This is a pretty cool project, and its coming along nicely. I really want to see it succeed, because that would allow me to spread my skills to a wider array of customers. Unfortunately, in its current state, MONO is only a partial implementation of.NET 1. And honestly:.NET 1 was garbage, and the vast majority of software that had the unfortunate badluck of being developped under it have been upgraded to the excellent.NET 2 by now (it is rare that apps get updated that quickly, for example between different java version.).
And now with.NET 3 out (which is only an extension of.NET 2, not an actual new version of the framework...dumbass marketing idiots at microsoft),.NET 2 is even more important.
there is going to be some changes in Novell, and I know that people are going to think that that would then mean that they are in Microsoft's pocket
Yeah. Once upon a time people said the same about Macs though, in the pre-OSX days... It took a while, but look at what Apple did after that. I'm not a Mac user myself, but from the little I know, it looks like they did pretty well. Maybe thats what will happen here too.
Actualy, I remember Microsoft stating that they were going toward a path of less is better with their server not long after they released Win2003. My guess is that the UI probably will be turned off by default, even.
Please note I do not know the details of the -implementation- of Aero, so the following is just the theory behind the concept:
The idea is, by making the UI hardware accelerated, you shift the burden of the UI from the cpu to the video card, which would be almost idle at that time, thus getting -better- performance overall (since GPUs are more efficient, and, again, was idle). Now, if you're hitting the GPU anyway, you have a lot of spare cycles, so might as well add eye candy, its "free" so to speak, since its just eating up idle time.
Then, the reason for a Direct X 9 requirement (thus forcing newer cards), is purely to be able to use the newer and more powerful APIs. As shown often in Macs vs Windows debates, keeping legacy around is often an issue. Now, if the decision of Microsoft to flush legacy in this scenario is right or wrong, is beyond the scope of my post.
Now, maybe Microsoft coded their UI in a way that went beyond just the idea of tapping into the idle GPU, and thats a stupid decision. The original idea though (as seen on both Macs and Linux), is a good one.
Most Microsoft EULA's don't allow benchmarking, but unless you have a lot of visibility, they rarely call anyone up on it. You can see SQL Server benchmarks everywhere, yet these are what Microsoft is the most anal about.
Your statement is obviously colored by your love for the title, which is understandable, but it would do well to recognize that the original Earthbound itself was a commercial flop in the US
Makes sense. Maybe things were different there, or my situation was anecdotal, which is very possible. When i bought the game back then, I personaly found it so so (mostly because it had a lot of text, and I did not speak english at the time), but tried to get it anyway. The pre-order list for all stores in my area was extreme (not because there was few units shipping, just because the waiting lists had a disgusting amount of people on them), coupled with the fact that all videogame magasines I have from the time (didn't have internet then) showed it as a big hit in all rankings.
I am not saying I am right by any mean, as you and a few others have pointed out the same thing to me, so I understand I am probably wrong by now. However, that is where I got the idea that it had been a hit. Not in the line of Chrono Trigger, mind you, but still a hit.
Yeah, that is a good point. In the software sector, no matter what, complex software, sooner or later get cracked in a way or another. So in itself, being "less popular" is, so to speak, the best form of protection, as silly as it sounds. The world will really benifit when one day the OS sector is 50/50, or 33/33/33 or something... it will mitigate damage a bit, when damage ends up happening.
You have many more additional costs besides just paying the translators:
1. QA time to test new localised builds.
2. Marketing costs to sell new product. Both print costs, additional costs associated with art changes for your new market, and the payroll costs of your marketing department.
3. Sales people have to actually go out there and sell it when they could be selling something else.
4. The cost of the physical product. (This is usually non-trivial.)
5. That you're spending money that you could have spent on another product that you think would be more successful (ie, opportunity costs.)
6. Customer service/tech support additional hours.
7. Cash payouts to get better reviews (well, okay, maybe not this one... ^_^ )
Indeed. 1) I accounted for in my post. Of course, Capcom never heard of it (ugh...). 3) is a decent point. The rest all falls in "throwing more money at it". When you're talking about a game like Earthbound or a Secret of Mana sequel, its a certainty that it will be a hit. And definately moreso than some other games SquareEnix or Nintendo localised. Thus the point: Except for marketing, it is literally just a matter of making phone calls to the guys on their outsourcing lists, making a deal, and selling it off. The cost -> return ratio is probably a heck of a lot higher than making a new, inferior and less popular (thats the important bit here) game and selling it only on one market. No matter how you look at it, localising a game is easier than making one from scratch (assuming you're not pulling off a Metroid Prime: Echos and reusing everything).
Thats why I don't get it (unless they plan on sticking it on Virtual Console). These 2 games have an extremely high demand. So does others like KH2:Final Mix. I'm not talking about localising Hello Kitty Island Adventure here. I'm talking about a Earthbound or Secret of Mana sequels. No matter the costs of localisation, the return would be substantial... Obviously they DO have a reason, but sometimes I'm wondering if they're good (I mean, look at Sony. Companies make stupid marketing mistakes all the time).
I mean... localisation is basicaly a "throw more money at it" type job. It doesn't take an incredible amoun of internal ressources: you just need a few internal people to make sure the job is correct, but it is a job that DEFINATELY can be outsourced, and is often better off that way. Outsourced here not meaning china/india/whatever, but meaning external companies.
When a game is as popular as Earthbound, or SD3 (the sequel of Secret of Mana, I just can't spell the name), I don't quite understand why game companies resist localisation so much
Its literally a matter of spend X amount of money, and return a nearly garenteed profit.
So why the bloody hell not?
I hope the Virtual console brings some never before seen in north america games, because we missed out on a lot, and playing hacked up ROMs, even if it was legal, often doesn't cut it. Dejap does good stuff, but there's just so much they can do.
Don't get me wrong, I met my fiancee over the net, and she lived in another country, and I went ahead, took a plane, got to meet her, and we've been together for several years now and all is good. But a web site where people expressively do this, is kind of like if I posted online that I was going to be all alone in a dark corner of downtown at midnight next wednesday. Out of the -millions- of people that will see it (if the web site is mainstream enough), at least ONE is bound to be a wacko, which is my point...
if you meet someone online, chat with them for a year, trade pictures, videos, talk on the phone, etc, then decide to go on a trip and stay at their place, THEN the risk is minimal. If you -advertise- that you want to stay at someone else's place, kiss your virginity good bye =P
For guys as well as women. If you're traveling, especialy to another country, it means you at least had the money to pay for a plane ticket. Bad start. Don't expect your wallet back, IMO. Last I checked, in the last decade(decades?), just taking a ride in a stranger's car (and vice versa) was pretty much out of the question if you valued your ass. Guys will get robbed, women will get abused THEN robbed sooner than you can say "its a bad idea".
You can barely go out beyond midnight outdoor without it being risky in shady districts... now you want to go the extra mile and be straight in the wacko's apartment, saving him the trouble of getting you there? Haha, riiiiiiight...
Correct. I wasn't talking about Open source, I meant open source. Basicaly, even though its not an "Open Source approved license", your customer has the source, and they can do what the hell they want with it.
So from a business point of view, it has very similar drawbacks: unless you restricted things in the contract, your client can turn around, tell you to f*** off, and hire someone else to work with the code, resell it, whatever. So the business model will have to account for similar potential issues.
The big issue with GPL in certain business situations, is not that the user can do anything with the code. Thats not a problem. The big issue is that others can resell it. So you sell it to one person, then that person, technicaly, can steal all your customers.
So you really need to have a business model that doesn't revolve around the software sales, but around the services, otherwise you're pretty screwed.
Thats literally just it. How do you make money from a web site? I mean, the client has all the source, and can do whatever with them, no? (well, copyrights and all, but its still open source, and you sold it to them, so...). Its a bit like that.
Best case is probably an ERP system. Often with those, especialy for smaller companies, there isn't a very easy way to install them or configure them (which is where small ERP ISVs get their money). So even if its open source, who cares, they don't do anything with it. But the benifit is still there (if you go under, your customer isn't screwed).
Its pretty much the best of both worlds. Any business based mostly on services can do fine with open source. When the software -itself- is the product, you start having issues.
While the legimacy of post-purchase agreements like EULAs is debatable, things like educational licenses or OEMs are pre-purchase agreements, so to speak. You can know the terms before you pay, the agreement is not inside the box only. So that falls pretty flat.
Yes, but there has always been third party implementations, such as the IBM and the BEA (I think?) ones. Sun's implementation is only one among many. And the third party ones were free too.
I thought the GPL only counted linking, like how C programs link to librairies when they compile... Bytecode however isn't linked, is it? I mean, I can compile a java program under one JVM, run it under another... its a bit like running an MP3 under a GPL Mp3 player, and compiling to bytecode is a bit like encoding an MP3...I don't think it counts in this case.
I will admit I am no expert in how this stuff work, however.
Funny, but to some extent, makes sense. Imagine if it was open sourced under a license that doesn't force you to redistribute the source of he derived products. Microsoft would take half the code within 5 minutes, have its own implementation, etc.
actualy, proportionaly speaking, the Vista hardware requirement closely match that of all previous versions of Windows and then some, as ironic as it is. Win XP on a P3 800? When WinXP came out, that was high end, buddy. I installed WinXP on a 333 mhz celeron, and that was rough. 500 mhz and you were okay-ish. 800 was flying. The fancy version of Vista actualy works fine on computers that are several years old (I got my computer about 3 years ago, and it runs circles around the requirements), and the low end (without aero, etc), can run on dinosaurs. I don't think you realise just how old a celeron 1 ghz is =P
From my experience, a lot of biotech companies that do R&D about AIDS tend to to Hepatitis C at the same time. The research process is very very similar, and in both cases, is a lot of trial and error. So they try a molecule or another one one, then try it on the other if it didn't work, etc.
At least, I've worked for a few biotech companies that specialised in either HIV or Hepatitis C, and all of them at -least- worked on the side on the other in parallele, reusing all compounds, methodologies, and documentation/research. I don't know if it was an isolated experience, but it really seems like it was the more efficient way to go.
Indeed. The date system is all made to periodicaly fix itself to compensate for little details, like the fact that there isn't an integer amount of time the earth spin on itself in the time it takes it to spin around the sun, and a bazillion other details. Its just not worth it.
Make 10 freaking month, 3 weeks of 10 days (or something), and thats one year. 1 day has 10 hours of 100 minutes each with 100 seconds. Use round numbers. So for now winter will be on month 5, in a few years winter will be on month 9. Who cares. We already have to use calendars or take out our calculators to figure out certain holidays, daylight saving time's day is different each year... there isn't any consistancy to begin with. Lets just make things simpler and be done with it.
The only thing that would get tricky is store open hours and the start and end of a work day, since it kind of has to match with the sun, and thats arbitrary (compared to a fixed system, that is). Anyone has a suggestion on that one?
I thought Bill was (at least partly) out of the picture now:) But yeah, this is totally retarded. I really wonder who the guy who thought that up was thinking when he woke up...
Slashdot Mirror
This is a pretty cool project, and its coming along nicely. I really want to see it succeed, because that would allow me to spread my skills to a wider array of customers. Unfortunately, in its current state, MONO is only a partial implementation of .NET 1. And honestly: .NET 1 was garbage, and the vast majority of software that had the unfortunate badluck of being developped under it have been upgraded to the excellent .NET 2 by now (it is rare that apps get updated that quickly, for example between different java version.).
.NET 3 out (which is only an extension of .NET 2, not an actual new version of the framework...dumbass marketing idiots at microsoft), .NET 2 is even more important.
And now with
Actualy, I remember Microsoft stating that they were going toward a path of less is better with their server not long after they released Win2003. My guess is that the UI probably will be turned off by default, even.
Please note I do not know the details of the -implementation- of Aero, so the following is just the theory behind the concept:
The idea is, by making the UI hardware accelerated, you shift the burden of the UI from the cpu to the video card, which would be almost idle at that time, thus getting -better- performance overall (since GPUs are more efficient, and, again, was idle). Now, if you're hitting the GPU anyway, you have a lot of spare cycles, so might as well add eye candy, its "free" so to speak, since its just eating up idle time.
Then, the reason for a Direct X 9 requirement (thus forcing newer cards), is purely to be able to use the newer and more powerful APIs. As shown often in Macs vs Windows debates, keeping legacy around is often an issue. Now, if the decision of Microsoft to flush legacy in this scenario is right or wrong, is beyond the scope of my post.
Now, maybe Microsoft coded their UI in a way that went beyond just the idea of tapping into the idle GPU, and thats a stupid decision. The original idea though (as seen on both Macs and Linux), is a good one.
Most Microsoft EULA's don't allow benchmarking, but unless you have a lot of visibility, they rarely call anyone up on it. You can see SQL Server benchmarks everywhere, yet these are what Microsoft is the most anal about.
I am not saying I am right by any mean, as you and a few others have pointed out the same thing to me, so I understand I am probably wrong by now. However, that is where I got the idea that it had been a hit. Not in the line of Chrono Trigger, mind you, but still a hit.
Yeah, that is a good point. In the software sector, no matter what, complex software, sooner or later get cracked in a way or another. So in itself, being "less popular" is, so to speak, the best form of protection, as silly as it sounds. The world will really benifit when one day the OS sector is 50/50, or 33/33/33 or something... it will mitigate damage a bit, when damage ends up happening.
Thats why I don't get it (unless they plan on sticking it on Virtual Console). These 2 games have an extremely high demand. So does others like KH2:Final Mix. I'm not talking about localising Hello Kitty Island Adventure here. I'm talking about a Earthbound or Secret of Mana sequels. No matter the costs of localisation, the return would be substantial... Obviously they DO have a reason, but sometimes I'm wondering if they're good (I mean, look at Sony. Companies make stupid marketing mistakes all the time).
I mean... localisation is basicaly a "throw more money at it" type job. It doesn't take an incredible amoun of internal ressources: you just need a few internal people to make sure the job is correct, but it is a job that DEFINATELY can be outsourced, and is often better off that way. Outsourced here not meaning china/india/whatever, but meaning external companies.
When a game is as popular as Earthbound, or SD3 (the sequel of Secret of Mana, I just can't spell the name), I don't quite understand why game companies resist localisation so much
Its literally a matter of spend X amount of money, and return a nearly garenteed profit.
So why the bloody hell not?
I hope the Virtual console brings some never before seen in north america games, because we missed out on a lot, and playing hacked up ROMs, even if it was legal, often doesn't cut it. Dejap does good stuff, but there's just so much they can do.
Don't get me wrong, I met my fiancee over the net, and she lived in another country, and I went ahead, took a plane, got to meet her, and we've been together for several years now and all is good. But a web site where people expressively do this, is kind of like if I posted online that I was going to be all alone in a dark corner of downtown at midnight next wednesday. Out of the -millions- of people that will see it (if the web site is mainstream enough), at least ONE is bound to be a wacko, which is my point...
if you meet someone online, chat with them for a year, trade pictures, videos, talk on the phone, etc, then decide to go on a trip and stay at their place, THEN the risk is minimal. If you -advertise- that you want to stay at someone else's place, kiss your virginity good bye =P
For guys as well as women. If you're traveling, especialy to another country, it means you at least had the money to pay for a plane ticket. Bad start. Don't expect your wallet back, IMO. Last I checked, in the last decade(decades?), just taking a ride in a stranger's car (and vice versa) was pretty much out of the question if you valued your ass. Guys will get robbed, women will get abused THEN robbed sooner than you can say "its a bad idea".
You can barely go out beyond midnight outdoor without it being risky in shady districts... now you want to go the extra mile and be straight in the wacko's apartment, saving him the trouble of getting you there? Haha, riiiiiiight...
Correct. I wasn't talking about Open source, I meant open source. Basicaly, even though its not an "Open Source approved license", your customer has the source, and they can do what the hell they want with it.
So from a business point of view, it has very similar drawbacks: unless you restricted things in the contract, your client can turn around, tell you to f*** off, and hire someone else to work with the code, resell it, whatever. So the business model will have to account for similar potential issues.
Thats what I meant.
The big issue with GPL in certain business situations, is not that the user can do anything with the code. Thats not a problem. The big issue is that others can resell it. So you sell it to one person, then that person, technicaly, can steal all your customers.
So you really need to have a business model that doesn't revolve around the software sales, but around the services, otherwise you're pretty screwed.
Thats literally just it. How do you make money from a web site? I mean, the client has all the source, and can do whatever with them, no? (well, copyrights and all, but its still open source, and you sold it to them, so...). Its a bit like that.
Best case is probably an ERP system. Often with those, especialy for smaller companies, there isn't a very easy way to install them or configure them (which is where small ERP ISVs get their money). So even if its open source, who cares, they don't do anything with it. But the benifit is still there (if you go under, your customer isn't screwed).
Its pretty much the best of both worlds. Any business based mostly on services can do fine with open source. When the software -itself- is the product, you start having issues.
While the legimacy of post-purchase agreements like EULAs is debatable, things like educational licenses or OEMs are pre-purchase agreements, so to speak. You can know the terms before you pay, the agreement is not inside the box only. So that falls pretty flat.
Yes, but there has always been third party implementations, such as the IBM and the BEA (I think?) ones. Sun's implementation is only one among many. And the third party ones were free too.
Make sense. Then, however: is there anything that stops developers from compiling using a proprietary SDK, then users from running using a GPLed JVM?
I thought the GPL only counted linking, like how C programs link to librairies when they compile... Bytecode however isn't linked, is it? I mean, I can compile a java program under one JVM, run it under another... its a bit like running an MP3 under a GPL Mp3 player, and compiling to bytecode is a bit like encoding an MP3...I don't think it counts in this case. I will admit I am no expert in how this stuff work, however.
Funny, but to some extent, makes sense. Imagine if it was open sourced under a license that doesn't force you to redistribute the source of he derived products. Microsoft would take half the code within 5 minutes, have its own implementation, etc.
Its probably gonna be dual licensed, QT style, IMO
actualy, proportionaly speaking, the Vista hardware requirement closely match that of all previous versions of Windows and then some, as ironic as it is. Win XP on a P3 800? When WinXP came out, that was high end, buddy. I installed WinXP on a 333 mhz celeron, and that was rough. 500 mhz and you were okay-ish. 800 was flying. The fancy version of Vista actualy works fine on computers that are several years old (I got my computer about 3 years ago, and it runs circles around the requirements), and the low end (without aero, etc), can run on dinosaurs. I don't think you realise just how old a celeron 1 ghz is =P
From my experience, a lot of biotech companies that do R&D about AIDS tend to to Hepatitis C at the same time. The research process is very very similar, and in both cases, is a lot of trial and error. So they try a molecule or another one one, then try it on the other if it didn't work, etc.
At least, I've worked for a few biotech companies that specialised in either HIV or Hepatitis C, and all of them at -least- worked on the side on the other in parallele, reusing all compounds, methodologies, and documentation/research. I don't know if it was an isolated experience, but it really seems like it was the more efficient way to go.
Indeed. The date system is all made to periodicaly fix itself to compensate for little details, like the fact that there isn't an integer amount of time the earth spin on itself in the time it takes it to spin around the sun, and a bazillion other details. Its just not worth it. Make 10 freaking month, 3 weeks of 10 days (or something), and thats one year. 1 day has 10 hours of 100 minutes each with 100 seconds. Use round numbers. So for now winter will be on month 5, in a few years winter will be on month 9. Who cares. We already have to use calendars or take out our calculators to figure out certain holidays, daylight saving time's day is different each year... there isn't any consistancy to begin with. Lets just make things simpler and be done with it. The only thing that would get tricky is store open hours and the start and end of a work day, since it kind of has to match with the sun, and thats arbitrary (compared to a fixed system, that is). Anyone has a suggestion on that one?
I thought Bill was (at least partly) out of the picture now :) But yeah, this is totally retarded. I really wonder who the guy who thought that up was thinking when he woke up...