Judging from Microsoft's past track record, it defines success as completely destroying its competitors.
When Microsoft is competing against other closed-source companies, it's largely playing a zero-sum game. Against open-source software vendors, it's not necessarily a zero-sum game, because open source software can fit into a lot of niches and market areas Microsoft simply has no interest in.
From a Linux advocates point of view (if you can nail that down), they should both be able to succeed.
From Microsoft's point of view, to succeed, Linux must fail.
Not really. There are a lot of Linux products that aren't on Microsoft's radar. Microsoft isn't interested in crushing all the people distributing clever Linux-based rescue disks, for example. They would obviously like to beat Red Hat and Novell, though, because they are competitors.
Let's forget once and for all about binary compatibility. Bury it. Because it does not really benefit most people.
Except for this one rather important group, known as "commercial software developers and their hundreds of millions of customers". A trivial group for the open-source developer, I'm sure.
Binary compatibility was never more than a nasty hack, fudged in for the benefit of those who want to lock up the source code of their software. These people are pure evil.
A bit sheltered, are we?
There's even a good argument to be made in favour of deliberately introducing binary incompatibility. If programs compiled on my computer would only ever be able to run on my computer, and any program compiled on anyone else's computer would never be able to run on mine, then there would be no such thing as viruses or buffer overrun vulnerabilities.
That's a great idea. Think of the DRM possibilities!
Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!
Awhile back I hypothesized a similar solution to the problem of peace in the middle east, and specifically the fighting over contested areas such as Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The Army Corps of Engineers [wikipedia.org] is working on better flood detection and protection [army.mil], and anyone with expertise in this area could contact them [army.mil] and lend a hand.
Yeah, that's a great idea. They don't have anything better to do right now, just give them a call!
LGP has shipped HOW many games to date with those tools and Loki Games before them
Uh, no. Make the content for a game with just blender and its open source friends. I dare you.
The stuff Loki sold was made with real commercial tools. It might have been ported to Linux using free stuff.
they use OpenAL for all platforms for sound support (which is one of those tools you're pooh-poohing...
Actually, OpenAL is great. Coincidentally, it's a library, not a content creation tool. The programmer is a lot better off in the "OMG WE CAN'T PAY FOR ANY TOOLS" situation than the artist is. Which is great except, well, you need artists to make any sort of meaningful game.
You, sir, sound like a talker- if so, move aside so that the doers can get their doing done.
The pretentiousness meter just pegged. And then exploded.
I don't see where whether or not some authority figure knows or doesn't know something more or less should have any bearing on the behavior of children.
What you are completely missing is, there is no "should" about it. I was describing adolescent behavior. God knows I don't like it.
Does it then mean that strangers should therefore not be respected as a matter of courtesy?
Strangers who reveal themselves to be fools tend to be disrespected by the people they meet rather quickly. Such is life. I am not saying it should be that way.
Or even it is clear that teacher-A doesn't know what he's talking about, should it open the door for disobediance and disregard for the rules... and in this case, even the law? I hold that doesn't.
There's no "should" about it. It inevitably will cause disrespect, and ultimately disobediance, in a classroom.
What you are suggesting might be akin to a kid whole knows a lot about cars screwing with the bus driver who only knows how to drive kids to school. That would certainly be inappropriate.
No, that's a poor analogy. The bus driver isn't trying to teach the kid anything. The kid might fuck with the driver anyway, though, because kids tend to be bastards. Again, it's not about "should" and hopefully it's obvious I'm not advocating that behavior.
We don't use a publically granted facility or utility in ways that are clearly and obviously inappropriate... again, anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on the criteria allowed by law.
I suspect you view the mere fact of breaking the law as the most important thing in this case. Idiocy.
Whether or not teachers or the entire educational system might be considered "utter silliness" is irrelevant in this case; completely irrelevant.
What a bizarre statement. You expect children to respect the tools and implementors of a ridiculous system? They aren't all as broken as you, you know.
Respect, in general, should be restored as a key value in our culture and at the core of respect is fear of what might happen if you don't.
Sure, in the mafia.
The problem is, when teachers (or any adult) take such ridiculous attitudes, kids see it for the silliness it is. If one wants to earn respect in an environment which is ostensibly dedicated to learning, knowing stuff is the key to earning that respect, and an authority figure's not knowing stuff will only undermine it.
One of the side effects of giving computers to kids is that they'll often know much more about the machines than their teachers do, and when that becomes painfully obvious it only undermines respect. If a person looks at the situation honestly they'll see that trying to inspire fear in that circumstance is only going to have a comedic effect: ignorant authority figures are even funnier than ordinary ignorant people. Expect kids to have some fun at their masters' expense in these circumstances.
The Us was far more 'Christian' during the 40s 50's and 60's, the time of it's greatest advances.
If you are talking about demographics, that is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely. People went to church more, but there probably weren't that many more Christians, proportionally. Also, keep in mind that our biggest immigrant group is traditionally rather Christian.
If you are talking about policy, more specifically about politicians doing small, meaningless things that make people feel like they're showing some piety ("One Nation Under God", calling stuff "faith-based", etc.) while slowly eroding the separation of church and state, it very much has certainly been on the increase in the post-WWII period. It was one of the many cultural reactions to our opponent's postwar communism, and now it's just a cheap way to score political points. We are more "Christian" in those superficial ways.
Whether people are actually behaving in any more Christian a manner, in any truly important way... bleh, depressing topic. We've got the most overtly "Christian" president we've had in a long time. He likes the death penalty, greed and war a lot, though he talks about a "culture of life" and babbles a lot about "morals" and being a Christian. If he's representative of our society at all, we're a bunch of dumb hypocrites.
Much of the present climate is very much anti-science. In recent times I've been almost ridiculed for "believing" in DNA. One woman sneered and called me an "academic".
One thing to keep in mind, not all regligious (or faith-based, if you're following the current lingo) people are happy about the republican party's attempt to co-opt them. Maybe that's not the right word but I think you might see what I mean. I know plenty of very liberal Catholics, and plenty who are dedicated to science.
CD skipping is one I use it for a lot as well. However, for deep scratches, nothing works better then some metal polish.
Actually, plastic polish should work better. You can get it in mild to aggressive formulations. You won't have to worry about corrosiveness or other weirdnesses you might have with something like metal polish.
They DO make games with the above stuff and people have bought them- even in recent times
Who? I doubt anyone has ever succeeded in getting very far developing a game with the tools you've listed. Maybe there is some sad sourceforge crap but name one game built with that list of stuff that people have bought. I don't know why you listed q3 either, since it just went GPL _last week._
And of course, the other question is why? If your time is worth even some small fraction of the minimum wage, basing your development habits solely on never paying for anything is pretty stupid. OMG I CAN'T BUY ANYTHING BY MICROSOFT I WILL SPEND FIVE DAYS TRYING TO BUILD MY GAME WITH MINGW.
Yeah. I think if one were to compare the community at someplace like quakesrc.org (which I've been looking at a bit in the past few days) to the community at Garage Games, the $100 would look like money REALLY well spent. A beginner is going to need help and support, as well as an SDK.
Unless you use GNU and other quality free tools instead of the traditional overpriced Windows developer toolchain (some Rational products, a high-end Visual Studio package from MS, maybe a commercial debugger, maybe something like Visual Slickedit...) Then your cost of development tools is $0
The free tools are available on Windows as well. I was thinking more about the hardware. If you can buy a computer, a hundred bucks for some random software product isn't going to put you in the poorhouse. (software pirate rationalizations throughout the history of personal computing notwithstanding)
If you want to write $10 games that nobody buys, Torque is just fine.
You might have noted that we were talking about "entering" the game development market, not "creating a successful AAA title". You aren't impressing anyone by pointing out it's a slightly different proposition.
I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of the indie stuff that's being done lately. Most of the games you'll see at gametunnel or something are at least original, unlike GTA: Part XVII. And as for paying the mortgage or dental bills, just about any kind of development is better for that than making games, never mind whether you're indie or slaving away at EA or some shit. If that's your primary concern 9 to 5 at a bank makes a lot more sense.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could easily tweak what annoys me about the game, since it's all about the speed of various things. Damage of various weapons would then need to be tweaked too. Oh yeah, since it's a multiplayer game, I'd then have to get everyone else to adopt my changes.:(
They really ought to have just emulated the feel of q3 more. That game pretty much nailed it as far as multiplayer action feel went.
Naturally there are hacks here and there, and a few very weird design things...and the C versions of what would in C++ be inheritance and aggregation are hilarious.
Slashdot Mirror
When Microsoft is competing against other closed-source companies, it's largely playing a zero-sum game. Against open-source software vendors, it's not necessarily a zero-sum game, because open source software can fit into a lot of niches and market areas Microsoft simply has no interest in.
Not really. There are a lot of Linux products that aren't on Microsoft's radar. Microsoft isn't interested in crushing all the people distributing clever Linux-based rescue disks, for example. They would obviously like to beat Red Hat and Novell, though, because they are competitors.
You're talking about Windows from 15 years ago. Interesting.
Oddly enough, Windows actually got better. Linux zealots have some trouble understanding this.
The University of Illinois isn't really a "commercial company." Maybe you meant CERN? Not a commercial company. You must have meant Netscape...
Who was Netscape trying to "kill"?
I, for one, think we all ought to use Red Hat. Or CentOS if you are poor.
Except for this one rather important group, known as "commercial software developers and their hundreds of millions of customers". A trivial group for the open-source developer, I'm sure.
A bit sheltered, are we?
That's a great idea. Think of the DRM possibilities!
You hopefully realize that what you have said has nothing to do with the question of whether they did an ethical thing.
The "Bush didn't create this problem, he just failed to address it!" rationale is getting a little tired.
Actually, it's fucking exhausted.
Awhile back I hypothesized a similar solution to the problem of peace in the middle east, and specifically the fighting over contested areas such as Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Except my solution involved pork rinds.
Yeah, that's a great idea. They don't have anything better to do right now, just give them a call!
Uh, no. Make the content for a game with just blender and its open source friends. I dare you.
The stuff Loki sold was made with real commercial tools. It might have been ported to Linux using free stuff.
Actually, OpenAL is great. Coincidentally, it's a library, not a content creation tool. The programmer is a lot better off in the "OMG WE CAN'T PAY FOR ANY TOOLS" situation than the artist is. Which is great except, well, you need artists to make any sort of meaningful game.
The pretentiousness meter just pegged. And then exploded.
What you are completely missing is, there is no "should" about it. I was describing adolescent behavior. God knows I don't like it.
Strangers who reveal themselves to be fools tend to be disrespected by the people they meet rather quickly. Such is life. I am not saying it should be that way.
There's no "should" about it. It inevitably will cause disrespect, and ultimately disobediance, in a classroom.
No, that's a poor analogy. The bus driver isn't trying to teach the kid anything. The kid might fuck with the driver anyway, though, because kids tend to be bastards. Again, it's not about "should" and hopefully it's obvious I'm not advocating that behavior.
I suspect you view the mere fact of breaking the law as the most important thing in this case. Idiocy.
What a bizarre statement. You expect children to respect the tools and implementors of a ridiculous system? They aren't all as broken as you, you know.
Sure, in the mafia.
The problem is, when teachers (or any adult) take such ridiculous attitudes, kids see it for the silliness it is. If one wants to earn respect in an environment which is ostensibly dedicated to learning, knowing stuff is the key to earning that respect, and an authority figure's not knowing stuff will only undermine it.
One of the side effects of giving computers to kids is that they'll often know much more about the machines than their teachers do, and when that becomes painfully obvious it only undermines respect. If a person looks at the situation honestly they'll see that trying to inspire fear in that circumstance is only going to have a comedic effect: ignorant authority figures are even funnier than ordinary ignorant people. Expect kids to have some fun at their masters' expense in these circumstances.
If you are talking about demographics, that is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely. People went to church more, but there probably weren't that many more Christians, proportionally. Also, keep in mind that our biggest immigrant group is traditionally rather Christian.
If you are talking about policy, more specifically about politicians doing small, meaningless things that make people feel like they're showing some piety ("One Nation Under God", calling stuff "faith-based", etc.) while slowly eroding the separation of church and state, it very much has certainly been on the increase in the post-WWII period. It was one of the many cultural reactions to our opponent's postwar communism, and now it's just a cheap way to score political points. We are more "Christian" in those superficial ways.
Whether people are actually behaving in any more Christian a manner, in any truly important way... bleh, depressing topic. We've got the most overtly "Christian" president we've had in a long time. He likes the death penalty, greed and war a lot, though he talks about a "culture of life" and babbles a lot about "morals" and being a Christian. If he's representative of our society at all, we're a bunch of dumb hypocrites.
One thing to keep in mind, not all regligious (or faith-based, if you're following the current lingo) people are happy about the republican party's attempt to co-opt them. Maybe that's not the right word but I think you might see what I mean. I know plenty of very liberal Catholics, and plenty who are dedicated to science.
Actually, plastic polish should work better. You can get it in mild to aggressive formulations. You won't have to worry about corrosiveness or other weirdnesses you might have with something like metal polish.
http://www.noscratch.com/novus/use5.shtml
And yes, nothing will save you if the top of the CD is hosed.
HOT!
Who? I doubt anyone has ever succeeded in getting very far developing a game with the tools you've listed. Maybe there is some sad sourceforge crap but name one game built with that list of stuff that people have bought. I don't know why you listed q3 either, since it just went GPL _last week._
And of course, the other question is why? If your time is worth even some small fraction of the minimum wage, basing your development habits solely on never paying for anything is pretty stupid. OMG I CAN'T BUY ANYTHING BY MICROSOFT I WILL SPEND FIVE DAYS TRYING TO BUILD MY GAME WITH MINGW.
Didn't Apple get an Oscar for Firewire? It could happen!
Yeah. I think if one were to compare the community at someplace like quakesrc.org (which I've been looking at a bit in the past few days) to the community at Garage Games, the $100 would look like money REALLY well spent. A beginner is going to need help and support, as well as an SDK.
The free tools are available on Windows as well. I was thinking more about the hardware. If you can buy a computer, a hundred bucks for some random software product isn't going to put you in the poorhouse. (software pirate rationalizations throughout the history of personal computing notwithstanding)
You might have noted that we were talking about "entering" the game development market, not "creating a successful AAA title". You aren't impressing anyone by pointing out it's a slightly different proposition.
I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of the indie stuff that's being done lately. Most of the games you'll see at gametunnel or something are at least original, unlike GTA: Part XVII. And as for paying the mortgage or dental bills, just about any kind of development is better for that than making games, never mind whether you're indie or slaving away at EA or some shit. If that's your primary concern 9 to 5 at a bank makes a lot more sense.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could easily tweak what annoys me about the game, since it's all about the speed of various things. Damage of various weapons would then need to be tweaked too. Oh yeah, since it's a multiplayer game, I'd then have to get everyone else to adopt my changes. :(
They really ought to have just emulated the feel of q3 more. That game pretty much nailed it as far as multiplayer action feel went.
Too bad the gameplay sucks so hard. I really wanted to like Nexuiz. Oh well.
"Battle proven," yes. Distinct because of this, no.
Any examples? Sounds sort of like BS.