It takes more than will. Linux systems are more varied than Windows ones (all games-ready windows boxes have directx installed). Making some sort of fast, universal API for 3d-accelerated graphics and sound, network gaming, device input, etc. is going to be harder than making a game to use it. That's my point. Linux isn't up to the "Windows with DirectX" level yet, so asking for games for it is premature. Linux needs its own DirectX first, otherwise it's all pointless.
If you wouldn't accept a closed-source DirectX alternative, then forget it. No company (or group) is going to invest tens of millions in a product they can't sell and have control over. Chances are, DirectX contains licensed components. Any open-source alternative can't use those, so even more work needs doing.
Frankly, the only way I can see linux being as games-friendly as Windows is if a closed-source entity entered into the market, releasing some sort of binary-only product for achieving this.
As it is, the machines on 95% of home desktops run Windows. Windows already HAS this magical all-singin'-and-dancin' API, DirectX, so no-one feels the need to develop a replacement. Games manufacturers can still port the killer games, and no-one is asked for an out-of-pocket payment to create something their competitors will benefit from.
The ideology is great an' all, as is Linux, but they both have their limits. Trying to accomplish what a massive software giant can do in years with a bunch of open-source coders, with less money, and in less time, is beyond me.
Why do you think those games are made for Windows and not Linux? Maybe the tiny market share of home PCs Linux has, has something to do with it. Also, maybe the complexity of getting hardware-accelerated drivers on Linux also has something to do with it.
I'm not being a dick here, but when Linux offers the gaming community and games manufacturers what Windows does (or better), it'll get the games. Until then, it'll be playing second-fiddle to Windows, and will have to put up with it.
The amount of developmental energy required to bring Linux up to the same level as Windows, with regards to performance hardware abstraction and other games-centric aspects, is massive. The open-source nature of development would mean getting there is difficult (as forking and disagreements have massive impacts on developmental pace). Unless the games industries are willing to invest millions on developing something for Linux to do what DirectX does on Windows (and then open-source it, otherwise they'll be bitched about, see nVidia), it's not going to happen.
Just because they're both operating systems, both on PC, doesn't mean they CAN be capable of the same thing. Developing a games-ready platform costs both a lot of time and money. It requires absolute direction. DirectX didn't fork, had constant funding, and its developers worked on it as their job, and it took years to get where it is. How a bunch of seperate developers is going to team together and build something MUCH better, with practically no money, is beyond me.
OK, one game. Hardly on par with the scores of games out there that install as easy on Windows.
When Linux has the market support and unity of vision Windows has (not to mention someone with serious amounts of money to back it up), it will get support for games. At the moment, it's just not cost effective.
And the Mona Lisa could be used as a doorstop - doesn't mean it's financially viable.
Linux on the home desktop (where games are predominantly played) is a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage of all users out there. Even Macs have a hard time getting good games, and their market share is much highers, with less open source and fewer companies involved (so production is easier/more efficient).
Expecting a tiny share of the market to dictate what the major players do is arrogant. I'm not being rude, but why would a games company spend countless thousands of dollars porting/developing for linux, when at best they'll sell 200 games? Unless those games are VERY expensive, they'll lose a bunch of money, and waste time they could have spent making their games even better, which helps the entire company.
Then you're screwed if you have a gun or not. If you think YOU having a handgun is going to deter an entire police force, then you've watched too much Rambo. Seriously, if that's the case, you have much more to worry about than not having a gun.
If the police aren't doing their jobs, get someone to fix it. Speak to your representatives. Don't take THEIR job on yourself, endangering people in the process. That's not only selfish, it's ridiculous.
If the police aren't effective, lobby your representatives to improve their abilities. Don't write off the whole department and take it on yourself to dole out lethal force when YOU deem it necessary. That's the most childish argument I've ever heard for regular people to own guns.
Of course you can trust the police to have your best interests at heart. If they don't, again, they need fixing, not ignoring.
Comparing firearms to cars and phones shows just how detatched from reality you are. Phones are used to TALK to people. No-one dies. Cars are used to DRIVE around. No-one dies. Guns are used to KILL people. People die. Yes, you can kill someone with a phone and a car, but they're not the intended use. Firearms, when used as intended, kill. That's my point. Just because guns are in society doesn't mean you have to add to the problem and have one yourself. Where do you think all those guns the "bad guys" have came from? They were all LEGAL handguns, until their owner was robbed of them. Clearly they don't work.
You're talking about people in a sane frame of mind. I'm talking about people who are emotionally and/or mentally unstable. The sort of people who take guns into the post office and let off a few rounds. You can't say normal people are inherently unwilling to kill others, as not only is it obviously untrue for every person, the people we're discussing are not "normal", but unhinged somewhat.
If what you're saying is true, there would be no mass murderers, surely...
I don't mean to sound rude, but you're quoting the Lord of the Rings in defense of you owning a lethal weapon for no good reason other than a lacking public service that should be better. I know you have a right to have a gun, but I should have a right to not have people running around with guns for no good reason, often lacking training and a psychological evaluation. There's no-one watching you who takes your gun away when you've had too many. No-one's going to take your gun away when you've been made redundant, or when you have an argument with someone. That's my point. Sure, you can get all misty eyed and think you're "defending" something, when in reality you're more likely to hurt that which you're defending than actually step up to the plate and defend it. Oh, and you might take some innocent people with you. At least the police, when armed, have very very strict rules regarding firearm use. They have regular training, and their performance levels are frequently checked. They have medicals and psych evaluations. Normal gun-owning members of the public don't have those, which is tragic, as they're also less trained. The logic of the whole situation is beyond belief.
Sorry if I sound rude, but to me, it makes as much sense for people to have handguns as it does them to have tactical nukes and apache attack helicopters.
Now all they need to do is make a gun that knows when the owner is drunk or mentally unstable.
I know what you mean about a knife, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a kife - you actually have to stab someone to kill them. With a gun, it's a lot less personal - one squeeze and they're dead. That's the problem. Guns are too easy to use. Normally sane, sober people can pick them up in a fit of rage or mental unbalance (like if their lover has left them, or they lost their job), and kill someone before they realise what's happened. The risk with having guns around is too great, in my opinion. I'd like to go through life knowing there are no armed people out there, running about with no training, with easy access to guns when their faculties might be impaired. If you're scared the police aren't good enough to protect you, then get the police better funding. Arming yourself doesn't correct the police department. All you end up with is a bunch of people with guns, and it only takes one of those on a bad night to kill.
My major problem with the "anyone can edit" philosophy is that there is no overall look to the site, short of the colour scheme and logo. The layout of each article is different, depending on who wrote it. There is no unifying style guide for wikipedia, no editor ensuring uniform layout.
I guess it's just aesthetic, but it makes wikipedia look amateurish and, quite frankly, somewhat silly in places. Oh, and don't even get me started on spelling mistakes and incredibly poor use of punctuation. I'm no angel, but some articles I've seen on there bring tears to my eyes.
If normal encyclopaedias are inherently different to Wikipedia, shouldn't Wikipedia change its name, or at least stop professing to be an encyclopaedia? After all, encyclopaedias are only useful if you KNOW who wrote them. Anonymous edits mean you can't tell bias. I think Wikipedia is a very, very powerful tool, but while we still call it an "encyclopaedia" we confuse its purpose. Just like when people confuse Windows and Linux as doing the same thing, they miss out on the relative strenghts and weaknesses of both OSs.
Wikipedia, as it's written by amateurs, is amateurish. The text has copious spelling mistakes, differing use of elements across articles, etc. You can tell it's a community effort. When you read a proper encyclopaedia, you don't get that, as it has an editor who makes sure each entry is in the same style as all the others, spelled correctly, and of uniform appearance.
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of great information in wikipedia. It just looks like ass.
There is no quality control on wikipedia. Sure, you'll get an article pulled if it's clearly bollocks, but no-one goes through articles checking to see if the author of that particular paragraph had the same ideas on formatting and punctuation as the authors of the adjacent texts did.
There's no consistency.
I don't want to sound like a dick, but I agree with you about wikipedia and open source. The two kind of are like the same. I love open source, but it often lacks a core direction (as frequently no-one is paying anyone else). Because of that, it lacks professionality. That's not to say it's not sometimes incredibly functional, it just doesn't look that pretty.
But if you know those people are right-leaning, you know everything they say is right-leaning. Imagine if those friends had multiple-personality disorders, and some of their personalities are left-leaning, and some centrist. Now try talking to them on politics. You'll never know their current bias, and so it would be impossible to take it into account.
Thinking critically should always occur, whether you agree with the bias of the source or not. Critical thinking won't help much if the bias of the source changes with every paragraph.
Have you forgotten the millions of destitute Americans in 2004? Your view of the bad in this world is so obviously selective. Capitalism is just as bad as communism. The only reason you love it is because your country is capitalist, and you believe anything with a US flag on it.
I have to stoop to flamey language here, as nothing else seems to get through to you.
You poor, dumb, stupid bastard. I feel sorry for you.
You blame Kofi Annan for not intervening in Sudan, yet YOUR GOVERNMENT is on the security council, with a veto. That gives them the power to get some action in Sudan going. They didn't, so somehow it's everyone else's problem.
Your figures of 23bn are from one source, and the 5bn is from many other sources. Which one you choose clearly shows your bias in this situation.
Kofi Annan is a great guy loved by the entire world, apart from right-wing Americans. Kofi Annan is secretary general of the UN, not some sort of uberpowerful supervillain. He doesn't control the UN, but keeps in together. Each part of the UN is run by its constituent memebers (countries/committees). Saying Kofi Annan is sitting there, figuring out how to use it to make money is just stupidly naive.
Please, for the love of God, read a fucking book, get a clue, then come back when you've stopped dribbling on your keyboard so much.
The UN isn't a "world government". It is an organisation that gives advice on many, many different aspects of a country's running, be they financial-, economic- or security-based.
If you want to be scared of something, be scared of the US's rampant capitalism. That's MUCH more of a threat to you and your personal freedoms than the UN will EVER be. In fact, when the US takes it too far, it'll be the UN who saves you.
Of course, you've been fed the "UN=bad" line by American media all your life, so this really isn't surprising.
So, if American money belongs to Americans, all that foreign money should belong to foreigners. No more foreign investment in America. All those American companies that get paid billions by foreign companies will lose their funding. They'd close.
Money is money. The US has cried the benefits of global free trade for years, and now it's come full-circle. You can't have your cake and eat it, it seems.
I don't know if you're aware, but many "Americans" send money overseas. They have relatives out there, they buy foreign goods, they invest in foreign stock. Your idea of "American money is spent in America" is just plain ignorant. Your use of emotive language ("stole", etc) shows you really feel quite strongly about this.
No-one stole anything. The US initiated this program to help itself. Now it's helping others, who arguably need the money more. I guess if you'd rather have some guy driving a Hummer over an extended family getting food, fine.
Maybe they became anti-Bush when Bush demontrated to everyone willing to notice how incredibly inept he is? You can't fault someone for doing that, can you? It's called learning from facts. The paper (and most of the world) saw what Bush was doing, and their opinion of him changed. Expecting media to have a consistent view of a person or entity is ridiculous, and would go a long way to explaining the hopeless state of money-driven 'journalism' in the US...
That "terrorist" is innocent until proven guilty. No trial occured - he, and everyone else at abu ghraib, is yet to be tried, and therefor innocent until proven otherwise.
Seeing as the US invaded Iraq because of Iraq's apparent unwillingness to comply by international rules, US troops violating international law is a big story - it kind of highlights the ridiculous hypocritical attitude of the US. There would be outrage if that was a US soldier being abused by Iraqis, but as it's the other way round, it's trivial to you.
That's where the smart money and effort is going... Adaptive optics pissed on hubble's visible-spectrum telescopy, making it relatively obsolete overnight...
All the new techniques for ground-based are making it by far the best investment.
It was done right after the first gen ipods came out - people found the graphics in the firmware. I guess the news is someone made an app to change the graphics for you... meh.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes more than will. Linux systems are more varied than Windows ones (all games-ready windows boxes have directx installed). Making some sort of fast, universal API for 3d-accelerated graphics and sound, network gaming, device input, etc. is going to be harder than making a game to use it. That's my point. Linux isn't up to the "Windows with DirectX" level yet, so asking for games for it is premature. Linux needs its own DirectX first, otherwise it's all pointless.
Frankly, the only way I can see linux being as games-friendly as Windows is if a closed-source entity entered into the market, releasing some sort of binary-only product for achieving this.
As it is, the machines on 95% of home desktops run Windows. Windows already HAS this magical all-singin'-and-dancin' API, DirectX, so no-one feels the need to develop a replacement. Games manufacturers can still port the killer games, and no-one is asked for an out-of-pocket payment to create something their competitors will benefit from.
The ideology is great an' all, as is Linux, but they both have their limits. Trying to accomplish what a massive software giant can do in years with a bunch of open-source coders, with less money, and in less time, is beyond me.
I'm not being a dick here, but when Linux offers the gaming community and games manufacturers what Windows does (or better), it'll get the games. Until then, it'll be playing second-fiddle to Windows, and will have to put up with it.
The amount of developmental energy required to bring Linux up to the same level as Windows, with regards to performance hardware abstraction and other games-centric aspects, is massive. The open-source nature of development would mean getting there is difficult (as forking and disagreements have massive impacts on developmental pace). Unless the games industries are willing to invest millions on developing something for Linux to do what DirectX does on Windows (and then open-source it, otherwise they'll be bitched about, see nVidia), it's not going to happen.
Just because they're both operating systems, both on PC, doesn't mean they CAN be capable of the same thing. Developing a games-ready platform costs both a lot of time and money. It requires absolute direction. DirectX didn't fork, had constant funding, and its developers worked on it as their job, and it took years to get where it is. How a bunch of seperate developers is going to team together and build something MUCH better, with practically no money, is beyond me.
I love linux, I'm just a realist.
When Linux has the market support and unity of vision Windows has (not to mention someone with serious amounts of money to back it up), it will get support for games. At the moment, it's just not cost effective.
Linux on the home desktop (where games are predominantly played) is a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage of all users out there. Even Macs have a hard time getting good games, and their market share is much highers, with less open source and fewer companies involved (so production is easier/more efficient).
Expecting a tiny share of the market to dictate what the major players do is arrogant. I'm not being rude, but why would a games company spend countless thousands of dollars porting/developing for linux, when at best they'll sell 200 games? Unless those games are VERY expensive, they'll lose a bunch of money, and waste time they could have spent making their games even better, which helps the entire company.
If the police aren't doing their jobs, get someone to fix it. Speak to your representatives. Don't take THEIR job on yourself, endangering people in the process. That's not only selfish, it's ridiculous.
Of course you can trust the police to have your best interests at heart. If they don't, again, they need fixing, not ignoring.
Comparing firearms to cars and phones shows just how detatched from reality you are. Phones are used to TALK to people. No-one dies. Cars are used to DRIVE around. No-one dies. Guns are used to KILL people. People die. Yes, you can kill someone with a phone and a car, but they're not the intended use. Firearms, when used as intended, kill. That's my point. Just because guns are in society doesn't mean you have to add to the problem and have one yourself. Where do you think all those guns the "bad guys" have came from? They were all LEGAL handguns, until their owner was robbed of them. Clearly they don't work.
If what you're saying is true, there would be no mass murderers, surely...
Sorry if I sound rude, but to me, it makes as much sense for people to have handguns as it does them to have tactical nukes and apache attack helicopters.
I know what you mean about a knife, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a kife - you actually have to stab someone to kill them. With a gun, it's a lot less personal - one squeeze and they're dead. That's the problem. Guns are too easy to use. Normally sane, sober people can pick them up in a fit of rage or mental unbalance (like if their lover has left them, or they lost their job), and kill someone before they realise what's happened. The risk with having guns around is too great, in my opinion. I'd like to go through life knowing there are no armed people out there, running about with no training, with easy access to guns when their faculties might be impaired. If you're scared the police aren't good enough to protect you, then get the police better funding. Arming yourself doesn't correct the police department. All you end up with is a bunch of people with guns, and it only takes one of those on a bad night to kill.
I guess it's just aesthetic, but it makes wikipedia look amateurish and, quite frankly, somewhat silly in places. Oh, and don't even get me started on spelling mistakes and incredibly poor use of punctuation. I'm no angel, but some articles I've seen on there bring tears to my eyes.
If normal encyclopaedias are inherently different to Wikipedia, shouldn't Wikipedia change its name, or at least stop professing to be an encyclopaedia? After all, encyclopaedias are only useful if you KNOW who wrote them. Anonymous edits mean you can't tell bias. I think Wikipedia is a very, very powerful tool, but while we still call it an "encyclopaedia" we confuse its purpose. Just like when people confuse Windows and Linux as doing the same thing, they miss out on the relative strenghts and weaknesses of both OSs.
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of great information in wikipedia. It just looks like ass.
There is no quality control on wikipedia. Sure, you'll get an article pulled if it's clearly bollocks, but no-one goes through articles checking to see if the author of that particular paragraph had the same ideas on formatting and punctuation as the authors of the adjacent texts did.
There's no consistency.
I don't want to sound like a dick, but I agree with you about wikipedia and open source. The two kind of are like the same. I love open source, but it often lacks a core direction (as frequently no-one is paying anyone else). Because of that, it lacks professionality. That's not to say it's not sometimes incredibly functional, it just doesn't look that pretty.
Thinking critically should always occur, whether you agree with the bias of the source or not. Critical thinking won't help much if the bias of the source changes with every paragraph.
Have you forgotten the millions of destitute Americans in 2004? Your view of the bad in this world is so obviously selective. Capitalism is just as bad as communism. The only reason you love it is because your country is capitalist, and you believe anything with a US flag on it.
You poor, dumb, stupid bastard. I feel sorry for you.
You blame Kofi Annan for not intervening in Sudan, yet YOUR GOVERNMENT is on the security council, with a veto. That gives them the power to get some action in Sudan going. They didn't, so somehow it's everyone else's problem.
Your figures of 23bn are from one source, and the 5bn is from many other sources. Which one you choose clearly shows your bias in this situation.
Kofi Annan is a great guy loved by the entire world, apart from right-wing Americans. Kofi Annan is secretary general of the UN, not some sort of uberpowerful supervillain. He doesn't control the UN, but keeps in together. Each part of the UN is run by its constituent memebers (countries/committees). Saying Kofi Annan is sitting there, figuring out how to use it to make money is just stupidly naive.
Please, for the love of God, read a fucking book, get a clue, then come back when you've stopped dribbling on your keyboard so much.
Fox != News.
The UN isn't a "world government". It is an organisation that gives advice on many, many different aspects of a country's running, be they financial-, economic- or security-based.
If you want to be scared of something, be scared of the US's rampant capitalism. That's MUCH more of a threat to you and your personal freedoms than the UN will EVER be. In fact, when the US takes it too far, it'll be the UN who saves you.
Of course, you've been fed the "UN=bad" line by American media all your life, so this really isn't surprising.
dick.
So, if American money belongs to Americans, all that foreign money should belong to foreigners. No more foreign investment in America. All those American companies that get paid billions by foreign companies will lose their funding. They'd close.
Money is money. The US has cried the benefits of global free trade for years, and now it's come full-circle. You can't have your cake and eat it, it seems.
I don't know if you're aware, but many "Americans" send money overseas. They have relatives out there, they buy foreign goods, they invest in foreign stock. Your idea of "American money is spent in America" is just plain ignorant. Your use of emotive language ("stole", etc) shows you really feel quite strongly about this.
No-one stole anything. The US initiated this program to help itself. Now it's helping others, who arguably need the money more. I guess if you'd rather have some guy driving a Hummer over an extended family getting food, fine.
Maybe they became anti-Bush when Bush demontrated to everyone willing to notice how incredibly inept he is? You can't fault someone for doing that, can you? It's called learning from facts. The paper (and most of the world) saw what Bush was doing, and their opinion of him changed. Expecting media to have a consistent view of a person or entity is ridiculous, and would go a long way to explaining the hopeless state of money-driven 'journalism' in the US...
That "terrorist" is innocent until proven guilty. No trial occured - he, and everyone else at abu ghraib, is yet to be tried, and therefor innocent until proven otherwise.
Seeing as the US invaded Iraq because of Iraq's apparent unwillingness to comply by international rules, US troops violating international law is a big story - it kind of highlights the ridiculous hypocritical attitude of the US. There would be outrage if that was a US soldier being abused by Iraqis, but as it's the other way round, it's trivial to you.
All the new techniques for ground-based are making it by far the best investment.
It was done right after the first gen ipods came out - people found the graphics in the firmware. I guess the news is someone made an app to change the graphics for you... meh.
I mean come ON! You really expect someone to go through all that trouble of making the ipod play ogg files, when 99.9999% of music-listeners use mp3?
I'm all for open source, but I can't stand it when people expect tiny formats to be accepted by the mainstream.
When openoffice is used more than MS office, we'll have a story. This is cool, but minor, news :)