As a linux person, any advice on the easiest way to play this? I played half-life in the day, but since then I think the only Valve games I've played are on consoles....I doubt this will be available on my xbox....
Does Source run on Linux? How do you get the source engine? available by itself or does it have to come bundled with some other game?
Looks like a fun game to play, but worried I can't get to it....
I wondered what he is trying to accomplish, end of the day if he left his collection to someone: Is he wanting to be able to transfer the collection from his account to his kids account? Does apple allow that ?
If someone used the export or whatever to get it out of iTunes as DRM free files, can those be added to someone else's collection? what's the difference between an "official" iTunes file and an mp3 or such?
Just curious, I've stayed away from iTunes for the most part myself....
You need to prove the fallacy that you claim. Sticking a network interface between the application and the GPU is a performance bottleneck I certainly don't need. Hardware is topping 150Gbytes/sec and no network interface can compete. Using X11 over a remote low bandwidth connection makes my teeth grind, using RDP or VNC over the same is usable. Network support in the graphics stack should exist and it should be optional (not mandatory). X11 protocol support should exist and it should be optional (not mandatory). Wayland is not the end of the world as you know it, it is a less encumbered world.
So, RDP and VNC does not put a network device between the app and GPU? To me, adding those to the end of your comment is proof the network feature can work, not an argument against me. After all, when running X11 local, no network device is involved.
Take a good look at how VNC server support if provided in the X11 server. This is exactly the solution to be provided in the Wayland stack.
So, how does that let someone run Wayland apps remotely? Will there be a pseudo Wayland-VNC desktop that can be exported when no local Wayland desktop is available?
To get the experience you need to make an evaluation you should write an X11 application using Xlib, there is no easy ticket to explaining that is worth my time on you. You can remain being a pundit and your opinions will be weighed as such. But those who write and maintain X servers and other elements of the graphics stack have a different opinion to you.
So, if I understand, you are saying that the network/remote feature (which is what I was talking about) that X11 has adds the complexity of xlib no matter how it's implemented? a different implementation would have the same issues xlib has? X11 has the feature. Wayland does not. my problem is the feature not in Wayland and the reasons for it not being included are always expressed badly. I'm not sure I agree with your claim that any implementation of the network/remote feature would add the complexity of xlib, but I am no expert. Otherwise, you are not understanding what you are replying to. That's either reading my comments incorrectly, myself writing incorrectly or just plain confusion on the direction this is going.
So, will this give games that look like Toy Story?
(Hey, it's been a while since anyone mentioned that, thought I'd bring it back just for old time's sake....although the demo video kinda looks like the jokes not funny anymore...)
"Its not a question of smart enough. A lot of the people implementing Wayland are the people who currently maintain X and have added features to it. It was working with X, and seeing how much harder it was to get X than Aqua or GDI to do something that convinced many of them that X had to go. What's happened is that on balance they've decided the disadvantages of network transparency outweigh the advantages."
This kind of statement is exactly what makes me nervous even antagonistic about Wayland and it's supporters. The developers of a platform decided that is is not worth supporting the feature based on....what? From your statement it sounds like it's based on THEIR preferences, not users of the platform, not on developers that write programs for the platform. Now, if that's not the case, then that's fine...I just don't hear it when Wayland is pushed in comments. I'd love to hear that app developers want to drop the network piece (lots don't like writing for X true, but is that because of the network piece?), but I don't. I'd even love o hear that users don't want it, as long is was more than blind statements or anecdotes because I've heard plenty of anecdotes disagree with that. From the statement you made, it sounds (maybe I'm reading too much in) that yet another platform group is deciding what is best for their users and doing what THEY want to do, not what users want or need...
Thank you. this is the most interesting comment on network transparency I've seen for Wayland. It actually makes me interested instead of bypassing Wayland again.
What I'm interested in is how that would work...is there some examples, pseudo examples or FAQ's that give an idea of what that would look like? With X11 on top of Wayland, specifically how would I run a Wayland App remotely under what you are describing? Is there a Wayland app equivalent of "xterm -display remote.pc:0.0" when I want to run an app off, say, my phone and display it on my pc?
There's no question remote X has issues. Like you say, the networks and computing environment of today give X a lot of challenge. My big push and the original complaint in this thread is that every Wayland comment includes the remark that remote app usage is not important enough to be a base feature. I disagree and get tired of someone saying the feature is useless when I know it's not.
Right now, there are work arounds for the issues X has, but they are still work arounds. What X does needs to be done better and can be. Extra software and better coding of the X apps can go a long way, but there are limits. If someone wanted start from scratch and recreate a window system, I'm not opposed to that. I just disagree with the remote/network feature being called unneeded and unused. Wayland comments always seem to do that, and usually (not always) follow up with statements from people who do not use it and/or do not understand how it works.
I'm not sure I understand "written to support it". That's my comment on X: written for X, it works remotely. What have you run into that didn't work? This is a serious question, since I haven't ran into any native X apps that didn't at least run. Network speed makes many perform bad, but it still works for the things I've tried....even Windows apps via Wine at least used to work, but I haven't tried that trick in a while.
I haven't had the best performance with everything, but they all ran. And I've tried a lot....even xine runs OK remote....Doom3 ran, not playable, but then again, I was not on the same local network when i tried it. Menu's were fine. What have you ran into that does not work?
Optional is the issue. With X remote is available ANYTIME it's needed. Or are you saying there's no way apps will be written directly for Wayland? If that's the case, why have it anyway?
Otherwise you're saying Wayland has a well designed and/or written migration path....but it's still migration AWAY from the feature that I and many others feel is important...
I just realized why I ignore Wayland: every comment in favor of Wayland, somewhere in the comment, will have the same fallacy about the network feature of X being a problem. Myself and lots of others user the remote X feature on a regular basis. I and thousands of IT professional use remote access constantly on other platforms, mainly windows. Using any of the remote technologies available for windows makes me grind my teeth constantly since I was ruined by using X first and know how it should work instead of what I have to use every day. I assume I'm not alone or even just part of a small crowd in that respect..
If there's some good sources for the % of users who don't want it, that's fine. quote 'em and I'm glad to read up on it. But, most times I hear just claimed lack of need for it when I know at least for myself and many others remote X is one of the most valuable features in X. If there was at least SOME info on Wayland that either left off the comments about how bad remote X is or showed some facts to back the claim, I'd pay more attention. Unfortunately I've seen no comment yet for Wayland that does more than say "I don't know of anyone who uses remote X, so most users don't use it" And, one day Wayland may actually catch on and take over the desktop in Unix. Now matter how good it is, it will be a sad day since a useful piece of functionality is thrown away when it used to be included for for free (free in terms of performance cost, free in terms of setup, free in terms of no effort needed for developers to support it, etc.). Doesn't make it easy to look forward to Wayland right now. This comment was at least less inflammatory than most and the rest of the comment was very informative, but I still would like just once for someone to back the claims against the network feature since I value myself quite a bit and have heard many others say the same.
This is still one of my favorite fortunes when logging in...walked through it the first time to see if it made sense, now I just laugh when I see it...
"Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish
and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer
if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and
and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and
and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"
I've never used it in that orientation except when talking on the phone, and then only when I can't gt my headset out quick enough. I don't like holding any smart phone to my face, so I'll likely use a headset for any phone.
For landscape use, you comments make no sense. And the usb charging port has given me no troubles and never come out while plugged in...as far as being thick, feels solid to me, which I like. could be thinner, but OK as is. Camera lens with good cover is great. It's not flat but it doesn't rock on a flat surface either, so who cares...
So, design is great to me, maybe you should try it in landscape more, all the buttons are accessible with one hand for me that way, and make sense.
I'd love an updated version of the n900: thinner, lighter, maybe bigger screen, but just tweaks to the original. A compass would be nice:) The n900 to me is a great piece of hardware. I've yet to see another phone that has all the features of the n900 so far. The n950 is close on features and functionality, I still prefer my n900.
With Nokia abandoning both the hardware (see n950 as the new direction) and software, I was resigned to something less when my n900 gave out. But I still have hope!
One thing I've always wondered: FOSS games don't have to be community developed at least by the definition, but that seems to be the norm in discussion. Why is that?
seems like any game that was developed under normal time lines/conditions could be FOSS as long as the code came with it....in which case it could be community maintained at that point, but was developed behind closed doors.
Most games (and a lot of software, but not all) have to have a definite goal and have to come out under a specific time-frame to "catch" and become useful and/or popular. That's hard to do under a community model in a lot of cases. Pieces of games can work that way, like the framework, game engine, etc. but the final piece (artwork, plot, characters, etc.) seem to have trouble using a community model to hit the right target at the right time...
I'm always surprised at the reactions that keep coming up with electric cars. The point that they are worse to produce for the environment. That they are not as efficient as ICE. That the power for them is worse on the environment. Yeah, and?
As far as I see it, the point is not that and electric car is just better, it's that it makes the infrastructure flexible enough, eventually, to be better for the environment. If you get electric or hydrogen cars or any fuel we can produce ourselves (instead of finding a supply) then you're on your way. The infrastructure is now primed to be able to be adjusted by efficiency, marketing, environmental impact, whatever forces will come up to improve things over time. So, step one gets us to where we can do something, and step one has to happen competitively along side existing established and efficient cars already in place. AND IT CAN BE DONE based on the Tesla. Hence the excitement for many.
For example, I would be perfectly happy if each filling station switched from pumps to generators. Run the generator from the EXACT SAME FUEL they used to sell and charge electric cars. No net benefit to environment you say? yup, for now. but once most of the cars are electric fun stuff can happen. The gas station can supplement with Solar on the roof and save a few pennies or even switch to pulling electricity from the grid and become middle men. The current coal, gas or other environmentally bad grid sources may one day be phased out to something cleaner and, hey, what do you know, all the cars on the road benefit without a single hardware change at all.
the funny part is most people know this, but still everyone challenges the immediate benefit....what's the term for that in debate? scarecrow?
So, for the manufacturing problem (higher cost of producing one big screen with no defects vs a smaller screen ) has any companies looked into screens made of tiles? Seems like that would make life easier...if you have dead pixels, have that tile replaced...kid hits your TV with hi wii-mote, replace some tiles....
or is this an engineering impossibility? I know it would take some tricks to get edges to meet smoothly, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be worth some R&D by some company to come up with a version...
We should NEVER give computers control over their own power switch. I watched the in horror when they switched PC's from a hard switch to a soft power switch that makes you hold it down for 4 sec's to power it off....giving them control over their own power button is just the start of them taking over...
My thought is it's the headtracking/display updating that is the main component. The other depth queues would add to it, but I was wondering are they the main element or just add-ons for VR?
or do I have it backwards: the depth queues provided by 2 separate view points are what make it work, not the view that updates based on head movement?
I've always wondered: does VR not work with just one screen for both eyes? I know there is important depth queues from both eyes, but I've wondered if there's some reason why a cheaper version couldn't be made with just one view point in front of both eyes, or even just cover one eye. Seems to me like it would still be immersive as long as the latency and tracking issues are addressed , like mentioned in the interview...
or would that cause eye strain and/or nausea ?
I've had similar thoughts and the one that caught my attention was actually the Apple Nano. See this link for some nice looking watch bands for the Nano and you have a real programmable watch , as long as you are OK going apple....and there are cheaper versions of the same thing, at least the band itself, not the Nano...
http://lunatik.com/lynk
Slashdot Mirror
As a linux person, any advice on the easiest way to play this? I played half-life in the day, but since then I think the only Valve games I've played are on consoles....I doubt this will be available on my xbox....
Does Source run on Linux? How do you get the source engine? available by itself or does it have to come bundled with some other game?
Looks like a fun game to play, but worried I can't get to it....
I wondered what he is trying to accomplish, end of the day if he left his collection to someone: Is he wanting to be able to transfer the collection from his account to his kids account? Does apple allow that ?
If someone used the export or whatever to get it out of iTunes as DRM free files, can those be added to someone else's collection? what's the difference between an "official" iTunes file and an mp3 or such?
Just curious, I've stayed away from iTunes for the most part myself....
"Thorvalds" ... why do I now have an image of Linus holding a hammer , wearing a cape with a penguin on his shoulder stuck in my head?
You need to prove the fallacy that you claim. Sticking a network interface between the application and the GPU is a performance bottleneck I certainly don't need. Hardware is topping 150Gbytes/sec and no network interface can compete. Using X11 over a remote low bandwidth connection makes my teeth grind, using RDP or VNC over the same is usable. Network support in the graphics stack should exist and it should be optional (not mandatory). X11 protocol support should exist and it should be optional (not mandatory). Wayland is not the end of the world as you know it, it is a less encumbered world.
So, RDP and VNC does not put a network device between the app and GPU? To me, adding those to the end of your comment is proof the network feature can work, not an argument against me. After all, when running X11 local, no network device is involved.
Take a good look at how VNC server support if provided in the X11 server. This is exactly the solution to be provided in the Wayland stack.
So, how does that let someone run Wayland apps remotely? Will there be a pseudo Wayland-VNC desktop that can be exported when no local Wayland desktop is available?
To get the experience you need to make an evaluation you should write an X11 application using Xlib, there is no easy ticket to explaining that is worth my time on you. You can remain being a pundit and your opinions will be weighed as such. But those who write and maintain X servers and other elements of the graphics stack have a different opinion to you.
So, if I understand, you are saying that the network/remote feature (which is what I was talking about) that X11 has adds the complexity of xlib no matter how it's implemented? a different implementation would have the same issues xlib has? X11 has the feature. Wayland does not. my problem is the feature not in Wayland and the reasons for it not being included are always expressed badly. I'm not sure I agree with your claim that any implementation of the network/remote feature would add the complexity of xlib, but I am no expert. Otherwise, you are not understanding what you are replying to. That's either reading my comments incorrectly, myself writing incorrectly or just plain confusion on the direction this is going.
So, will this give games that look like Toy Story?
(Hey, it's been a while since anyone mentioned that, thought I'd bring it back just for old time's sake....although the demo video kinda looks like the jokes not funny anymore...)
"Its not a question of smart enough. A lot of the people implementing Wayland are the people who currently maintain X and have added features to it. It was working with X, and seeing how much harder it was to get X than Aqua or GDI to do something that convinced many of them that X had to go. What's happened is that on balance they've decided the disadvantages of network transparency outweigh the advantages."
This kind of statement is exactly what makes me nervous even antagonistic about Wayland and it's supporters. The developers of a platform decided that is is not worth supporting the feature based on....what? From your statement it sounds like it's based on THEIR preferences, not users of the platform, not on developers that write programs for the platform. Now, if that's not the case, then that's fine...I just don't hear it when Wayland is pushed in comments. I'd love to hear that app developers want to drop the network piece (lots don't like writing for X true, but is that because of the network piece?), but I don't. I'd even love o hear that users don't want it, as long is was more than blind statements or anecdotes because I've heard plenty of anecdotes disagree with that. From the statement you made, it sounds (maybe I'm reading too much in) that yet another platform group is deciding what is best for their users and doing what THEY want to do, not what users want or need...
Thank you. this is the most interesting comment on network transparency I've seen for Wayland. It actually makes me interested instead of bypassing Wayland again.
What I'm interested in is how that would work...is there some examples, pseudo examples or FAQ's that give an idea of what that would look like? With X11 on top of Wayland, specifically how would I run a Wayland App remotely under what you are describing? Is there a Wayland app equivalent of "xterm -display remote.pc:0.0" when I want to run an app off, say, my phone and display it on my pc?
There's no question remote X has issues. Like you say, the networks and computing environment of today give X a lot of challenge. My big push and the original complaint in this thread is that every Wayland comment includes the remark that remote app usage is not important enough to be a base feature. I disagree and get tired of someone saying the feature is useless when I know it's not.
Right now, there are work arounds for the issues X has, but they are still work arounds. What X does needs to be done better and can be. Extra software and better coding of the X apps can go a long way, but there are limits. If someone wanted start from scratch and recreate a window system, I'm not opposed to that. I just disagree with the remote/network feature being called unneeded and unused. Wayland comments always seem to do that, and usually (not always) follow up with statements from people who do not use it and/or do not understand how it works.
I'm not sure I understand "written to support it". That's my comment on X: written for X, it works remotely. What have you run into that didn't work? This is a serious question, since I haven't ran into any native X apps that didn't at least run. Network speed makes many perform bad, but it still works for the things I've tried....even Windows apps via Wine at least used to work, but I haven't tried that trick in a while.
I haven't had the best performance with everything, but they all ran. And I've tried a lot....even xine runs OK remote....Doom3 ran, not playable, but then again, I was not on the same local network when i tried it. Menu's were fine. What have you ran into that does not work?
Optional is the issue. With X remote is available ANYTIME it's needed. Or are you saying there's no way apps will be written directly for Wayland? If that's the case, why have it anyway?
Otherwise you're saying Wayland has a well designed and/or written migration path....but it's still migration AWAY from the feature that I and many others feel is important...
I just realized why I ignore Wayland: every comment in favor of Wayland, somewhere in the comment, will have the same fallacy about the network feature of X being a problem. Myself and lots of others user the remote X feature on a regular basis. I and thousands of IT professional use remote access constantly on other platforms, mainly windows. Using any of the remote technologies available for windows makes me grind my teeth constantly since I was ruined by using X first and know how it should work instead of what I have to use every day. I assume I'm not alone or even just part of a small crowd in that respect..
If there's some good sources for the % of users who don't want it, that's fine. quote 'em and I'm glad to read up on it. But, most times I hear just claimed lack of need for it when I know at least for myself and many others remote X is one of the most valuable features in X. If there was at least SOME info on Wayland that either left off the comments about how bad remote X is or showed some facts to back the claim, I'd pay more attention. Unfortunately I've seen no comment yet for Wayland that does more than say "I don't know of anyone who uses remote X, so most users don't use it"
And, one day Wayland may actually catch on and take over the desktop in Unix. Now matter how good it is, it will be a sad day since a useful piece of functionality is thrown away when it used to be included for for free (free in terms of performance cost, free in terms of setup, free in terms of no effort needed for developers to support it, etc.). Doesn't make it easy to look forward to Wayland right now. This comment was at least less inflammatory than most and the rest of the comment was very informative, but I still would like just once for someone to back the claims against the network feature since I value myself quite a bit and have heard many others say the same.
This is still one of my favorite fortunes when logging in...walked through it the first time to see if it made sense, now I just laugh when I see it...
"Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"
Yes, my sense of humor is that simple...
I've never used it in that orientation except when talking on the phone, and then only when I can't gt my headset out quick enough. I don't like holding any smart phone to my face, so I'll likely use a headset for any phone. For landscape use, you comments make no sense. And the usb charging port has given me no troubles and never come out while plugged in...as far as being thick, feels solid to me, which I like. could be thinner, but OK as is. Camera lens with good cover is great. It's not flat but it doesn't rock on a flat surface either, so who cares...
So, design is great to me, maybe you should try it in landscape more, all the buttons are accessible with one hand for me that way, and make sense.
I'd love an updated version of the n900: thinner, lighter, maybe bigger screen, but just tweaks to the original. A compass would be nice :) The n900 to me is a great piece of hardware. I've yet to see another phone that has all the features of the n900 so far. The n950 is close on features and functionality, I still prefer my n900.
With Nokia abandoning both the hardware (see n950 as the new direction) and software, I was resigned to something less when my n900 gave out. But I still have hope!
Please please please please buy the IP on the n900 hardware...don't let such a good design vanish....
One thing I've always wondered: FOSS games don't have to be community developed at least by the definition, but that seems to be the norm in discussion. Why is that?
seems like any game that was developed under normal time lines/conditions could be FOSS as long as the code came with it....in which case it could be community maintained at that point, but was developed behind closed doors.
Most games (and a lot of software, but not all) have to have a definite goal and have to come out under a specific time-frame to "catch" and become useful and/or popular. That's hard to do under a community model in a lot of cases. Pieces of games can work that way, like the framework, game engine, etc. but the final piece (artwork, plot, characters, etc.) seem to have trouble using a community model to hit the right target at the right time...
I'm always surprised at the reactions that keep coming up with electric cars. The point that they are worse to produce for the environment. That they are not as efficient as ICE. That the power for them is worse on the environment. Yeah, and?
As far as I see it, the point is not that and electric car is just better, it's that it makes the infrastructure flexible enough, eventually, to be better for the environment. If you get electric or hydrogen cars or any fuel we can produce ourselves (instead of finding a supply) then you're on your way. The infrastructure is now primed to be able to be adjusted by efficiency, marketing, environmental impact, whatever forces will come up to improve things over time. So, step one gets us to where we can do something, and step one has to happen competitively along side existing established and efficient cars already in place. AND IT CAN BE DONE based on the Tesla. Hence the excitement for many.
For example, I would be perfectly happy if each filling station switched from pumps to generators. Run the generator from the EXACT SAME FUEL they used to sell and charge electric cars. No net benefit to environment you say? yup, for now. but once most of the cars are electric fun stuff can happen. The gas station can supplement with Solar on the roof and save a few pennies or even switch to pulling electricity from the grid and become middle men. The current coal, gas or other environmentally bad grid sources may one day be phased out to something cleaner and, hey, what do you know, all the cars on the road benefit without a single hardware change at all.
the funny part is most people know this, but still everyone challenges the immediate benefit....what's the term for that in debate? scarecrow?
X / desktop isn't the only thing that makes sounds....
So, for the manufacturing problem (higher cost of producing one big screen with no defects vs a smaller screen ) has any companies looked into screens made of tiles? Seems like that would make life easier...if you have dead pixels, have that tile replaced...kid hits your TV with hi wii-mote, replace some tiles....
or is this an engineering impossibility? I know it would take some tricks to get edges to meet smoothly, but I am wondering if it wouldn't be worth some R&D by some company to come up with a version...
We should NEVER give computers control over their own power switch. I watched the in horror when they switched PC's from a hard switch to a soft power switch that makes you hold it down for 4 sec's to power it off....giving them control over their own power button is just the start of them taking over...
My thought is it's the headtracking/display updating that is the main component. The other depth queues would add to it, but I was wondering are they the main element or just add-ons for VR?
or do I have it backwards: the depth queues provided by 2 separate view points are what make it work, not the view that updates based on head movement?
This happens with 2 screens, right? just twice as much to get right....
So, are 2 screens needed for anything else?
I've always wondered: does VR not work with just one screen for both eyes? I know there is important depth queues from both eyes, but I've wondered if there's some reason why a cheaper version couldn't be made with just one view point in front of both eyes, or even just cover one eye. Seems to me like it would still be immersive as long as the latency and tracking issues are addressed , like mentioned in the interview...
or would that cause eye strain and/or nausea ?
I've had similar thoughts and the one that caught my attention was actually the Apple Nano. See this link for some nice looking watch bands for the Nano and you have a real programmable watch , as long as you are OK going apple....and there are cheaper versions of the same thing, at least the band itself, not the Nano... http://lunatik.com/lynk