version control.
I'm sure Windows can do some of that, but think about it. Does your server configuration fit in version control? Can you check out a copy of your application and, with a single command, bring up and configure a VPS to run it? Can you develop that script in less than a day, let alone the few hours it takes me?
Windows is probably easier to admin at a small scale, on the order of a fileserver here, a printserver there -- but then, at that scale, you set up Linux once and it pretty much just runs, which is why you can buy NAS devices which do all that for you. At a large scale, certainly once you get to thousands of boxes, I think any Unix has advantages over Windows, and you can see it in real-world TCO studies.
Well, I've been using Windows since forever, and linux since early slackware. I counted recently, and I've been through 12 distros at different times over the last 15 years or so.
So that's a total of maybe six different versions of Windows, most of them direct upgrades to the previous one, I'm guessing? Probably longer, since you say "since forever", so more experience, but probably still not 12 distinct flavors of Windows.
I'm guessing this might be your problem.
In my experience Microsoft's offerings are all easier than *nix ones. My linux installs never last. Something stupid always pisses me off eventually and I ditch them.
Just guessing, but I'll bet Microsoft's offerings occasionally do "something stupid" also, but you slog through and fix it.
I mean, I'm not defending this kind of thing:
In order to have my dual-monitor settings actually persist through a reboot I had to run the monitor configuration control panel as root.
On the other hand, in order to get dual-monitor to work on Windows, I have to download a random exe from the Internet containing video drivers. Then I have to configure the "primary screen" to be the one I want games to run fullscreen on, because they will refuse to run on the other monitor. Then I have to...
So, while it's all GUI and therefore "easier" than typing a quick sudo command, I'm guessing your perception is largely skewed given how long you don't give Linux. Also consider what MightyMartian said -- desktop Linux isn't perfect, but server Linux is a lot closer.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant "people actually believe that there are supernatural reasons for doing this."
Well, same thing, and just as ridiculous.
As the supernatural is unfalsifiable, I am leery of attempting to regulate it.
Russel's Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn are all laughing at you. (Yes, even the teapot.)
And again, you have no problem regulating it when it's particularly bad. It's only under certain circumstances where you think it's reasonable to bow to someone's belief -- and again, it seems weird that you'd be that specific.
The wine is a good example -- you don't mind it because it's a small amount with adult supervision. While it'd be hard to come up with a law, it seems you wouldn't have a problem with a small amount, with adult supervision, regardless of the religious (or nonreligious) setting.
Limiting people's ability to practice religion/come to their own understanding of grand philosophical issues/go to heaven is a far more serious limitation.
Only if you seriously believe there's a chance they're right -- but that way lies absurdity.
Take the turban -- it's a hat.
But how much pressure ought be brought to bear to get that flexible time? Or to change company policy to allow a four-day work week as an exception.
Well, again, why not allow that exception for everyone?
Because in one case you believe that you know something about the nature of the universe, and in the other case you simply want to drink more.
Except it's, again, all about belief. In this case, I specifically said "deluded" -- in particular, this is encouraging people to have unreasonable faith in things so that they can apply these things as pressure to get what they want...
Basically, the religious person cares more, so Utilitarian analysis suggests he be allowed to force society to incur more costs than the person who doesn't care very much.
A quick counter to utilitarianism: Say I cheat on my hypothetical wife, she never finds out, and I don't feel guilty. Was it still wrong?
Because religion is unscientific... you cannot prove the existence of a supreme deity, but you cannot disprove it either.
There are a lot of things you can't disprove. Have you ever been around someone who actually is having paranoid delusions? There's really very little you can do to prove to them that they're wrong -- but you seek psychiatric help anyway, you don't support their belief that the termites are out to get them.
I think we both know in spite of your strong atheism, there's no way for you to be sure.
I'd be interested to know if you heard me say I'm a strong atheist. I can't say I never said that, but I doubt it.
There are certain god-claims which are logically impossible, and I assert that those do not exist. There are others which are possible, but unlikely, so I don't know, but I also don't believe -- so "weak atheist" if you like. There are other claims which I can certainly say exist, but I don't agree are God -- in that case, you could call me a theist, but it's a matter of semantics.
I adopt the label "atheist" because at the moment, atheists are the least trusted group in America -- less trusted, even, than homosexuals.
Unrelated note: Do you buy into Pascal's Wager? It sounds as if you don't. Why not?
There's an implicit assumption about the nature of God -- a false dichotomy. Pascal is claiming that either there is no God, or there is the Christian God, and a specific kind of Christian God.
My favorite counter to Pascal is this: Imagine instead a god which, having endowed us with logic and reason, and having left no hard evidence of his existence for us to examine, will actually reward those who don't blindly believe in him, and
buddhism and taoism are freedom from devotions, rituals, don't contain any moral code and don't govern the conduct of human affairs?
Let's see... Depending on the sect, at least a few of those. Certainly, neither requires any supernatural agency, which you conveniently ignored.
and what's that bullshit about "you people?"
who are my people you ignorant ass....
You tell me.
I was referring to people who share your belief that we should be forced to pick a religion -- generally, the driving force behind that claim is the assumption that there is something religions have in common -- thus the "under God" part.
maybe you're not as progressive as you think you are... racist fuck....
And what race did I accuse you of being?
Are you just looking for an excuse to pick a fight on the Internet? If so, you win -- congratulations. I hope you feel better about yourself.
If you'd like to have some actual communication, maybe learn something, you're going to have to stop, read, think, absorb, even learn something, and then type your response -- not the other way around.
i don't care.. you want a cookie? don't cry to me about your religious oppression and then go all grammar nazi on me... hypocrite...
I only point these things out because you seem to be expecting me to take you seriously -- calling me an "ignorant sheep" and then presuming to educate me. You'd have a lot more credibility if you could follow even the most basic courtesies of the language you're using.
It's really not that difficult.
Instead, it's clear that you aren't even trying, so why should I bother to pay attention?
so you've read Thoreau.... have you ever actually read the Bill of Rights?
Several times. What about it?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Did you catch that? It's subtle.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Any establishment of religion. Respecting multiple establishments of religion doesn't help, any more than multiple infringements of the freedom of speech help.
Your claim is essentially that Congress is free to make laws respecting all establishments of religion, so long as they respect all equally -- which is exactly as moronic as saying Congress should be able to restrict speech, so long as it restricts all speech. It's a perversion of the intent of the law, which is spelled out pretty clearly in the language.
With that in mind, let's deal with the second part:
*yawn* no, you pay your taxes because if you don't you'll be sharing a jail cell with richard hatch...
don't pretend otherwise....
I very quickly lose patience with people who call me a liar to my face -- so to speak. I've explicitly said that the law is not the reason.
There are certainly other laws I don't hesitate to break.
no... though we've already established that you are ignorant, quick to snap judgements based on zero facts
I realize I occasionally seem to lose you when I mention people or ideas you're not familiar with, but you really should look up the psychological phenomenon of "projection". You're doing it right now, and it's fascinating to watch.
what i'm trying to claim, is that this political correctness bullshit that has pre-occupied this country is a waste of time and resources
I'm in agreement there.
Notice what you did there -- ignorant of a few people I mentioned (and apparently unwilling to learn), quick to snap to judgments based on zero facts. This is hardly the first strawman you've pulled on me.
to claim our nation's founding fathers were secular atheists
I didn't cl
The basic legal standard (IANAL, but I have made it my business to understand the law in this area) is that the state must show a compelling interest before it interferes with a religious practice.
Replace the words "religious practice" with "freedom" and it still works.
this interest has to be balanced agains the right of religious freedom.
Remove the word "religious" and it still works.
So, for example, the state can require me to educate my children, but it can't require them to say that they believe in evolution.
Aside from answers on tests.
And again, this makes sense, without the need to invoke religion -- I recently had a philosophy exam involving Descartes. I disagree with Descartes in a lot of ways, but the question wasn't what I think, but what the answer would be according to Descartes.
Nor can the state require my children to say the pledge of allegiance (offensive to some Christians) in public schools.
It can, however, present significant social and societal pressure on your kids to conform -- never mind that the pledge is, in its current form, unconstitutional. Even if you believe freedom of religion doesn't require freedom from religion, the statement "under God" is, as you said, offensive -- there are religions which have no gods, and religions which have many.
What little bit I've learned of law is that we laypeople tend to want to argue from principles to cases. Lawyers always argue from cases to principles.
I don't know a lot about case law. I do know that the most recent case involving the Pledge made it to the Supreme Court, and was then dismissed for reasons unrelated to the Pledge -- thus, there's still an opportunity for someone else to set that precedent.
However, you seem to have pretty clearly missed the point. I probably ranted and wandered, but I thought I underscored it pretty clearly...
The kinds of freedoms you are talking about do not need to have anything whatsoever to do with religion. In cases where the government does not see fit to override religious freedom, it would seem that they shouldn't override individual freedom, either. In cases where the government does override individual freedom, it clearly should (and often does) override religious freedom.
Talking about specifically religious freedom is missing the point.
It's possible you were merely trying to clarify the existing legal system, but your tone said otherwise -- you seemed to be defending it, not just clarifying it.
Franklin also invented the glass harmonica which was banned due to it's demonic sounds and he flew kites in lightning storms
So he invented stuff and carried out scientific experiments. Anything else to add?
was a patron of every whorehouse in France...
...so I have to ask, what's your point, with any of these particular facts? Franklin also invented the Franklin stove, discovered the connection between lightning and electricity, and was a diplomat, probably most directly responsible for the French coming to our aid -- doubtful we could've won the revolution without them.
Buddhism and Taoism aren't systems of beliefs? really? honestly?
Didn't say that. However, there's a point to be made here -- many Christians are appalled by atheists, something about having no basis for morality, that we think the Universe "just happened", et cetera, et cetera.
Buddhism requires no deities, nor does Taoism, so most of the arguments Christians like to use against atheists apply equally to Buddhism and Taoism.
If your argument is merely that we should all be forced to choose some random irrational belief, I think it's moronic, and I think I'll probably choose something like Jedi. The point is that the existing religions of the world have very, very little in common that we don't all have in common as humans.
Dogma is "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle." (go buy a dictionary, put the iPhone down you sheep)
I don't own an iPhone, and won't.
And let's see:
a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof ...
a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed
With me so far?
So yes, there are sects without dogma, in which there is established belief or doctrine which is actively disputed, where questions are encouraged, and where you are encouraged to accept things after careful examination, not simply because someone told you.
Take Buddhism -- the Buddha said:
Believe nothing merely because you have been told it.
Do not believe what your teacher tells you
merely out of respect for the teacher.
But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,
you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,
the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to,
and take it as your guide.
Does that really sound like a religion founded on dogma?
"we don't believe anything!"
Who are you quoting? Not me, apparently, but some strawman you've invented.
that in itself is a belief....
What, the belief that I don't hold any particular belief on a given subject? Yes, that's a belief, for which I have direct evidence.
What you are trying to spin it as is something else -- a dogmatic belief for which no evidence is required, as a faith. If the statement your strawman said was "We believe there's nothing!" then yes, that would be a positive statement of belief. But "We don't believe anything" is not, other than a statement of belief about your own state of mind. It's difficult to reasonably suspect that you could be wrong about the state of your own mind, and have any certainty about anything else.
a great philosopher once said "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
Indeed, you've made a choice, but it's a choice in a different sense -- "the only way to win is not to play the game."
my tax dollars go to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, public welfare programs, social security and were GREATLY wasted affording YOU a public education whic
These sorts of religions aren't faiths. They're social playgrounds for bored agnostics and atheists who don't really believe in religion per se, but they miss the silly ritualism, dress codes, and liturgy.
Depends on the individual. I've known several who do believe Wicca. Jedi actually isn't that far-fetched.
However, I seem to remember LaVey acknowledged that it was exactly that -- that it was an atheistic religion, on the assumption that humans need ritual.
Freedom of religion is a great thing.
I'm with you on your conclusion, but I don't see this here -- freedom of religion is focusing on the wrong thing. Yes, we should have freedom of religion, to a point, within relevant laws -- in other words, we should have freedom, period, and freedom of religion should be incidental to that.
Pics or it didn't happen?
How is that outrageous? Presumably those jobs have a requirement of "being a good Catholic".
Some yes, some no. If you're a janitor, it shouldn't matter.
No alcohol while under a certain age, fine. An exception when taking Communion, also fine.
That actually doesn't make a lot of sense. Why is it that you're OK with that exception while taking Communion? I'm guessing it's something which could be framed such that it doesn't specifically mention a specific religion -- for example, the amount and infrequency of the consumption.
The Jewish community I grew up with solved it in a different way -- if you don't want (or can't have) alcohol, you use grape juice for the "blessing over the wine" instead.
I would you want an exemption, I would imagine the burden of proof that it's a real belief, and not one ginned up for the exemption is on a sliding scale.
Scientology is a real belief. So is neo-Naziism.
I suppose I should clarify -- I read that as "people actually believe this." Did you mean something else? If so, what determines it as "real"?
If your religion requires you to wear a hat, I think the burden of proof should be very low. If your religion requires that you take every Thursday off to drink, I would imagine it is quite high. If your religion requires human sacrifice, it shouldn't matter because it's beyond the pale.
All of these could be dealt with in a much simpler way by examining what's being asked for and whether it matters.
For example, I see no reason not to simply allow wearing hats -- and if you don't, I see no reason to make an exception for religious reasons. And if you want to take every Thursday off to drink, the question shouldn't be whether you have religious reasons, but whether you're a productive worker every other day of the week, and whether your salary has been adjusted to missing a day of work (or whether you make it up in other ways). Some companies have flexible schedules, and some people simply work slightly longer days and take an extra day off each week.
And again, notice your reaction to human sacrifice. It doesn't matter to you how strongly someone holds that belief, you simply dismiss it out of hand. Why? Because we're not willing to budge on the laws against murder that we've agreed on.
questioning the validity of the religious view as truly religious vs. pragmatic makes sense.
I don't see how. Or what do you mean by "truly religious"? If I'm deluded into thinking there's a deity commanding me to take every Friday off to drink, why should I get special privilege over someone who simply wants to start the weekend early? Why shouldn't I instead be considered for special therapy, and possibly a special padded room?
without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.
I don't see how. This wouldn't be the state saying, for example, that you can't be Jewish or Muslim. Rather, it would be the state saying that, religion or not, it is unacceptable for parents to mutilate the genitalia of their children.
That's all very well and good when you happen to agree with the religious and cultural perspectives of the state--for example, from the sound of your posts, you seem to hold to "liberal democracy" (in the technical sense, not the pundit sense.) But what happens when George W. Bush takes over and he and the Republicans from the Bible Belt start defining what's acceptable religious belief?
That's why it's important to not frame it in terms of religion.
Yes, it'd be bad if the Republicans from the Bible Belt started defining that -- but not particularly worse than if atheists also started unilaterally defining that all religion is unacceptable.
Rather, what you need is a standard whereby laws are not built around religions, either by deliberately trying to control them, or by deliberately trying to avoid touching them. For example, if you're going to institute a dress code, you should not have to create exceptions for any religion, Jedi, Muslim, Hasidic Jew, anyone. If you have a problem with this, the rational solution would be to stop requiring dress codes.
allowing freedom of religion--allowing religious groups the freedom to have mixed services, or women in the pulpit, or roller-skating as a religious service, or damned near anything so long as you can make some sort of argument that it serves a religious function--becomes the place where unpopular viewpoints can be expressed.
It's also an ad-absurdum.
Again, either allow freedom for the sake of freedom, or I will start to define damned near anything as a religion or a religious service. And right now, the response seems to be religious intolerance (towards Jedi, but how long before it's towards Muslims?) rather than taking a step back and rethinking this.
It's worth remembering that all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches, at a time when these views were very unpopular.
I don't see how that's particularly relevant -- though it is useful to remember them when I wish to point out that they aren't some "atheist agenda", but are rather what's best for all of us. But as another poster said, these were simply the centers of community, and it was effectively a secular use of those churches. I can see how they might have been framed in religious terms, but I don't see that they in any way had to be, and I think we've outgrown the need for churches as the sole place to gather and share ideas.
Moreover, what does this have to do with freedom of religion, or certainly the extreme freedom of religion you're suggesting? Do you honestly think that the right to declare rollerskating a religious service was a contributing factor to the civil rights movement?
So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose.
The problem is, like so many supposed good things to come out of religion, it's something which can be served without religion at all. Instead of granting special privileges to religious belief, you could grant those freedoms which it makes sense to grant (like freedom of dress, if you need it). As another example, instead of requiring equal opportunity for people of all religions, and for people of all sexual orientations, and so on, you could require that people cannot discriminate based on personal philosophies or habits unrelated to the job -- and hey, presto, you've also en
So yeah, you're being an asshole.
this country was FOUNDED, by christians....
Wow, read a history book. (Or maybe not, given the revisionism that's happening in Texas...)
The founding fathers were Deists at best, and a few were likely atheists. Google "Jefferson's Bible" for an education -- or maybe note that Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
And even if it were true, where's the relevance? They had the balls to start a state which was never intended to be a Christian nation, but rather, was intended to keep religion the fuck out of politics. That was a huge part of the great American experiment, and what makes this country so great. You, sir, are an unpatriotic bigot.
we are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.....
Bullshit. That's a slogan concocted by people with a specifically anti-atheistic bent, who are ignorant of the sheer variety of religions that exist. Buddhism and Taoism are "freedom from religion" in every sense that matters to you people -- there are sects without dogma, and there certainly aren't any gods to pray to, that you hope will save you in the afterlife.
Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, or it descends into absurdity like this -- unless you're OK with your tax dollars going to the Church of Scientology, or the Church of the FSM, or just maybe, to a new order of Jedi.
plan your partitions and file groups well you can great performance out of affordable hardware. Now you do need to maintain this thing or develop the automation around building those partitions and moving data into and out of them...
At which point you're basically killing a lot of the advantages of relational databases, and reinventing a lot of the advantages of the newer databases. At some point, it makes sense to move off of RDBMS altogether.
I can complain on Linux demos - try downloading not-so-recent ones from Pouet [pouet.net] and see for yourself.
Demoscene stuff... I wonder if Windows sees similar problems, but I'm going to guess that this isn't going to be the highest-quality, most-portable stuff -- rather, it's going to be a hobby project, tightly optimized for size, right?
Okay, we were talking about slightly different problems, but see, that's also a compatibility issue and it does not work "out of the box" :)
Fair enough -- except that, again, there are many examples of programs which work fine everywhere. Another example would be Flash -- worst case, it's slow, but Flash is always slow -- Adobe Reader, Google Chrome, and many others.
Because user is free to install different kernel?
Ubuntu only has a few supported kernels, only one of which is intended for their desktop OS (any 'buntu -- ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, anything). On Windows, the user is free to install a different explorer.exe, or even run the programs under a different kernel (Wine, ReactOS), but anyone who does obviously accepts the consequences.
If you said "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu", you might have a point -- except, again, the number of kernels you're likely to see a user install are relatively small. Crazy Gentoo users can't really demand support, can they?
Or whatever else he wishes, even replacing GNOME with a later version?
Erm, WTF would GNOME have to do with a game -- or, really, with any app you're shipping?
so that's why I stated that you should stick with Canonical-supported stuff...
Right. But then, your complaint is no longer an issue, is it?
or you are going to bundle everything that your game relies on
Which is how it's generally done on every other OS, and how many Linux games do it. It's not necessarily the best way, but it'll work. One possible compromise is to bundle shared libraries (rather than statically-compiling), so that users can upgrade libstdc++ if they have a good reason to, but by default, it'll use what you ship, not what the host OS has.
that's a problem if you want to integrate it with the rest of system (in more or less Games For Windows way).
Maybe I've been out of touch, but what, exactly, do you need to do here? What does Games for Windows actually provide, and what are you actually trying to do that's going to depend on GNOME at all?
(I'll give you a hint: Most Debian packages seem to be able to automagically add a menu entry regardless of desktop environment -- they're intended for GNOME, but they show up just fine in my KDE menu, and under alt+f2.)
Well, Quake is a C program which only depends on OpenGL - IIRC it has zip (for packages) and whatever they used for cinematics linked in.
Yes -- and it depends on OSS, which is a fairly dumb sound API. These days, the smart bet would probably be ALSA or OpenAL, but my point here is that even though this is kernel-level integration, and even though it's been deprecated, it continues to work over ten years later.
Oh, and IP, and DNS, which of course still works.
Nowadays, games have grown a lot large... There's plenty of third-party software, like various voice-over-ip libraries, codecs, telemetry, physics, custom input devices support, some games even incorporate custom version of flash player etc.
Yeah, and?
The points of contact with the system should be exactly the same.
That stuff is much harder to keep working when you can have your default audio output changed to pulse audio without notice...
Erm, what?
I don't see how that's an issue -- as far as you're concerned, as a developer, all you need to do is pipe all that stuff's audio through something like OpenA
Windows XP users who don't have directx 10 alone accounts for a higher number of potential customers than _all Linux users_.
Within that base, you're still going to have some variance. I wasn't attempting to counter the point that Linux has a smaller userbase -- that would just be ignoring reality -- though I did link to an article countering the claim that smaller userbases are not worth the effort.
even if one just targets a subset of Windows users and upset the other users, your target market is still greater than _all Linux users combined_.
Unlikely. Maybe I'm strange, but if I saw a new game that required XP (and refused to work on Vista/7), I'd be very wary, even though I have access to all of those versions. I want some guarantee that the game will work on a reasonable spectrum of OSes that I might want to use now, and that it will continue to work well into the future.
If that were reversed, I would again be wary. Yes, I have 7, and I'm happy with it, but do I really want to start playing a game that my friend running XP won't be able to? And do I really want to be supporting a studio that, in a few more years, won't support 7 when there's a shiny new OS that I don't like?
I mean, for all I know, the game that insists on Vista/7 now might decide to drop 7 support in the future, forcing me to downgrade to one of the worst OSes ever if I want to continue to play it.
That is why most games tend to list a reasonable minimum system requirement -- XP or greater, typically -- which means inevitably supporting at least three platforms within Windows.
So if you want to go for the size argument, go right ahead, but the post I was replying to was trying to claim (somehow) that the fact that more than one Linux distro exists is a reason Linux is hard/impossible/not worth supporting. That argument, in particular, is bullshit -- distros really aren't a factor, when you get right down to it.
Well, making something "work" and making something "work out-of-the box for dumb user" are pretty different things.
Both of which have happened, for every Linux game I've tried in recent memory. Do you have a counterexample?
You can do compatibility testing with XP SP3, Vista SP1, Win7 to make sure that game runs on each of those (sometimes you need hacks, too). With Ubuntu, you may make much less assumptions.
How so?
Realistic option is to stick to particular Ubuntu release (perhaps an LTS one) and only declare support for things installed from Canonical-supported repositories.
Yeah, which kind of falls under a "duh" heading.
Of course, it's very likely that it will continue to work with future releases -- again, I cite pretty much every game released for Linux, ever.
weaker backward compatibility between releases (some distros have no well-defined release at all).
Weaker than Win7's "backwards compatibility" called "XP Mode"?
You will have to link statically as much as possible (to minimize damage of incompatible or just newer libraries)
...just like on Windows. Or include the libraries inside your installation directory, just like OS X -- I'd prefer that, actually, as it allows them to be patched individually, or by users -- but again, I cannot remember that ever being needed.
you are still facing problems like significant driver changes that break sound or video for you.
...just like on Windows. And again, a counterexample: Quake 3 still works. In case you've forgotten, Quake 3 was released in 1999.
Those games that work between distros... well, good for them. But do they work right after unpacking/installing or do you need to find things like older libstdc++ yourself?
Right after installing. Every time.
So yeah, your whole argument is based on FUD and completely imaginary scenarios, as in, things which do not actually happen in the real world. In the real world, people port to Linx as a platform, and it tends to work -- and other people don't even try, because of imagined problems.
May be, I haven't really tested (haven't used ATI with Linux for ages). I was making comparison mostly to that new "nouveau" thing which is gaining popularity.
Gaining popularity, but no one ever claimed it was ready for games yet.
Well, this was just an example.
In other words, a flawed one.
I wanted to show that developers need much more control over the system than traditional Linux/Unix program is allowed to have.
And you haven't. Please, find another example.
Not only because of copy protection (though this is also a strong reason),
Plenty of reasons not to do DRM on any platform, but if you're going to do it at a level that doesn't fuck with my drivers -- that is, at a level I'd actually permit you to do it (rather than downloading a crack instead) -- it's probably something you can do portably on Linux.
For example, there's no good reason Steam wouldn't work on Linux.
because of games trying to provide smooth, "console"-like experience on the PC. We want sustainable FPS rate and go to great lengths to fight occasional FPS hitches which usually happen because of resource streaming.
Because of resources being pulled from the disk, implying you need an understanding of the disk IO scheduler. Is that what you're saying?
I'm curious, what do you do to mitigate this that wouldn't also be portable? Seems the most obvious thing would be to change how the files are physically laid out on disk, but unless you're actually going under the hood to defrag things (and there are even portable ways to do that on Linux), you're talking about the internal format you store your game in, which is something I'd assume you'd be porting anyway.
Linux users don't pay for games,
Numbers or it didn't happen.
I do pay for games. Plenty of games, especially those with Linux ports.
the userbase on the desktop is so small that it may as well be non-existent,
Possible, but that directly contradicts your "Linux users don't pay for games" argument.
the APIs are a disaster (e.g., sound).
OpenAL. Problem solved.
Don't like OpenAL? Need something lower-level? ALSA. Hell, even OSS. Both work on any Linux from the past five years or so.
Ubuntu, Fedora, particular LSB release might be a platform, but still, it's too vague for games.
Wait, what? Ubuntu is "too vague for games"?
WTF do you call "XP or newer" then?
And frankly, there seem to be plenty of games which work well across many platforms, even without relying on things like LSB. Games from years ago still work. Just what is it that's so different about desktop Linux distros?
with binary NVIDIA drivers - there're no other options currently
The binary ATI drivers don't work?
set "realtime" priority for our process
Do you actually need that? Or would it work to simply give you a non-bloated system with an intelligent scheduler? I run plenty of games without realtime that seem to work well, and it's nice to know that if they freeze, my system won't.
Erm... no.
Wine runs Windows programs, not Mac programs. Suggesting what you're suggesting is about as intelligent as suggesting that you could just tweak a setting somewhere to make a Mac program run on Windows 7.
No, what I'd hope is that they'd expose the OpenGL functionality on their Windows port, thus making their Windows versions run faster under Wine -- though maybe not making it easier to run them.
An application developer literally cannot make any useful predictions about the end user's configuration,
Aside from just targeting Ubuntu, or Debian, there's the FHS.
And, as a counterexample, many binary-only games for Linux exist which continue to work on modern distros -- and there's even things like Flash. The argument that there are just too many distros of Linux is pure FUD.
When you start asking for money, you need to make sure that your software is Suitable for a Particular Purpose.
Or you can simply provide a disclaimer. I know many of the Linux ports of various games have basically said that there's no support for running the game on Linux -- though not all, so it apparently isn't such a huge problem. Keep in mind that most Linux people are going to have some idea what they're doing.
Installation needs to be easy and it needs to work everywhere.
That's easy -- rely on the package manager. Or, as another poster suggested, Steam should become that way -- they'd fill an (according to you) obvious niche, and instantly become dominant on Linux.
I'm offering 10:1 I get modded flamebait for not drinking the Linux Kool-Aid.
I wish you got modded flamebait for that. Just about every time someone says that, without fail, they get modded +5. It's disgusting.
Which Distro?
Ubuntu. And which version of Windows?
XP? Then you don't have DirectX 10. Vista/7 Only? Then XP people hate you. And professional, business, personal, what?
What sound system?
OpenAL, which will run on anything, including Windows and OS X. That's about as retarded as asking what graphics library you should use.
Lack of easy to install 3d drivers for nVidia and ATI. Actually the drivers for nVidia and ATI are pretty easy to install but probably beyond what some people will want to do.
Same exact thing, word for word, applies to Windows. The only difference is whether or not the OS was preloaded -- so buy a Dell with Ubuntu, problem solved.
I would love to see it but Linux and OSX are not that alike.
They're both Unix. They both use OpenGL.
on OSX you just target quicktime for audio and video playback.
According to another poster, quicktime for audio is deprecated in favor of a few APIs, including OpenAL -- in other words, if they've done this right, it is exactly the same on Linux and OS X. What else you got?
No need to worry what "legal" codecs are available.
Two big duh moments here.
First, you're a game developer. You can include codecs with your game, and you can encode your audio however the fuck you want. There is nothing stopping you from using Vorbis and Theora, as other developers have in the past.
If you really need the superior quality-per-bit, and you don't want to rely on your customers having a certain codec installed -- might fly for OS X, certainly won't for Windows -- you license. And that same exact license will cover your use of that codec on any OS.
Is Valve going to start targeting OpenGL?
No, their OS X port runs on magical pixie dust. Of course they're targeting OpenGL!
So basically every technical argument of yours is pure, unadulturated FUD and BS. Why are you still at +5 insightful?
But the real issue is lack of customers. I just don't see that many Linux users that don't dual boot into Windows for gaming.
And Mac users don't? Given the demographic, I'd expect Mac users to be able to afford the extra Windows license, even Parallels so they don't have to reboot.
If you don't get new customers it doesn't pay off.
Bullshit.
OSX offers a bigger pay off
See above. Also, it seems to me that more Mac people would be willing to dual-boot and/or run Parallels, and would have the funds to do so.
and fewer development issues.
Nope, pretty much every development issue you raised is completely moot, especially if they already have an OS X port.
Just the games I've played:
That's just off the top of my head. It's not terribly difficult -- just statically-compile, follow the FHS, ignore the distro, and give the full executables with the demo, with a license that allows redistribution.
End result: Even if you can't do that demo part, a tarball will work. But if you can, your demo will be included in every distro's repository. Worst case, people have to download other pieces of the full game (or buy it in a store, like with id games) and drop the files into place -- but it's not terribly difficult to automate that, either.
But really, I haven't seen any more problems than people have with Windows. If it's really that bad, say "Works with Ubuntu or Fedora" and let other distros work around it.
Also, open source your old games. There will be Linux ports, and people will likely buy the game to run it on Linux.
Try "none", and then we'll talk.
Sometimes, I make an effort to block individual ads and ad networks, but sometimes it's easier to just block ads on a given site, especially when they've clearly demonstrated they don't care how much they annoy me.
I'll admit there may be a lot of cutting and pasting in a language with as much boilerplate as Java, but go even higher-level, to something like Ruby...
Cutting and pasting is non-DRY, and is thus (rightly) discouraged. In fact, I'd almost argue that new programmers should have to spend a few months with copy and paste disabled, so they learn proper code re-use.
In fact, you're describing two very different mentalities. Having your language or libraries handle "the hard stuff" is actually the exact opposite of cutting and pasting. If you're doing it right, you notice when you're tempted to cut and paste some code, and you extract that functionality into a library so you don't have to. On the contrary, "cut-and-paste" programmers would be equally at home in C, since they don't care about proper code re-use -- to them, "code re-use" means, as you suggested, finding something on Google they can copy, paste, and modify to their needs.
Now, to address your real argument: I don't know about you, but I only have so much time. I mean, forget the excuses, I'm only going to live so long. Why would I waste my life solving the same problems over and over? Why would I want to implement a sorting algorithm yet again when other people (like Knuth) have done it better, and there are other, much more interesting problems to solve?
I mean, that's almost like bitching that no one has to do the limit of the difference quotient anymore, now that we have these fancy things called "derivatives" -- or that no one has to do Reimann sums anymore, now that we have the Fundamental Theorum of Calculus. Hey, if you want to do derivatives as limits-of-difference-quotients for the rest of your life, go right ahead, but if you're going to do math, wouldn't you rather invent the next grand physics theory?
There's nothing intrinsically "harder" about programming at a low level, it's just less productive.
Conf files on modern Unix systems are self-documenting -- they have comments, and text editors will syntax-highlight them.
The Registry? If you know what you're doing, it might be "easier", but it's a hell of a lot less discoverable.
The registry, which you shouldn't even have to touch anymore, seems obtuse until you start looking at some of the horrendous conf files scattered across the linux file system.
Given that each conf file generally comes with comments (more than you can say for the Registry), and is easily and trivially searchable (it's just text, and much quicker to run a fulltext search on than the Registry), I don't see what your problem is.
I'm not going to say that every conf file is perfect, and it's possible I just don't know, but...
There's a reason they're plaintext, and there's a reason that's better. I can write a sed script to edit a config file, I can do it quickly, and I can then distribute that to however many Linux machines I have. I can also write a script to generate a conf file, and build that into my deploy script. I can back up any particular config file, or the entire /etc hierarchy, using standard backup tools, because they're just files -- I can even stick them into version control.
I'm sure Windows can do some of that, but think about it. Does your server configuration fit in version control? Can you check out a copy of your application and, with a single command, bring up and configure a VPS to run it? Can you develop that script in less than a day, let alone the few hours it takes me?
Windows is probably easier to admin at a small scale, on the order of a fileserver here, a printserver there -- but then, at that scale, you set up Linux once and it pretty much just runs, which is why you can buy NAS devices which do all that for you. At a large scale, certainly once you get to thousands of boxes, I think any Unix has advantages over Windows, and you can see it in real-world TCO studies.
Well, I've been using Windows since forever, and linux since early slackware. I counted recently, and I've been through 12 distros at different times over the last 15 years or so.
So that's a total of maybe six different versions of Windows, most of them direct upgrades to the previous one, I'm guessing? Probably longer, since you say "since forever", so more experience, but probably still not 12 distinct flavors of Windows.
I'm guessing this might be your problem.
In my experience Microsoft's offerings are all easier than *nix ones. My linux installs never last. Something stupid always pisses me off eventually and I ditch them.
Just guessing, but I'll bet Microsoft's offerings occasionally do "something stupid" also, but you slog through and fix it.
I mean, I'm not defending this kind of thing:
In order to have my dual-monitor settings actually persist through a reboot I had to run the monitor configuration control panel as root.
On the other hand, in order to get dual-monitor to work on Windows, I have to download a random exe from the Internet containing video drivers. Then I have to configure the "primary screen" to be the one I want games to run fullscreen on, because they will refuse to run on the other monitor. Then I have to...
So, while it's all GUI and therefore "easier" than typing a quick sudo command, I'm guessing your perception is largely skewed given how long you don't give Linux. Also consider what MightyMartian said -- desktop Linux isn't perfect, but server Linux is a lot closer.
Memory-hoggage vs security vulnerabilities?
You can buy RAM, assuming that was even an issue anymore. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than dealing with a security leak.