Yes, I'm bothered when people are totally wrong about something. I do my best to help them.
It's sad when people convince themselves to feel superior.
On the contrary, I have refuted all your points. See the grand-parent of this post for details, that you conveniently don't cite.
I already proved to you how it's all variations of the same process that leads to rushing. You refuse to accept it because you're a Blizzard fanboy.
I'm not a grammar pro, but, uh, dude, are you from a non-english speaking country? As to my being "clueless", see post grandfather where I take your pathetic "reasoning" and beat it silly.
It is far from time for them to move on. Longhorn will be entirely.NET based. The latest betas already have explorer.exe running as.NET managed code. The old, crufty Win32 that Slashbots loved to bash is finally being replaced, and all Slashbots can do is find new ways to complain.
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in..NET is coming and will be here to stay with Longhorn, and enough people like.NET to have started work on a version for Linux.
Who's the crackhead who moderated this as Insightful?
This isn't just a "billing dispute." Google refuses to pay the money because they claim mentioning the ads on the site and telling people to click the products they're interested in seeing is in some way against their Terms and Conditions.
In just four days, over $100 was made via clickthroughs. Google's story changed from e-mail to e-mail. They just don't want to pay up, and they feared the long-term expense of such a successful ad system on Slackers Guild.
Telephone call to customer service? God, you're an idiot. How about actually reading the link? Good thing I'm here to keep you and your crackhead moderator friend in line.
I used to recommend Google AdSense as the best ad system I had ever seen...non-intrusive, context-dependent on the content of the page it is displayed on...until I discovered what happened in the link in my sig. Even the once well-respected Google is just another company now.
Now I'm of the opinion Internet ad systems are a doomed system no matter what. The Internet is supposed to be this concept of freedom and availability, which conflicts with commercialism that companies have tried to infect it with since the 90s. "Internet companies" and their cheesedick college graduate CEOs should be drug out into the street and shot.
While you made a decent post, I really think you too are missing the point.
No, I am not.
Stallman had a dream. A dream everyone else thought was crazy. A dream of a Free as in speech Operating System, a kernel, text editors, compilers, everything you need to actually use the computer, and all Free. He called that dream GNU. And because, back when everyone else thought he was crazy, he persevered, worked his ass off and didn't give up, we now have actually not one but several different Free Operating Systems. There's one to run on just about any hardware you can find, from a PS2 to an old Acorn box to an IBM supercomputer.
Stallman didn't write Linux, or BSD, or any others. You're not making any point here. Honest, Linux would have gone full-steam ahead if GNU was there or not.
Did Stallman write all that code? Of course not.
Exactly.
Did the FSF write it all? Of course not. That would have been silly. He knew from the beginning that road was impossible. They just wrote from scratch what they had to - i.e. X was already there, no need to reinvent the wheel, but there weren't any decent Free compilers, so they made GCC. Linux came along and contributed a kernel, one piece among many to make the OS.
This is the gist right here. Stallman failed at the HURD, and so they reluctantly had to adopt the newly sprung Linux kernel to get anything done for their tools, and now they want everyone to act as though they were the ones who got the whole Linux phenomena going because of it. "It's GNU/Linux!" There's a bitterness and envy there which turns people off.
Linux is the software with all the drivers that's operating my computer right now. I happen to use little GNU software, and could strip it out if I wished. I use Linux.
Even more irritating is that people are made to feel like they're not showing appreciation if they don't use "GNU/" with every iteration of a reference to the Linux operating system. It's fanatical and religious.
If people don't want to call GNU by it's proper name, no one can force them.
You haven't proven it is the "proper name," so you're just making loaded statements now.
But don't let the issue be sidetracked into trying to label what percentage is GNU and what is X and so forth - it doesn't matter.
It's not a sidetracking of the issue. The point is that the argument can be made about any significant applications that people use a lot, which could be seen as an "operating system."
XFree86 is the obvious example here. But nobody says X Consortium/Linux. Or Apache/Linux. Or whatever. Because it's ridiculous. Linux is the system these things run under. They're not a fundamental backbone of Linux itself.
GNU was the vision, and the FSF produced the pieces no one else would, to make that vision reality. I, for one, think we all owe them a debt we can never repay. Calling the OS by it's proper name is only fair.
GNU is a seperate thing from Linux.
They didn't make Linux. Just because they had to use Linux as their kernel doesn't mean all the sudden Linux and GNU are forever intertwined. There are lots of replacements for GNU tools. Even their libc was replaced.
It's not my problem that distributions happen to include their little RPMs of GNU tools. Even when they do, that doesn't suddenly make Linux "GNU/Linux." It's stupid, and people call on emotion, like you did, to justify it. He "had a dream." We "owe them a debt we can never repay." Etc. There are a lot of people who made free tools to whom we owe debts of gratitude. That doesn't mean we preface using their names whenever referring to the software operating my computer--Linux. People wrote a lot of stuff for Linux. GNU should be grateful Linux even came along in the first place, or they'd be nothing right now but a bunch of Solaris tools!
Really, the only people who argue for "GNU/Linux" are RMS fans. Objectively, that should tell you something.
Seriously. Explain how on earth shadow menus could be "bloat." In your obsessive need to feel "alternative" by using Linux, someone adds a feature that other GUI operating systems have had for at least three years, and all you can do is rant and rave about emulation, about your declaration of the "point of Linux," and so forth. Geez, just don't use it then. Remain in your ugly, visual feedback-less fvwm95 environment because it has "no bloat."
Piracy is a term referring to what is going on. Are you calling the people at the RIAA literal walking bags full of scummy matter? Of course not. Stop being so stupidly literal.
You know it's the complete oposite for me. Having had to spend time both in BSD (4.3) and Solaris/SunOS land, I cannot get work done without the GNU toolchain. Solaris without GNU is such a hassle that it does not bear thinking about.
Out of curiosity, do you call it GNU/Solaris?
I have a sneaking suspicion it's really the same thing for you.
Not really.
You don't actually use the kernel, just the services it provides.
My computer is running the kernel right now. Of course I'm "using" it. My hardware is alive and kicking because of it, and I'm staring at output on my screen as a result.
That's were we differ. Whether it's Linux/Solaris/Windows I still run Emacs/LaTeX to get work done.
So feel free to refer to your computer as "GNU/Linux" then.
To me it's really the application that's important for the "getting things done part", not the iron we run it on.
I don't refer to any of the operating systems I use by all the applications I run daily on them.
That's why many shops who say they have standardised on windows are wrong, what they really have standardised on is MS Office. They still call it Windows though.
But they're running Windows. For operating systems, they have standardized on Windows. For document creation, they have standardized on Office.
And I have the feeling it's what's going on here as well. You call it Linux, but without GNU (or the newer BSD toolchain to be fair) you wouldn't think of it as "Linux", we could easily put toghether a system running the Linux kernel that wouldn't be recognisable as "Linux", and no-one would think of it as "Linux" either.
Of course it would be Linux. Linux is the software up and running on my computer, actually operating it so I can use it. You could change the specs of the user environment, sure, but that's like replacing the shell on Windows and claiming it's not Windows anymore.
Now, I make the same fallacy, I call what I run "Linux", even though Stallman perfers GNU/Linux.
I believe Stallman is bitter over the lack of a HURD and the popularity of Linux as a result.
Truth be told I should really call it "GNU" since even though that would be just a wrong (parts such as X-Windows aren't GNU, and the Linux kernel isn't even part of it), it would be closer to the truth.
Why? You just gave a logical example of why it's silly.
I could make do without the Linux kernel a lot easier than I could make do without the GNU toolchain.
That doesn't mean you're still not running Linux. A non-stop Quake gamer could change from Linux to Windows and still use Quake on either one, but he doesn't use Quake/Linux or Quake/Windows...
Linux depends (and always did) on GNU software being readily avaliable.
No, it doesn't. A non-GNU Linux could easily be made. Just because GNU has programs operating under Linux doesn't make it "GNU/Linux." There are a lot of great tools running on Linux to give you something usable for your daily work, just like on every other operating system in existence. But it's running under Linux.
All the people using Linux as their desktop machines had better preface with X Consortium/GNU/Linux, because the daily use of their computer depends on that software! Better yet, Apache/GNU/Linux for all the webservers out there and IBM/GNU/Linux for the enterprise systems. Let's just add up together any names that make up a designated "system" so we feel nice and acknowledged for something. Please.
I use Linux and always will. The more the religious fundies come out of the woodwork to defend "GNU/" is more that I'll always use just Linux.
This is a lie. Linus Torvalds did not create the Linux Operating System, he created the Linux Kernel.
Linux is an operating system. Sorry. It's the software operating my computer right now. I could delete anything GNU and Linux would still be there.
Whether or not you give a shit about GNU, and the fact that LInus would never have made Linux without GNU (as he has said many times, so you can google for it, you need the exercise), is completely irrelevant for the article.
Clearly, I struck a nerve. I don't even know why you mentioned that since I never stated otherwise. Of course GNU tools were used. Lots of tools are used.
RMS asks us to call the operating system GNU/Linux, but he never ever says that you can't refer to Linux without prepending GNU/.
I'm not going to preface the Linux operating system with "GNU/" just because they have some programs operating on it that I don't use very often anyway. I appreciate their contributions in as much as I appreciate everyone else's. I just don't need to irrationally "GNU/" everything to do so. I use Linux; it is a system making my computer operational right now. Just because they couldn't finish the HURD and had to reluctantly accept Linux as the kernel for their utilities doesn't mean now we all have to be forced to constantly acknowledge their presence to make up for that failure. That's where this religiously fanatical prefacing issue stems from.
Maybe more people this month play StarCraft than Warcraft 3. I don't think that proves a thing, the majority isn't the final arbiter of whether the game is mindless or not.
Nice dodge around the fact that more people like StarCraft than WarCraft 3.
StarCraft hit another level with the release of Broodwar. Perhaps Frozen Throne will do the same for War3. Its too soon to tell, really, since no one can speculate on balance accurately till the pros have had 3 months to study the balance carefully.
There is no such thing as a "pro" at a video game. I reiterate that you need to go live a real social life.
Blizzard should have balanced it before they released it, but I'm sure will get another seven or so patches just to tweak all the rushing.
As usual you offer no proof, not even the sketch of one. In order to convince a critical audience, you must show, for each of those 190 strategies that it is single-unit-massing. You simply can't do this, since there are competitive strategies in there like ghoul-garg, which rely on using two or more unit types.
Listen to yourself. Do you really want me to believe that WarCraft 3 only allows for 190 "strategies?" Wow, ghoul-garg, using two or more unit types to rush. What was that supposed to prove?
What part of trolled do you not understand?
WarCraft 3 is nothing but rushing. I've already proven it to you.
Show some logic or shut up.
Clearly, I strike a nerve with your "USWest top 1000" fanboy mind.
More misunderstanding. I know it's preaching to the choir, but Linux is just the kernel, and the GNU project deserves just as much representation as does Linus Torvalds for it's creation of low level tools such as GCC. Linus is hardly the sole creator of the base system, although he did write the kernel as I'm sure you know.
You could still use Linux without GNU tools. Linux is the kernel that is controlling my freaking laptop. It is operating my computer into a usable state. I can replace bash, GCC, and all the rest if I wanted.
Linux is not a version of Unix. GNU/Linux is a derivative clone of UNIX.
Ah, a "GNU/Linux" weenie.
He said "open source version," which is another way of saying it's the open source counterpart, clone, whatever. Version wasn't meant to be so literal.
The system was initially chosen by the GNU project to be a clone of UNIX because it was the most portable OS at the time. I don't know how closely the Linux kernel compares to UNIX kernels and such, but GNU/Linux is definitly UNIX-like as a result of initial planning by the Free Software Foundation. Furthermore, if Linux was a version of UNIX (all of which must be licensed) wouldn't this whole interview (at least the SCO parts) be pointless since SCO licenses UNIX? Saying it's a version implys that it uses UNIX code, which is what brought us to all this madness in the first instance. Honestly, do these reports even know what they're saying, or do they just run off scripts?
You posted an entire insane diatribe over the non-literal use of the word "version." Go see Terminator 3 and relax a bit.
Notice how they use the term "for free" rather than something like "freely modify". Just a subtle point which I felt was worthy of pointing out. Also, notice the commonly used over-patronage of Linus. I think the media does this, unconciously, to effectivley set the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the amazing social phenomenon that is the movement commonly refered to as the "Open Source Movement," which sets unprecidented examples for healthy human society and interaction in comparison to the failed systems of the past. One can't even begin to draw parallels simply because of this sort-of systematic patronage of one man, and overlooking of an entire movement.
Maybe they just liked the idea of free stuff.
You get a lot of folks bashing on RMS because he politely asks people to at least acknowledge the work of the Free Software Foundation by calling the system GNU/Linux, but here you have Torvalds claiming entire responisibility of the OS, granted in response to a question about SCO's involvement in the origins of the OS, but nonetheless claiming total responsibility.
He claimed responsibility...for LINUX! You injected "OS" and went off on another GNU rant. The two letters "OS" were not even uttered. He did not claim total responsibility for "everything."
So how can we conclude that RMS is cocky when we have this kind of total disregard for everyone else involved in the development of the system.
Because RMS didn't have anything to do with the original code of Linux, and it WAS all Linux those first six months. What is your friggin' point? Next.
Until we stop using terms like Linux meaning the whole OS and Intellectual Property as being every legal issue under the sun, we simply can't even begin to have a logical discussion about the issues at hand, and will only further confuse those who may casually read about these subjects in the news.
You are so clearly biased.
Linux is my operating system. I'm not afraid to say it. It is the software that is managing all the of the hardware in my computer, providing drivers, making sure memory is taken care of, managing all of my processes...GNU tools are in there along with a bunch of other things. I could replace all the GNU tools with other software and still use Linux. Linux is operating my system, whether or not G
You're missing the point. It's annoying to have to constantly remember to refer to "GNU/Linux" because fanatics jump on you for not "giving respect" and for "spreading this lie." It's bizarre and extremist, as if I'm not giving credit or appreciation in my mind for GNU.
Linux is running all my drivers, talking to all my hardware, managing my memory and my processes. It is controlling my computer as an operational system. You can take GNU out of the equation with a bit of work and Linux will still go at it.
I choose to use Linux. It just so happens GNU tools are included on the distros I use, but I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools, I'm choosing to use it for the kernel, its hardware support, and so forth. If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
I use Office and Dev-Cpp almost exclusively on Windows, but I don't say Office/Bloodshed/Windows, because I'm choosing to use Windows, and I just happen to have to use those apps all the time under Windows to get anything done.
You guys are like religious fundies, I swear. Loosen up. I can already hear your responses now.
Your sadly amusing fanboy devotion to WarCraft 3 has carried this troll far too long.
WarCraft 3 is nothing but rushing. All "variations" you point out are simply different ways to inevitably rush. The game is based on your heroes, who must be levelled up and sent with squads.
You clearly need to get a life away from computer games and especially from Battle.net. Face it, WarCraft 3 was a critical and player bomb, and the fact that people hate and refuse to play it and instead turn to old cruft like StarCraft should tell you something. StarCraft doesn't limit you and tell you how to play.
Please, fanboy, get a life and stop arguing about something I am right about by default. WarCraft 3 is entirely rushing. That is it. It is provable beyond any shadow of a doubt. Run back to your IRC buddies and talk about "meeting" engagements (which are just mutual rushings).
Memorize build order->make heroes and squads->level up heroes->rush enemy. That is WarCraft 3. I'm not even getting into the awful graphics, drab music, and incredibly cheesy voice acting. WarCraft 3 was a marketing decision by Vivendi to integrate their two big sellers, StarCraft and Diablo. All you have now is party-based combat centered around levelled-up heroes. That is all the game will ever be, even with Frozen Throne.
You'd think with the massive social connections of the Internet, we'd be seeing massive protest and rebellion of unpopular laws (like the DMCA).
But with the Internet comes a price--jaded apathy!
If people could just get their act together, like all those people on Slashdot who have their little boycotts that never go anywhere. I don't think I've ever heard of an Internet boycott or protest that actually got the momentum to do anything. Anyone know of any?
Games are what drives hardware. Games force people to build that ultimate "gaming system" and to tweak every little bit of performance. Games are the reason people study every little aspect of two different cards to choose the one with the.002% performance increase.
Playing games, and making games, are the two things that really drive that stuff. I don't know how Open Source is supposed to affect much in that department (we're still trying to write drivers!). Unless you make Open Source games or something.
It seems to me if prices would come down a little bit, I'd be buying more hardware. I guess that's a shock to some, who want "Open Source" to save the industry...but how about saving my wallet first?
So according to you, there are an average of 4 massing variations per unit. 4 acolyte massing strats. 4 wisp massing strats. 4 chimera massing strats. 4 gyrocopter massing strats. Sorry, I just don't see it.
That's because you're inventing things that I said in order to disagree with them. Classic strawman argument. Next.
Hey, I like parts of starcraft better myself. But according to you Warcraft 3 is devoid of "any possibilities of actual battle strategies."
Which you and I both know is true.
That is simply not true. Warcraft 3 is a good game in its own right. It took some risks, and it is true that some of them didn't turn out very well. As of patch 1.02 I felt the 4 warcraft races were racially themed much less harmoniously than the 3 starcraft races. Non-hero casters are much more boring. But hey: heros are cool. Autocast is cool. Shops are cool. Creeps are cool. Managing engagements while creeping is the art of the game, and very cool. Starcraft and War2 have nothing comparable to that.
Thank god.
That's all WarCraft 3 is--levelling up and making squads. Levelling up and making squads. It's party-based real-time strategy Diablo, and will never have any actual battle strategies other than rushing. I'm glad we settled it.
So what part of my statement do you disagree with? Multiple choice time:
1. "war3 consists of building lots of a single unit type plus a hero"... apperantly you agree since on Wednesday July 02, @11:50AM you wrote:
Rushing is attacking with swarms of the same unit type. You level up your heroes then send out the masses. It's really quite simple.
Right.
2. "there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types". According to battle.net there are 43 core non-hero units.
Yes, different variations of the rushing squad for the leveled up hero. Next.
3. There are currently 190 strategies posted. (Since this list is maintained by one guy, he weeds out duplicates. )
190 rushing strategies. Why is this so hard for your "I was in USWest top 1000" fanboy brain to grasp?
4. The pigeon-hole principle states that given 43 massable unit types and 190 distinct strategies, at least 157 of those strategies must envolve something more than "lets build lots of unit X".
They all are different build orders, or different ways to mass a rushing squad for your leveled up heroes.
Again, I have to repeat because you don't seem to get it. WarCraft 3 removed the different war tactics possible in previous games. The only way to win now is to memorize an arcane build order, create your little Diablo creep-killing parties, and then go rush the enemy. There is no other way to play than that. You and I both know it's true.
You never use the word "rushing" consistently. When it suits your rhetorical interests it can mean either "attack" or "massing". In any case, you're wrong, since the game also consists of scouting, creeping, and building.
What part of build order->make heroes->make squads of units->level up->go rush enemy base did you miss? That's the only strategy allowed in WarCraft 3.
I read a lot of interviews, and I don't remember them ever saying they were trying to shorten the game.
Than I have the better memory, because it is absolutely true. They wanted to avoid the sometimes hour-long battles of games like StarCraft. Hence idiotic forced limitations like upkeep. They wanted a real-time strategy game of Diablo, so now you have the idiotics of the game telling you how you should play--few units, go out and level them up by fighting creeps, then send your little squad out. Games like StarCraft invited a near endless myriad of different ways to play the game. WarCraft 3, on the other hand, is all about offense and leveling up heroes, and nothing more.
At your level of play, apperantly this is correct.
"Apperantly." Again, the basement-living mouthbreather of Battle.net thinks playing level has anything to do with anything. Unlike you, it doesn't matter to me if I have enough of a social life that I don't log in an unhealthy amount of hours memorizing build orders and spell attacks so I can rush the enemy base with my leveled heroes on the laggy and cheat-ridden Battle.net.
More people play StarCraft than WarCraft 3. Why do you think that is? I'm sure you have a fanboy "explanation" for everything.
You and I both know what I say is correct. The game destroyed any possibilities of actual battle strategies. You must follow the same path to victory now, every time, which is an offensive strategy of building orders, heading out to level up your hero as fast as you can, then rushing the enemy with them. The "strategies" you speak of are just variations on that same process of steps. Admit it, fanboy, and move on...hopefully StarCraft 2 will regain any semblance of sanity. Until then, this StarCraft/Diablo marketing decision is a major flop among gamers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm bothered when people are totally wrong about something. I do my best to help them.
It's sad when people convince themselves to feel superior.
On the contrary, I have refuted all your points. See the grand-parent of this post for details, that you conveniently don't cite.
I already proved to you how it's all variations of the same process that leads to rushing. You refuse to accept it because you're a Blizzard fanboy.
I'm not a grammar pro, but, uh, dude, are you from a non-english speaking country? As to my being "clueless", see post grandfather where I take your pathetic "reasoning" and beat it silly.
I have clearly won this argument.
Next.
Old Win32 apps will just call those old Win32 DLLs to run.
It is far from time for them to move on. Longhorn will be entirely .NET based. The latest betas already have explorer.exe running as .NET managed code. The old, crufty Win32 that Slashbots loved to bash is finally being replaced, and all Slashbots can do is find new ways to complain.
.NET is coming and will be here to stay with Longhorn, and enough people like .NET to have started work on a version for Linux.
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in.
Who's the crackhead who moderated this as Insightful?
This isn't just a "billing dispute." Google refuses to pay the money because they claim mentioning the ads on the site and telling people to click the products they're interested in seeing is in some way against their Terms and Conditions.
In just four days, over $100 was made via clickthroughs. Google's story changed from e-mail to e-mail. They just don't want to pay up, and they feared the long-term expense of such a successful ad system on Slackers Guild.
Telephone call to customer service? God, you're an idiot. How about actually reading the link? Good thing I'm here to keep you and your crackhead moderator friend in line.
It proves your entire argument, that war3 is about building unit type X, leveling, then attacking, is full of shit:
On the contrary, I have been striking nerves with you non-stop. You have not refuted a single point. Clearly, I have one this discussion.
You are also easily trolled. Your ownly retort is "you're clueless." It's funny.
Next.
I used to recommend Google AdSense as the best ad system I had ever seen...non-intrusive, context-dependent on the content of the page it is displayed on...until I discovered what happened in the link in my sig. Even the once well-respected Google is just another company now.
Now I'm of the opinion Internet ad systems are a doomed system no matter what. The Internet is supposed to be this concept of freedom and availability, which conflicts with commercialism that companies have tried to infect it with since the 90s. "Internet companies" and their cheesedick college graduate CEOs should be drug out into the street and shot.
While you made a decent post, I really think you too are missing the point.
No, I am not.
Stallman had a dream. A dream everyone else thought was crazy. A dream of a Free as in speech Operating System, a kernel, text editors, compilers, everything you need to actually use the computer, and all Free. He called that dream GNU. And because, back when everyone else thought he was crazy, he persevered, worked his ass off and didn't give up, we now have actually not one but several different Free Operating Systems. There's one to run on just about any hardware you can find, from a PS2 to an old Acorn box to an IBM supercomputer.
Stallman didn't write Linux, or BSD, or any others. You're not making any point here. Honest, Linux would have gone full-steam ahead if GNU was there or not.
Did Stallman write all that code? Of course not.
Exactly.
Did the FSF write it all? Of course not. That would have been silly. He knew from the beginning that road was impossible. They just wrote from scratch what they had to - i.e. X was already there, no need to reinvent the wheel, but there weren't any decent Free compilers, so they made GCC. Linux came along and contributed a kernel, one piece among many to make the OS.
This is the gist right here. Stallman failed at the HURD, and so they reluctantly had to adopt the newly sprung Linux kernel to get anything done for their tools, and now they want everyone to act as though they were the ones who got the whole Linux phenomena going because of it. "It's GNU/Linux!" There's a bitterness and envy there which turns people off.
Linux is the software with all the drivers that's operating my computer right now. I happen to use little GNU software, and could strip it out if I wished. I use Linux.
Even more irritating is that people are made to feel like they're not showing appreciation if they don't use "GNU/" with every iteration of a reference to the Linux operating system. It's fanatical and religious.
If people don't want to call GNU by it's proper name, no one can force them.
You haven't proven it is the "proper name," so you're just making loaded statements now.
But don't let the issue be sidetracked into trying to label what percentage is GNU and what is X and so forth - it doesn't matter.
It's not a sidetracking of the issue. The point is that the argument can be made about any significant applications that people use a lot, which could be seen as an "operating system."
XFree86 is the obvious example here. But nobody says X Consortium/Linux. Or Apache/Linux. Or whatever. Because it's ridiculous. Linux is the system these things run under. They're not a fundamental backbone of Linux itself.
GNU was the vision, and the FSF produced the pieces no one else would, to make that vision reality. I, for one, think we all owe them a debt we can never repay. Calling the OS by it's proper name is only fair.
GNU is a seperate thing from Linux.
They didn't make Linux. Just because they had to use Linux as their kernel doesn't mean all the sudden Linux and GNU are forever intertwined. There are lots of replacements for GNU tools. Even their libc was replaced.
It's not my problem that distributions happen to include their little RPMs of GNU tools. Even when they do, that doesn't suddenly make Linux "GNU/Linux." It's stupid, and people call on emotion, like you did, to justify it. He "had a dream." We "owe them a debt we can never repay." Etc. There are a lot of people who made free tools to whom we owe debts of gratitude. That doesn't mean we preface using their names whenever referring to the software operating my computer--Linux. People wrote a lot of stuff for Linux. GNU should be grateful Linux even came along in the first place, or they'd be nothing right now but a bunch of Solaris tools!
Really, the only people who argue for "GNU/Linux" are RMS fans. Objectively, that should tell you something.
Menu shadows are bloat?
Seriously. Explain how on earth shadow menus could be "bloat." In your obsessive need to feel "alternative" by using Linux, someone adds a feature that other GUI operating systems have had for at least three years, and all you can do is rant and rave about emulation, about your declaration of the "point of Linux," and so forth. Geez, just don't use it then. Remain in your ugly, visual feedback-less fvwm95 environment because it has "no bloat."
Honestly. Shut up.
Piracy is a term referring to what is going on. Are you calling the people at the RIAA literal walking bags full of scummy matter? Of course not. Stop being so stupidly literal.
Compilers determine the name of the result? Do Windows users run Visual C++/Windows or Windows?
Next troll.
You know it's the complete oposite for me. Having had to spend time both in BSD (4.3) and Solaris/SunOS land, I cannot get work done without the GNU toolchain. Solaris without GNU is such a hassle that it does not bear thinking about.
Out of curiosity, do you call it GNU/Solaris?
I have a sneaking suspicion it's really the same thing for you.
Not really.
You don't actually use the kernel, just the services it provides.
My computer is running the kernel right now. Of course I'm "using" it. My hardware is alive and kicking because of it, and I'm staring at output on my screen as a result.
That's were we differ. Whether it's Linux/Solaris/Windows I still run Emacs/LaTeX to get work done.
So feel free to refer to your computer as "GNU/Linux" then.
To me it's really the application that's important for the "getting things done part", not the iron we run it on.
I don't refer to any of the operating systems I use by all the applications I run daily on them.
That's why many shops who say they have standardised on windows are wrong, what they really have standardised on is MS Office. They still call it Windows though.
But they're running Windows. For operating systems, they have standardized on Windows. For document creation, they have standardized on Office.
And I have the feeling it's what's going on here as well. You call it Linux, but without GNU (or the newer BSD toolchain to be fair) you wouldn't think of it as "Linux", we could easily put toghether a system running the Linux kernel that wouldn't be recognisable as "Linux", and no-one would think of it as "Linux" either.
Of course it would be Linux. Linux is the software up and running on my computer, actually operating it so I can use it. You could change the specs of the user environment, sure, but that's like replacing the shell on Windows and claiming it's not Windows anymore.
Now, I make the same fallacy, I call what I run "Linux", even though Stallman perfers GNU/Linux.
I believe Stallman is bitter over the lack of a HURD and the popularity of Linux as a result.
Truth be told I should really call it "GNU" since even though that would be just a wrong (parts such as X-Windows aren't GNU, and the Linux kernel isn't even part of it), it would be closer to the truth.
Why? You just gave a logical example of why it's silly.
I could make do without the Linux kernel a lot easier than I could make do without the GNU toolchain.
That doesn't mean you're still not running Linux. A non-stop Quake gamer could change from Linux to Windows and still use Quake on either one, but he doesn't use Quake/Linux or Quake/Windows...
Linux depends (and always did) on GNU software being readily avaliable.
No, it doesn't. A non-GNU Linux could easily be made. Just because GNU has programs operating under Linux doesn't make it "GNU/Linux." There are a lot of great tools running on Linux to give you something usable for your daily work, just like on every other operating system in existence. But it's running under Linux.
All the people using Linux as their desktop machines had better preface with X Consortium/GNU/Linux, because the daily use of their computer depends on that software! Better yet, Apache/GNU/Linux for all the webservers out there and IBM/GNU/Linux for the enterprise systems. Let's just add up together any names that make up a designated "system" so we feel nice and acknowledged for something. Please.
I use Linux and always will. The more the religious fundies come out of the woodwork to defend "GNU/" is more that I'll always use just Linux.
That's how I feel about it, anyway.
This is a lie. Linus Torvalds did not create the Linux Operating System, he created the Linux Kernel.
Linux is an operating system. Sorry. It's the software operating my computer right now. I could delete anything GNU and Linux would still be there.
Whether or not you give a shit about GNU, and the fact that LInus would never have made Linux without GNU (as he has said many times, so you can google for it, you need the exercise), is completely irrelevant for the article.
Clearly, I struck a nerve. I don't even know why you mentioned that since I never stated otherwise. Of course GNU tools were used. Lots of tools are used.
RMS asks us to call the operating system GNU/Linux, but he never ever says that you can't refer to Linux without prepending GNU/.
I'm not going to preface the Linux operating system with "GNU/" just because they have some programs operating on it that I don't use very often anyway. I appreciate their contributions in as much as I appreciate everyone else's. I just don't need to irrationally "GNU/" everything to do so. I use Linux; it is a system making my computer operational right now. Just because they couldn't finish the HURD and had to reluctantly accept Linux as the kernel for their utilities doesn't mean now we all have to be forced to constantly acknowledge their presence to make up for that failure. That's where this religiously fanatical prefacing issue stems from.
Get a brain, asshole, and learn to read.
Can't argue with that kind of research.
In your world, kernels aren't systems. Okay. Surely you can troll better than this.
Maybe more people this month play StarCraft than Warcraft 3. I don't think that proves a thing, the majority isn't the final arbiter of whether the game is mindless or not.
Nice dodge around the fact that more people like StarCraft than WarCraft 3.
StarCraft hit another level with the release of Broodwar. Perhaps Frozen Throne will do the same for War3. Its too soon to tell, really, since no one can speculate on balance accurately till the pros have had 3 months to study the balance carefully.
There is no such thing as a "pro" at a video game. I reiterate that you need to go live a real social life.
Blizzard should have balanced it before they released it, but I'm sure will get another seven or so patches just to tweak all the rushing.
As usual you offer no proof, not even the sketch of one. In order to convince a critical audience, you must show, for each of those 190 strategies that it is single-unit-massing. You simply can't do this, since there are competitive strategies in there like ghoul-garg, which rely on using two or more unit types.
Listen to yourself. Do you really want me to believe that WarCraft 3 only allows for 190 "strategies?" Wow, ghoul-garg, using two or more unit types to rush. What was that supposed to prove?
What part of trolled do you not understand?
WarCraft 3 is nothing but rushing. I've already proven it to you.
Show some logic or shut up.
Clearly, I strike a nerve with your "USWest top 1000" fanboy mind.
Next.
More misunderstanding. I know it's preaching to the choir, but Linux is just the kernel, and the GNU project deserves just as much representation as does Linus Torvalds for it's creation of low level tools such as GCC. Linus is hardly the sole creator of the base system, although he did write the kernel as I'm sure you know.
You could still use Linux without GNU tools. Linux is the kernel that is controlling my freaking laptop. It is operating my computer into a usable state. I can replace bash, GCC, and all the rest if I wanted.
Linux is not a version of Unix. GNU/Linux is a derivative clone of UNIX.
Ah, a "GNU/Linux" weenie.
He said "open source version," which is another way of saying it's the open source counterpart, clone, whatever. Version wasn't meant to be so literal.
The system was initially chosen by the GNU project to be a clone of UNIX because it was the most portable OS at the time. I don't know how closely the Linux kernel compares to UNIX kernels and such, but GNU/Linux is definitly UNIX-like as a result of initial planning by the Free Software Foundation. Furthermore, if Linux was a version of UNIX (all of which must be licensed) wouldn't this whole interview (at least the SCO parts) be pointless since SCO licenses UNIX? Saying it's a version implys that it uses UNIX code, which is what brought us to all this madness in the first instance. Honestly, do these reports even know what they're saying, or do they just run off scripts?
You posted an entire insane diatribe over the non-literal use of the word "version." Go see Terminator 3 and relax a bit.
Notice how they use the term "for free" rather than something like "freely modify". Just a subtle point which I felt was worthy of pointing out. Also, notice the commonly used over-patronage of Linus. I think the media does this, unconciously, to effectivley set the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the amazing social phenomenon that is the movement commonly refered to as the "Open Source Movement," which sets unprecidented examples for healthy human society and interaction in comparison to the failed systems of the past. One can't even begin to draw parallels simply because of this sort-of systematic patronage of one man, and overlooking of an entire movement.
Maybe they just liked the idea of free stuff.
You get a lot of folks bashing on RMS because he politely asks people to at least acknowledge the work of the Free Software Foundation by calling the system GNU/Linux, but here you have Torvalds claiming entire responisibility of the OS, granted in response to a question about SCO's involvement in the origins of the OS, but nonetheless claiming total responsibility.
He claimed responsibility...for LINUX! You injected "OS" and went off on another GNU rant. The two letters "OS" were not even uttered. He did not claim total responsibility for "everything."
So how can we conclude that RMS is cocky when we have this kind of total disregard for everyone else involved in the development of the system.
Because RMS didn't have anything to do with the original code of Linux, and it WAS all Linux those first six months. What is your friggin' point? Next.
Until we stop using terms like Linux meaning the whole OS and Intellectual Property as being every legal issue under the sun, we simply can't even begin to have a logical discussion about the issues at hand, and will only further confuse those who may casually read about these subjects in the news.
You are so clearly biased.
Linux is my operating system. I'm not afraid to say it. It is the software that is managing all the of the hardware in my computer, providing drivers, making sure memory is taken care of, managing all of my processes...GNU tools are in there along with a bunch of other things. I could replace all the GNU tools with other software and still use Linux. Linux is operating my system, whether or not G
You're missing the point. It's annoying to have to constantly remember to refer to "GNU/Linux" because fanatics jump on you for not "giving respect" and for "spreading this lie." It's bizarre and extremist, as if I'm not giving credit or appreciation in my mind for GNU.
Linux is running all my drivers, talking to all my hardware, managing my memory and my processes. It is controlling my computer as an operational system. You can take GNU out of the equation with a bit of work and Linux will still go at it.
I choose to use Linux. It just so happens GNU tools are included on the distros I use, but I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools, I'm choosing to use it for the kernel, its hardware support, and so forth. If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
I use Office and Dev-Cpp almost exclusively on Windows, but I don't say Office/Bloodshed/Windows, because I'm choosing to use Windows, and I just happen to have to use those apps all the time under Windows to get anything done.
You guys are like religious fundies, I swear. Loosen up. I can already hear your responses now.
Your sadly amusing fanboy devotion to WarCraft 3 has carried this troll far too long.
WarCraft 3 is nothing but rushing. All "variations" you point out are simply different ways to inevitably rush. The game is based on your heroes, who must be levelled up and sent with squads.
You clearly need to get a life away from computer games and especially from Battle.net. Face it, WarCraft 3 was a critical and player bomb, and the fact that people hate and refuse to play it and instead turn to old cruft like StarCraft should tell you something. StarCraft doesn't limit you and tell you how to play.
Please, fanboy, get a life and stop arguing about something I am right about by default. WarCraft 3 is entirely rushing. That is it. It is provable beyond any shadow of a doubt. Run back to your IRC buddies and talk about "meeting" engagements (which are just mutual rushings).
Memorize build order->make heroes and squads->level up heroes->rush enemy. That is WarCraft 3. I'm not even getting into the awful graphics, drab music, and incredibly cheesy voice acting. WarCraft 3 was a marketing decision by Vivendi to integrate their two big sellers, StarCraft and Diablo. All you have now is party-based combat centered around levelled-up heroes. That is all the game will ever be, even with Frozen Throne.
Next.
You'd think with the massive social connections of the Internet, we'd be seeing massive protest and rebellion of unpopular laws (like the DMCA).
But with the Internet comes a price--jaded apathy!
If people could just get their act together, like all those people on Slashdot who have their little boycotts that never go anywhere. I don't think I've ever heard of an Internet boycott or protest that actually got the momentum to do anything. Anyone know of any?
Games are what drives hardware. Games force people to build that ultimate "gaming system" and to tweak every little bit of performance. Games are the reason people study every little aspect of two different cards to choose the one with the .002% performance increase.
Playing games, and making games, are the two things that really drive that stuff. I don't know how Open Source is supposed to affect much in that department (we're still trying to write drivers!). Unless you make Open Source games or something.
It seems to me if prices would come down a little bit, I'd be buying more hardware. I guess that's a shock to some, who want "Open Source" to save the industry...but how about saving my wallet first?
So according to you, there are an average of 4 massing variations per unit. 4 acolyte massing strats. 4 wisp massing strats. 4 chimera massing strats. 4 gyrocopter massing strats. Sorry, I just don't see it.
That's because you're inventing things that I said in order to disagree with them. Classic strawman argument. Next.
Hey, I like parts of starcraft better myself. But according to you Warcraft 3 is devoid of "any possibilities of actual battle strategies."
Which you and I both know is true.
That is simply not true. Warcraft 3 is a good game in its own right. It took some risks, and it is true that some of them didn't turn out very well. As of patch 1.02 I felt the 4 warcraft races were racially themed much less harmoniously than the 3 starcraft races. Non-hero casters are much more boring. But hey: heros are cool. Autocast is cool. Shops are cool. Creeps are cool. Managing engagements while creeping is the art of the game, and very cool. Starcraft and War2 have nothing comparable to that.
Thank god.
That's all WarCraft 3 is--levelling up and making squads. Levelling up and making squads. It's party-based real-time strategy Diablo, and will never have any actual battle strategies other than rushing. I'm glad we settled it.
Next.
The Terminator said Judgement Day is inevitable. He said that in T2, they merely postponed it. Judgement Day will happen no matter what.
I watched it. In contrast, T3's car chase is actually exciting.
So what part of my statement do you disagree with? Multiple choice time:
... apperantly you agree since on Wednesday July 02, @11:50AM you wrote:
1. "war3 consists of building lots of a single unit type plus a hero"
Rushing is attacking with swarms of the same unit type. You level up your heroes then send out the masses. It's really quite simple.
Right.
2. "there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types". According to battle.net there are 43 core non-hero units.
Yes, different variations of the rushing squad for the leveled up hero. Next.
3. There are currently 190 strategies posted. (Since this list is maintained by one guy, he weeds out duplicates. )
190 rushing strategies. Why is this so hard for your "I was in USWest top 1000" fanboy brain to grasp?
4. The pigeon-hole principle states that given 43 massable unit types and 190 distinct strategies, at least 157 of those strategies must envolve something more than "lets build lots of unit X".
They all are different build orders, or different ways to mass a rushing squad for your leveled up heroes.
Again, I have to repeat because you don't seem to get it. WarCraft 3 removed the different war tactics possible in previous games. The only way to win now is to memorize an arcane build order, create your little Diablo creep-killing parties, and then go rush the enemy. There is no other way to play than that. You and I both know it's true.
You never use the word "rushing" consistently. When it suits your rhetorical interests it can mean either "attack" or "massing". In any case, you're wrong, since the game also consists of scouting, creeping, and building.
What part of build order->make heroes->make squads of units->level up->go rush enemy base did you miss? That's the only strategy allowed in WarCraft 3.
I read a lot of interviews, and I don't remember them ever saying they were trying to shorten the game.
Than I have the better memory, because it is absolutely true. They wanted to avoid the sometimes hour-long battles of games like StarCraft. Hence idiotic forced limitations like upkeep. They wanted a real-time strategy game of Diablo, so now you have the idiotics of the game telling you how you should play--few units, go out and level them up by fighting creeps, then send your little squad out. Games like StarCraft invited a near endless myriad of different ways to play the game. WarCraft 3, on the other hand, is all about offense and leveling up heroes, and nothing more.
At your level of play, apperantly this is correct.
"Apperantly." Again, the basement-living mouthbreather of Battle.net thinks playing level has anything to do with anything. Unlike you, it doesn't matter to me if I have enough of a social life that I don't log in an unhealthy amount of hours memorizing build orders and spell attacks so I can rush the enemy base with my leveled heroes on the laggy and cheat-ridden Battle.net.
More people play StarCraft than WarCraft 3. Why do you think that is? I'm sure you have a fanboy "explanation" for everything.
You and I both know what I say is correct. The game destroyed any possibilities of actual battle strategies. You must follow the same path to victory now, every time, which is an offensive strategy of building orders, heading out to level up your hero as fast as you can, then rushing the enemy with them. The "strategies" you speak of are just variations on that same process of steps. Admit it, fanboy, and move on...hopefully StarCraft 2 will regain any semblance of sanity. Until then, this StarCraft/Diablo marketing decision is a major flop among gamers.
Next.