Believe what you want, but *you're* the one who got all high and mighty with the "I *am* educated about widescreen" introduction to your statement.
As to explaining the problem, I had already done that several times in this whole thread as did numerous others. Perhaps you should have read the responses instead of flying off the cuff like you did.
I haven't looked at the whole ist, obviously, but those that I looked are open-matte. I know because I've been keeping track of this (hence to web site) for almost 10 years now.:)
For a more practical use for you, you can find out the filming method at imdb.com. Click the "Technical specs" like for that particular movie and it will tell you how it's filmed.
If it's filmed using "35mm spherical" but in widescreen, I can just about guarantee that it was matted for the widescreen release. A *few* movies are filmed spherically but hard-matted. I believe "I Married and Axe Murdered" is one of these. Hard-matted movies need to be panned-and-scanned just like anamorphic movies.
I agree with you in principle; however, until such time as the computer and operating system industries adjust to a base 10, it is not the place of hard drive manufacturers to do that.
"Oh, but look! It makes the drives seem to have more data than the computers will recognize! So, Mr. Marketing Man, just think about the edge we'd get by selling a nice, round number as opposed to our competitor who is still selling the ugly, non-round, seems-to-be-lower-capacity drives!"
Right. You won't convince me or anyone else that the push from manufactureres was for anomaly correction.
*sigh* No, the DVD was NOT manufactured improperly. The DVD is excatly the way that it should be. The descripton of the movie's "full frame" counterpart was not explained truthfully.
All DVDs should have the original aspect ratios in which the film was shot clearly marked on the box along with information about how the movie was cropped/altered etc.
Absolutely correct. I get e-mail regularly from people who buy DVDs (usually at Wal-Mart) that are not marked properly or at all.
I can cut a small rectangle out of the center of the film at the proper ratio and call it "widescreen ratio" but that doesn't make it widescreen content.
That is purely subjective. Is a screen wider because the visuals that were recorded are wider (anamorphic) or is it wider because the aspect ratio is greater than 1.33:1?
I doubt it would have gotten this far if it was simply a case of someone not understanding croping methods.
No argument there. In my Jauary commentary, I even explain why what MGM did was wrong. It was deceptive marketing, plain and simple, and they got taken to task for it.
Not to tout my own site, but it's clear that a ton of people here need to educate themselves about "open matte" films. Just because a movie is called "widescreen" does NOT mean that it was filmed anamorphically.
Please... before anyone else makes a comment about whether it was the correct aspect ratio or not, please read my section on matted widescreen as well as my comments on this matter and the various aspect ratios that are used in the film making process.
MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares. The widescreen DVDs in this list are NOT broken and do NOT need to be "fixed". The are shown in their CORRECT aspect ratio.
This class action suit is because MGM took the FULLSCREEN cropped 1.33 versions of the films, cut the tops and bottoms off and sold them as WIDESCREEN
HELLO!!! That's absolutely right! YOU are theone who is mistaken! They were filmed in what's called OPEN-MATTE where the movie is filmed on a full 1.33:1 frame but matted out during the theatrical presentation to achieve the correct aspect ratio.
No, you have it backwards. The widescren movies are in their original aspect ratio of either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. The DVDs are NOT broken. MGM got in trouble by misrepresenting the fact on how the "full frame" version compares.
Ah, once again an unbiased commentary from a/. editor. How refreshing it is to see.
The fact is that the widescreen movies are not butchered. They are shown in the original aspect ratio that just so happens to be the aspect ratio as preferred by the film makers. You know, the people who spent countless man-hours bringing a movie to you in the method that they feel is best just so you can call it "butchered" just because you don't like the presentation on a $15 DVD?
Before spouting the holier-than-thou "butchered" dogma, try educating yourself on the concept of "original aspect ratio" and why ratios other that your prestigious, un-butchered 1.33:1 are chosen by the people who (unlike you apparently) studied film making.
There is, however, no excuse for MGM's misrepresentation on how the movie was formatted.
I realize that children are more sensitive to certain environmental issues than adults; however, I simply cannot believe that occasional cell phone usage is really that damaging.
Look at computer usage. Are these people actually trying to say that occasional cell phone use puts out more radiation than that new 3.2 GHz Pentium with the 21" monitor and wireless network that daddy bought? What about a house like mine with eight computers and five monitors of 17" or more? We're in an enclosed area (the house) with all of these gadgets putting out electromagnetic radiation like crazy, but yet I need to be concerned about my 4-year-old talking to grandma on my cell phone for five minutes when we're out in the back yard? Uh, huh.
I guess that I should not be concerned about those power lines that are going over the house either since the new threat is the milliwatt radiation from the cell phone. Never mind those cell phone or microwave towers that I can see over on the mountainside, either.
Cell phone radiation. The new, over-hyped issue du jour. Can I offer anyone that miraculous oat bran to fight off that cancer while they use their cell phone?
A quick visit to their web site shows that they are into more products than just analog reel tape. They're probably just figuring out how to compete in an already tough, highly competitive, digital media market.
I probably need to specify that "totally unexpected decline" was sarcasm, given the rampant grammar and spelling problems on/., some of which I must confess to contributing.
Did this really come as any surprise to anybody? I know that many audiophiles out there will be dismayed as reel-to-reel consistently was considered to be one of the highest quality media available for audio recording; but does this plant closing come as any true shock to anybody here? In a world where "digital" means "superior" in just about every aspect of technology (even when it technically is not, particularly in the realm of audio) and more and more audio is going to digital, is this really a headliner?
I guess that this is all Bush's fault somehow.
This would be just as news-worthy as hearing about the last vinyl LP plant closing or the last floppy disk going off the assembly line. All of these instances indeed are (or eventually will be) the closures of chapters in history, but not enough to be given such importance on Slashdot. There is more emotional impact by (what I deem to be) the unethical business method by which those people lost their jobs (Surprise! You're fired! Merry f**king Christmas!) as opposed to the fact that they lost their jobs due to the totally unexpected decline in the use of reel tape.
Given that context, and understanding that eWeek is a trade magazine for the computing industry, the article seems to make some reasonable observations about mainstream computing. But if you were expecting an article on consumer systems, I can see why you might be bothered.
You're close, but I think that you read too much into what I said. To me, something is "mainstream" when it gains general acceptance - inclusive of all. To that extent, Linux is not anywhere close to being mainstream if you take both corporate and personal systems into account.
However, you should have noticed that the latter have of my diatribe was directed solely at the IT community. And even there I don't see how Linux can be called "mainstream." It might have a respectable chunk of the server market, but I don't see how it's anywhere close to being a majority or even a very large minority - at least not yet. Additionally, I doubt very, very much that the majority of end users are using anything except Windows.
Once again, how does that make Linux "mainstream"? Is he calling it mainstream only in the server market? No, because he does mention desktops. Okay, so it's mainstream on the end user systems? Yeah, right. It's not even close.
So, again I ask where Linux is mainstream in IT? He offers no proof nor does he give any believable conjectures to support his claim. It is growing in popularity? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to assume that significantly more money will be spent on Linux deployment? I believe so. Does that automatically make it mainstream? I can't see how it can possibly be considered as such.
This really bothers me. To me, "mainstream" means something that the majority of people not only can enjoy but also want to enjoy of their own volition - acceptance by and demand from the general populous. The dictionary defines "mainstream" as Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group.In that regard, how is "mainstream" possibly close to describing Linux?
He seems to be talking exclusively about "mainstream" in the IT world. I don't see how even in 2008 Linux will be "mainstream" in the home desktop world. Shouldn't the term "mainstream" be applied across the board before it's used in such a broad fashion?
The prevalent attitudes towards computers, especially on the desktop, is that anything other than Windows != effective or easy to use. Put a number of Linux computers on sale at Best Buy (or your country's equivalent) with all things being equal with respect to hardware and price and everything necessary to run Windows on the Linux system, and see how they fare compared to Windows system. The general populous will purchase Windows in droves while those of us in the know (and we ARE a minority, folks) might purchase the Linux system.
If some PC manufacturer will actually put out a system for sale on retail stores that sells comparable numbers to Windows PCs, then I'll be more accepting of the "mainstream" moniker. (Not that anybody's individual acceptance really means anything...)
I also question why he perceives the migration to Linux in the IT world to be "mainstream". Look at the two primary alternatives:
* Windows - bloated, slow, expensive TCO, closed, not well scaleable
* Sun - aewsome operating system, unbelievable scaling capabilities, unbearably arrogant and short-sighted CEO, f**king EXPENSIVE hardware
Now comes Linux - can use existing hardware, scales fairly well, free, tons of software for free, tech support is available at a reasonable price... Hmmmm!
I'd like to see a study done on how "mainstream" Linux really is and why. Was it accepted in IT because of its strengths or was it accepted in IT because of the excessive weaknesses of its competitors? They're not the same, but I think that the reasons are important. YMMV.
I used to have a boss like you. The worst boss in my life.
I trust you'll forgive me if I'm not really concerned about your analogy. If you're going to make a blanket comparison that 1 similar attribute to a bad boss = all similar attributes, then I sure as hell wouldn't want you as an employee anyway. Guess we're both happy.
If people actually want to play games on Linux, then they should stop buying Windows-only games and write and tell the publishers why. If the publishers don't know there's a market, they won't value cross-platform games, and continue to use DirectX, something that will always be poorly supported on anything other than a Microsoft operating system.
Sorry, but that's very short-sighted. This has been a problem for software makers time and time again. Most of the time, they have always chosen the easy way out. If you look at compatibility issues between platforms, the lowest common denominator was almost always chosen even when the demand was strong and the proponents vocal. (Sound familiar?)
Just look back at the Commodore 64 and 128. The 128 was superior to the 64 in just about every way, from the 2x clock speed to the 2x memory. But it was 64-compatible. So, why bother spending separate development costs for both when you can write for one (the 64) and get compatibility with both? The Apple IIgs suffered from the same thing. (I'm sure that the Tandy and Atari lines suffered from the same problems as well at some point in time.) Yes, both platforms did have a few games that took advantage of the superior nature of the C128 ("Ultima V") and IIgs ("Zany Golf"), but for the most part the developers still took the lowest common denominator because it was the cheapest way out, regardless of the demand.
Now that WINE and Caldega are out, what makes you think that developers will have any incentive to make their games for Linux? After all, now Linux users can run Windows games! So at best you can probably expect the majroity of them to make their games WINE- or Caldega-compatible, but that's probably it, except for those developers that are hard-core Linux fans.
That's the problem with emulation. It broadens the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying to stop emulation so as to push development to native Linux. That would be incredibly ridiculous. But from the developer's perspective, if they have the choice between gaining a larger user base from adequate emulation at minimal cost or from native code at a much larger cost, you know which one will get chosen.
Yes, I agree that OpenGL would likely solve a lot of these problems, but I think that's going to be a very difficult sell.
Re:Exactly the problem that a lot of people have
on
Does Linux Have Game?
·
· Score: 1
Well then you are in luck because I am a programmer and will endeavor to answer your question.
I appreciate you doing so and in a straightforward manner, unlike others who saw an excuse to flame. Were I with mod capabilities, I would have given you a +1 Informative and the others -1 Can't Deal When Someone Dares To Bad Mouth Linux.
Speak for yourself. I have no problems paying for my games as long as I know that they're games that I will enjoy. Those people who work hard to deliver games should not be told to give it away for free just to comply with the ridiculous notion that "Linux" should always equal "open source" or "free" just because the operating system happens to be free. This is one attitude of the Linux/FOSS community that I simply despise.
It's attitudes like what you stated that are exactly why companies are not going to Linux. Oh, my! I'm a Linux user! I refuse to buy anything! The world should be free! I'm a Linux user! I should be able to get whatever I want for free! Either release it as Open Source or don't release it at all! I'm a Linux user!
Additionally, if you knew anything about the history of Loki, you'd know that they went under primarily because of horrendous fiscal management, not because of a lack of demand for Linux games.
Exactly the problem that a lot of people have
on
Does Linux Have Game?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Not being able to play games on Linux is exactly why I still am running Windows on my systems. I am a heavy (as in activity, not weight) Ghost Recon, UT2004, and Diablo II gamer. I also have Half Life 2 that my wife purchased for me for Christmas waiting for my system to be upgraded, and I'm looking forward to the PC version of Ghost Recon II.
Of course, what do these require? DirectX.
And what's the only operating system that truly supports it? Well, it ain't Linux.
All of the other major apps that I use are open source - Firefox, OpenOffice, CDex, etc. I have my trusty Sun Blade 100 up and running right next to me as well. So, I don't need Windows for all of my normal day to day stuff. I can just as easily run Linux or Solaris x86 for everything but gaming. Now that Linux has greatly evolved towards the desktop, the ability to play DirectX games is the last hurdle to getting Windows off of my main systems.
At its core DirectX is just a set of common libraries. Is there no efficient way to convert Windows/DirectX calls to the equivalent Linux calls? We're no longer in the days of having separate VESA drivers for each video card. Surely, there must be some way out there to develop a functional DirectLinuX. Then again, that's why I'm a system admin, not a programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe what you want, but *you're* the one who got all high and mighty with the "I *am* educated about widescreen" introduction to your statement.
As to explaining the problem, I had already done that several times in this whole thread as did numerous others. Perhaps you should have read the responses instead of flying off the cuff like you did.
If you have to ask this, then you are NOT educated about widescreen.
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matted.shtml
School is now open.
I haven't looked at the whole ist, obviously, but those that I looked are open-matte. I know because I've been keeping track of this (hence to web site) for almost 10 years now. :)
For a more practical use for you, you can find out the filming method at imdb.com. Click the "Technical specs" like for that particular movie and it will tell you how it's filmed.
If it's filmed using "35mm spherical" but in widescreen, I can just about guarantee that it was matted for the widescreen release. A *few* movies are filmed spherically but hard-matted. I believe "I Married and Axe Murdered" is one of these. Hard-matted movies need to be panned-and-scanned just like anamorphic movies.
You're very welcome. I'm afraid to check my site's bandwidth usage for today. :)
I agree with you in principle; however, until such time as the computer and operating system industries adjust to a base 10, it is not the place of hard drive manufacturers to do that.
"Oh, but look! It makes the drives seem to have more data than the computers will recognize! So, Mr. Marketing Man, just think about the edge we'd get by selling a nice, round number as opposed to our competitor who is still selling the ugly, non-round, seems-to-be-lower-capacity drives!"
Right. You won't convince me or anyone else that the push from manufactureres was for anomaly correction.
*sigh* No, the DVD was NOT manufactured improperly. The DVD is excatly the way that it should be. The descripton of the movie's "full frame" counterpart was not explained truthfully.
www.widescreen.org - Visit. Read. Learn.
All DVDs should have the original aspect ratios in which the film was shot clearly marked on the box along with information about how the movie was cropped/altered etc.
Absolutely correct. I get e-mail regularly from people who buy DVDs (usually at Wal-Mart) that are not marked properly or at all.
I can cut a small rectangle out of the center of the film at the proper ratio and call it "widescreen ratio" but that doesn't make it widescreen content.
That is purely subjective. Is a screen wider because the visuals that were recorded are wider (anamorphic) or is it wider because the aspect ratio is greater than 1.33:1?
I doubt it would have gotten this far if it was simply a case of someone not understanding croping methods.
No argument there. In my Jauary commentary, I even explain why what MGM did was wrong. It was deceptive marketing, plain and simple, and they got taken to task for it.
And how is this "trolling"? No, moderators, it's called "FACT".
Try reading here before using your all-mighty powers to reduce the karma of those who know better than you about the topic.
Not to tout my own site, but it's clear that a ton of people here need to educate themselves about "open matte" films. Just because a movie is called "widescreen" does NOT mean that it was filmed anamorphically.
... before anyone else makes a comment about whether it was the correct aspect ratio or not, please read my section on matted widescreen as well as my comments on this matter and the various aspect ratios that are used in the film making process.
Please
MGM was wrong not in the presentation but rather their explanation on how the "full frame" version compares. The widescreen DVDs in this list are NOT broken and do NOT need to be "fixed". The are shown in their CORRECT aspect ratio.
This class action suit is because MGM took the FULLSCREEN cropped 1.33 versions of the films, cut the tops and bottoms off and sold them as WIDESCREEN
HELLO!!! That's absolutely right! YOU are theone who is mistaken! They were filmed in what's called OPEN-MATTE where the movie is filmed on a full 1.33:1 frame but matted out during the theatrical presentation to achieve the correct aspect ratio.
YOU are the one who needs to RTFA.
No, you have it backwards. The widescren movies are in their original aspect ratio of either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. The DVDs are NOT broken. MGM got in trouble by misrepresenting the fact on how the "full frame" version compares.
Kindly educate yourself.
The list (PDF) of butchered movies
/. editor. How refreshing it is to see.
Ah, once again an unbiased commentary from a
The fact is that the widescreen movies are not butchered. They are shown in the original aspect ratio that just so happens to be the aspect ratio as preferred by the film makers. You know, the people who spent countless man-hours bringing a movie to you in the method that they feel is best just so you can call it "butchered" just because you don't like the presentation on a $15 DVD?
Before spouting the holier-than-thou "butchered" dogma, try educating yourself on the concept of "original aspect ratio" and why ratios other that your prestigious, un-butchered 1.33:1 are chosen by the people who (unlike you apparently) studied film making.
There is, however, no excuse for MGM's misrepresentation on how the movie was formatted.
I realize that children are more sensitive to certain environmental issues than adults; however, I simply cannot believe that occasional cell phone usage is really that damaging.
Look at computer usage. Are these people actually trying to say that occasional cell phone use puts out more radiation than that new 3.2 GHz Pentium with the 21" monitor and wireless network that daddy bought? What about a house like mine with eight computers and five monitors of 17" or more? We're in an enclosed area (the house) with all of these gadgets putting out electromagnetic radiation like crazy, but yet I need to be concerned about my 4-year-old talking to grandma on my cell phone for five minutes when we're out in the back yard? Uh, huh.
I guess that I should not be concerned about those power lines that are going over the house either since the new threat is the milliwatt radiation from the cell phone. Never mind those cell phone or microwave towers that I can see over on the mountainside, either.
Cell phone radiation. The new, over-hyped issue du jour. Can I offer anyone that miraculous oat bran to fight off that cancer while they use their cell phone?
Idiot, the digital age has swamped the analog tech.
/.er! *sigh*
And once again the concept of sarcasm is totally missed by a fellow
A quick visit to their web site shows that they are into more products than just analog reel tape. They're probably just figuring out how to compete in an already tough, highly competitive, digital media market.
I probably need to specify that "totally unexpected decline" was sarcasm, given the rampant grammar and spelling problems on /., some of which I must confess to contributing.
Did this really come as any surprise to anybody? I know that many audiophiles out there will be dismayed as reel-to-reel consistently was considered to be one of the highest quality media available for audio recording; but does this plant closing come as any true shock to anybody here? In a world where "digital" means "superior" in just about every aspect of technology (even when it technically is not, particularly in the realm of audio) and more and more audio is going to digital, is this really a headliner?
I guess that this is all Bush's fault somehow.
This would be just as news-worthy as hearing about the last vinyl LP plant closing or the last floppy disk going off the assembly line. All of these instances indeed are (or eventually will be) the closures of chapters in history, but not enough to be given such importance on Slashdot. There is more emotional impact by (what I deem to be) the unethical business method by which those people lost their jobs (Surprise! You're fired! Merry f**king Christmas!) as opposed to the fact that they lost their jobs due to the totally unexpected decline in the use of reel tape.
Given that context, and understanding that eWeek is a trade magazine for the computing industry, the article seems to make some reasonable observations about mainstream computing. But if you were expecting an article on consumer systems, I can see why you might be bothered.
You're close, but I think that you read too much into what I said. To me, something is "mainstream" when it gains general acceptance - inclusive of all. To that extent, Linux is not anywhere close to being mainstream if you take both corporate and personal systems into account.
However, you should have noticed that the latter have of my diatribe was directed solely at the IT community. And even there I don't see how Linux can be called "mainstream." It might have a respectable chunk of the server market, but I don't see how it's anywhere close to being a majority or even a very large minority - at least not yet. Additionally, I doubt very, very much that the majority of end users are using anything except Windows.
Once again, how does that make Linux "mainstream"? Is he calling it mainstream only in the server market? No, because he does mention desktops. Okay, so it's mainstream on the end user systems? Yeah, right. It's not even close.
So, again I ask where Linux is mainstream in IT? He offers no proof nor does he give any believable conjectures to support his claim. It is growing in popularity? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to assume that significantly more money will be spent on Linux deployment? I believe so. Does that automatically make it mainstream? I can't see how it can possibly be considered as such.
This really bothers me. To me, "mainstream" means something that the majority of people not only can enjoy but also want to enjoy of their own volition - acceptance by and demand from the general populous. The dictionary defines "mainstream" as Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group.In that regard, how is "mainstream" possibly close to describing Linux?
He seems to be talking exclusively about "mainstream" in the IT world. I don't see how even in 2008 Linux will be "mainstream" in the home desktop world. Shouldn't the term "mainstream" be applied across the board before it's used in such a broad fashion?
The prevalent attitudes towards computers, especially on the desktop, is that anything other than Windows != effective or easy to use. Put a number of Linux computers on sale at Best Buy (or your country's equivalent) with all things being equal with respect to hardware and price and everything necessary to run Windows on the Linux system, and see how they fare compared to Windows system. The general populous will purchase Windows in droves while those of us in the know (and we ARE a minority, folks) might purchase the Linux system.
If some PC manufacturer will actually put out a system for sale on retail stores that sells comparable numbers to Windows PCs, then I'll be more accepting of the "mainstream" moniker. (Not that anybody's individual acceptance really means anything...)
I also question why he perceives the migration to Linux in the IT world to be "mainstream". Look at the two primary alternatives:
* Windows - bloated, slow, expensive TCO, closed, not well scaleable
* Sun - aewsome operating system, unbelievable scaling capabilities, unbearably arrogant and short-sighted CEO, f**king EXPENSIVE hardware
Now comes Linux - can use existing hardware, scales fairly well, free, tons of software for free, tech support is available at a reasonable price... Hmmmm!
I'd like to see a study done on how "mainstream" Linux really is and why. Was it accepted in IT because of its strengths or was it accepted in IT because of the excessive weaknesses of its competitors? They're not the same, but I think that the reasons are important. YMMV.
No clue why I had "Caldega" in my head. Oh, well. You know what I meant. :)
I used to have a boss like you. The worst boss in my life.
I trust you'll forgive me if I'm not really concerned about your analogy. If you're going to make a blanket comparison that 1 similar attribute to a bad boss = all similar attributes, then I sure as hell wouldn't want you as an employee anyway. Guess we're both happy.
If people actually want to play games on Linux, then they should stop buying Windows-only games and write and tell the publishers why. If the publishers don't know there's a market, they won't value cross-platform games, and continue to use DirectX, something that will always be poorly supported on anything other than a Microsoft operating system.
Sorry, but that's very short-sighted. This has been a problem for software makers time and time again. Most of the time, they have always chosen the easy way out. If you look at compatibility issues between platforms, the lowest common denominator was almost always chosen even when the demand was strong and the proponents vocal. (Sound familiar?)
Just look back at the Commodore 64 and 128. The 128 was superior to the 64 in just about every way, from the 2x clock speed to the 2x memory. But it was 64-compatible. So, why bother spending separate development costs for both when you can write for one (the 64) and get compatibility with both? The Apple IIgs suffered from the same thing. (I'm sure that the Tandy and Atari lines suffered from the same problems as well at some point in time.) Yes, both platforms did have a few games that took advantage of the superior nature of the C128 ("Ultima V") and IIgs ("Zany Golf"), but for the most part the developers still took the lowest common denominator because it was the cheapest way out, regardless of the demand.
Now that WINE and Caldega are out, what makes you think that developers will have any incentive to make their games for Linux? After all, now Linux users can run Windows games! So at best you can probably expect the majroity of them to make their games WINE- or Caldega-compatible, but that's probably it, except for those developers that are hard-core Linux fans.
That's the problem with emulation. It broadens the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying to stop emulation so as to push development to native Linux. That would be incredibly ridiculous. But from the developer's perspective, if they have the choice between gaining a larger user base from adequate emulation at minimal cost or from native code at a much larger cost, you know which one will get chosen.
Yes, I agree that OpenGL would likely solve a lot of these problems, but I think that's going to be a very difficult sell.
Well then you are in luck because I am a programmer and will endeavor to answer your question.
I appreciate you doing so and in a straightforward manner, unlike others who saw an excuse to flame. Were I with mod capabilities, I would have given you a +1 Informative and the others -1 Can't Deal When Someone Dares To Bad Mouth Linux.
Everybody expects their games to be free.
Speak for yourself. I have no problems paying for my games as long as I know that they're games that I will enjoy. Those people who work hard to deliver games should not be told to give it away for free just to comply with the ridiculous notion that "Linux" should always equal "open source" or "free" just because the operating system happens to be free. This is one attitude of the Linux/FOSS community that I simply despise.
It's attitudes like what you stated that are exactly why companies are not going to Linux. Oh, my! I'm a Linux user! I refuse to buy anything! The world should be free! I'm a Linux user! I should be able to get whatever I want for free! Either release it as Open Source or don't release it at all! I'm a Linux user!
Additionally, if you knew anything about the history of Loki, you'd know that they went under primarily because of horrendous fiscal management, not because of a lack of demand for Linux games.
Not being able to play games on Linux is exactly why I still am running Windows on my systems. I am a heavy (as in activity, not weight) Ghost Recon, UT2004, and Diablo II gamer. I also have Half Life 2 that my wife purchased for me for Christmas waiting for my system to be upgraded, and I'm looking forward to the PC version of Ghost Recon II.
Of course, what do these require? DirectX.
And what's the only operating system that truly supports it? Well, it ain't Linux.
All of the other major apps that I use are open source - Firefox, OpenOffice, CDex, etc. I have my trusty Sun Blade 100 up and running right next to me as well. So, I don't need Windows for all of my normal day to day stuff. I can just as easily run Linux or Solaris x86 for everything but gaming. Now that Linux has greatly evolved towards the desktop, the ability to play DirectX games is the last hurdle to getting Windows off of my main systems.
At its core DirectX is just a set of common libraries. Is there no efficient way to convert Windows/DirectX calls to the equivalent Linux calls? We're no longer in the days of having separate VESA drivers for each video card. Surely, there must be some way out there to develop a functional DirectLinuX. Then again, that's why I'm a system admin, not a programmer.