Well, there is at least one open source MMORPG, PlaneShift, though it's supposedly not complete, and when I last tried it wasn't all that great (however, that was an year or two ago, and things may have changed considerably).
Apart from that, there are some commercial ones that run on Linux. For instance, EVE Online and Regnum Online run natively, while World of Warcraft runs perfectly with WINE.
I agree that things "just working" would be awesome, but GP completely disregards accessibility and i18n just because he has no use for them. While I agree that most people don't need accessibility features, I am sure that the lack of such would significantly drop the "it just works" rating for those that do need them. That's like saying they should remove the ability to dual-boot with Windows 95 because most people won't need this.
But the bigger point is internationalization. The GP should realize (s)he is not alone in the world, that most people are not native speakers of English, and (s)he is not some magical representation of what everyone wants. That is probably the reason for the Flamebait moderation.
If there was a.xxx domain, people (parents, bosses, etc.) would be blacklisting it so that kids, workers, etc. don't have access to it. But since the rest of the Internet is unrestricted, they could still find porn elsewhere (say, one under.com).
If there was a.kids domain, it would be the only domain allowed for kids to open (well, sure, you could allow, say,.edu too). Since everything in the.kids TLD would be preapproved, there wouldn't be any adult content.
Which doesn't mean I approve of either idea. Just clarifying the GP's point.
I am not talking about a license that disallows commercial use. As I said, Qt is licensed under the GPL. However, many commercial products are not GPL, and using Qt in them would thus not be an option. So, not as a restriction but as an additional option that you would not have if it was just the GPL, you can license Qt for use in non-GPL projects.
Qt is dual licensed. It's not a modified version of the GPL. It is free software, because it's GPL. In fact, it's, in a way, freer than GPL software, because you can use it in non-GPL projects.
(And of course I'm only using Qt as an example. I'm sure there are other similarly-licensed products.)
The test is currently broken. Try it with Safari or Opera or Konqueror, they all show the same. Firefox 3 beta 1 and 2 do pass the test (when it's not broken).
Sounds like the Qt license. It's GPL, but if you want to use it in a commercial product you can license it for money. I've always wondered why such an approach is so underused, as it combines the best of both worlds (i.e., the freedom of OSS and the profit of commercial products).
Presumably when full palladium/TCPA/whatever is implemented on PCs and NT7 or whatever, you will be able to have a process (WoW for example) that is hardware-enforcedly inaccessible even to kernel debugger processes on the same box (if they don't have the right key). But then you could get hardware (and software) that pretends to enforce this, but doesn't actually. I guess you can never trust the client.
What I did was download some random app that would let you extract the SWF from the Windows EXE of N. (Such programs are probably mostly Windows-only, but WINE should run them fine). Then just open the SWF in your browser or in gflashplayer (does that still exist? I can't seem to find where to download it from on Adobe's site).
Completely agree and would mod you up if I could. I've seen lots of flash games, but nothing quite at the level of addictiveness, fun and replayability of N.
What other options do you have? JavaScript is the only widely-supported client-side scripting language. It's even part of the name "AJAX" - the "J" stands for JavaScript.
Re:GIMP website looks all screwed up using NoScrip
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I disabled JavaScript and opened it and it looked fine (it was the same, in fact, except that the fade-in effect on the nav-menu was missing and there were no rounded corners). Does NoScript do more than just block JavaScript?
If it were me, I would issue the copyright owners a tool to generate a signature and get them to upload that. But then your enemies could generate a signature of your own video you uploaded and pretend to be the copyright holders so they can take it down (or steal your revenue).
This isn't about installing Linux on the iPod, it's about syncing the iPod from Linux. Since there is no iTunes for Linux, you have to use third party apps, but now Apple has broken this. So unless you have Windows or OS X, you practically won't be able to use your iPod at all.
The only hypocrisy here is that of the BSD people. If you don't want people to take your code and not give you back changes, guess what, don't license it under the BSD license.
It's simple: the major difference between the GPL and BSD licenses is that the GPL compels people who use your code (and redistribute) to give you back changes. If you want that to happen, use the GPL, not the BSD license. It's silly to license the code under the BSD license and then complain about the fact that people are following the license - it's even more silly when the code is dual-licensed BSD/GPL!
Just because you don't like the BSD license? In case you didn't know, you can't use code in Linux unless it's GPL, otherwise you would violate the GPL. It's not an issue of like and dislike.
On top of that, DX lets you porn games relatively easily to the 360, which has a much lower piracy ratio than PC Gaming, on top of simply having a pretty big market in its own right. That's certainly an advantage, though using OpenGL would let you easily port your games to the PS3, possibly the Wii (does that support OpenGL?), other OSes (Mac, Linux). True, DirectX is more than just graphics, but there are open libraries for sound, input etc. too.
Unless you're purposely making a game that would have mass market on Mac and Linux (Starcraft or WoW comes to mind), there's no real BUSINESS incensive to invest in OpenGL. Remember, if your development team is running at multi-millions per month (number out of my ass, its more than that now), saving just ONE month of time on a 2 year development budget makes a huge difference in the bottom line, one that probably will make up for restricting yourself to just one platform. Why would using OpenGL cost a month? Switching from DirectX to OpenGL will probably be costly, but if you just use OpenGL from the beginning of a project, development time would probably be about the same, wouldn't it?
DX lets you porn games Nice Freudian slip:)
That Wine requires so much reconfiguration to run something is, in many cases, an overstatement. In a large amount of the software I've run under Wine, the most configuration I've had to do was change the Windows version that Wine reports. In fact, unless the application doesn't start at all or starts with some error and exits, it usually runs more or less flawlessly (ie, it's usually all or nothing). If you need to run something on Wine, you can always check Wine's app database, and you can see how it runs, and sometimes instructions on how to get it to work in case it doesn't.
To be fair, I've seen plenty of installers that launch their readme file with notepad or wordpad (rather than just using the default application for the file type).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is at least one open source MMORPG, PlaneShift, though it's supposedly not complete, and when I last tried it wasn't all that great (however, that was an year or two ago, and things may have changed considerably). Apart from that, there are some commercial ones that run on Linux. For instance, EVE Online and Regnum Online run natively, while World of Warcraft runs perfectly with WINE.
I agree that things "just working" would be awesome, but GP completely disregards accessibility and i18n just because he has no use for them. While I agree that most people don't need accessibility features, I am sure that the lack of such would significantly drop the "it just works" rating for those that do need them. That's like saying they should remove the ability to dual-boot with Windows 95 because most people won't need this.
But the bigger point is internationalization. The GP should realize (s)he is not alone in the world, that most people are not native speakers of English, and (s)he is not some magical representation of what everyone wants. That is probably the reason for the Flamebait moderation.
You're missing the GP's point. Which was this:
.xxx domain, people (parents, bosses, etc.) would be blacklisting it so that kids, workers, etc. don't have access to it. But since the rest of the Internet is unrestricted, they could still find porn elsewhere (say, one under .com).
.kids domain, it would be the only domain allowed for kids to open (well, sure, you could allow, say, .edu too). Since everything in the .kids TLD would be preapproved, there wouldn't be any adult content.
If there was a
If there was a
Which doesn't mean I approve of either idea. Just clarifying the GP's point.
I am not talking about a license that disallows commercial use. As I said, Qt is licensed under the GPL. However, many commercial products are not GPL, and using Qt in them would thus not be an option. So, not as a restriction but as an additional option that you would not have if it was just the GPL, you can license Qt for use in non-GPL projects.
Qt is dual licensed. It's not a modified version of the GPL. It is free software, because it's GPL. In fact, it's, in a way, freer than GPL software, because you can use it in non-GPL projects.
(And of course I'm only using Qt as an example. I'm sure there are other similarly-licensed products.)
The test is currently broken. Try it with Safari or Opera or Konqueror, they all show the same. Firefox 3 beta 1 and 2 do pass the test (when it's not broken).
Sounds like the Qt license. It's GPL, but if you want to use it in a commercial product you can license it for money. I've always wondered why such an approach is so underused, as it combines the best of both worlds (i.e., the freedom of OSS and the profit of commercial products).
What I did was download some random app that would let you extract the SWF from the Windows EXE of N. (Such programs are probably mostly Windows-only, but WINE should run them fine). Then just open the SWF in your browser or in gflashplayer (does that still exist? I can't seem to find where to download it from on Adobe's site).
Completely agree and would mod you up if I could. I've seen lots of flash games, but nothing quite at the level of addictiveness, fun and replayability of N.
What's unfree about KDE?
What other options do you have? JavaScript is the only widely-supported client-side scripting language. It's even part of the name "AJAX" - the "J" stands for JavaScript.
I disabled JavaScript and opened it and it looked fine (it was the same, in fact, except that the fade-in effect on the nav-menu was missing and there were no rounded corners). Does NoScript do more than just block JavaScript?
This isn't about installing Linux on the iPod, it's about syncing the iPod from Linux. Since there is no iTunes for Linux, you have to use third party apps, but now Apple has broken this. So unless you have Windows or OS X, you practically won't be able to use your iPod at all.
Maybe, but no one is carrying their fridge or power plant around all day, like they are their laptop, iPod, etc.
Not Microsoft - the Linux implementation is made by the Mono project.
http://www.bash.org/?5300
It's simple: the major difference between the GPL and BSD licenses is that the GPL compels people who use your code (and redistribute) to give you back changes. If you want that to happen, use the GPL, not the BSD license. It's silly to license the code under the BSD license and then complain about the fact that people are following the license - it's even more silly when the code is dual-licensed BSD/GPL! Just because you don't like the BSD license? In case you didn't know, you can't use code in Linux unless it's GPL, otherwise you would violate the GPL. It's not an issue of like and dislike.
Because Longhorn sounds so much more professional.
You missed a spot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_litigation_of _Apple_Inc.
The parent wasn't suggesting switching clothes, he was suggesting switching the people and what they do.
That Wine requires so much reconfiguration to run something is, in many cases, an overstatement. In a large amount of the software I've run under Wine, the most configuration I've had to do was change the Windows version that Wine reports. In fact, unless the application doesn't start at all or starts with some error and exits, it usually runs more or less flawlessly (ie, it's usually all or nothing). If you need to run something on Wine, you can always check Wine's app database, and you can see how it runs, and sometimes instructions on how to get it to work in case it doesn't.
To be fair, I've seen plenty of installers that launch their readme file with notepad or wordpad (rather than just using the default application for the file type).