linux is copying vista, so get vista for free :-)

[Alias]

I'm not the delusional moron who thinks he has a "noble" mission in this
ng to spread the word about ubuntu!

That's because there's nothing noble about you.

You're sick!
Frank

I feel great, Frank, not sick at all, but thanks for the concern.

 

[Adam Albright]

I'm not the delusional moron who thinks he has a "noble" mission in this
ng to spread the word about ubuntu!
You're sick!
Frank

You're the delusional moron that thinks it is your job to defend
Microsoft. What a total putz!

 

[Guest]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-Is-Copying-Windows-Vista-68160.shtml

They say that imitating is the best kind of flattery...

but perhaps this is just taking the vista look and putting it on a platform
that has less problems than vista.

Yes even linux is more user friendly than vista!

PFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!! LOL

Can you imagine that!? lol

Sure I can imagine it!! Matter of fact I have to imagine it since it isn't
true.

silly Linux troll

 

[Stephan Rose]

That is functionality, linux doesn't have the libraries many game
writers are using.
Linux users can scream until they are blue in the face but it still
won't run many games.

Well like I said, tell me something other than "It won't play my windows-
only games". I and everyone else is quite aware of that particular
problem.

Which ultimately isn't an OS problem, it's a developer problem in not
choosing cross-platform libraries.

You may persuade the games writers to write using different libraries so
they will run on Linux using different functionality but I doubt if many
will ATM as they don't think they will get any cash from it. So that
would be another function Linux lacks.. the ability to make cash,
probably its main problem.

Linux has the ability to make cash. You just can't make it all that well
making the products that flood the Windows market such as:

Anti-<virus/spam/malware/adware/younameit>

Registry cleaners

Those 2 yea, I'd be impossible to make any money in under linux and I
consider that to be a GOOD thing. It might change somewhat if Linux were
to gain enough marketshare but I don't think the problems would ever be
as severe as under Windows because it inherently is a far more difficult
platform to write malware for. It's very hostile to such apps and that's
good!

---

Office as Open Office suffices for mundane needs, though I suppose a
professional writer might have more advanced needs not met by it.

So here, actually there is a little hole to meet more professional needs
not met by Open Office. If one released such an app that was good enough
one could surely make money with it.

---

E-Mail software.

With the exception of maybe corporate type of exchange servers, not sure
what the state is of that under Linux....I wouldn't even bother. Ever. I
can't imagine a single feature someone could release in an e-mail program
I'd pay money for.

--

Media Player type software.

Seeing how I can play every type of media I currently own I again don't
see why I'd want to pay for software that does something my current free
software already can do. This would likely too be an extremely tough
market to compete in commercially. I probably wouldn't even bother.

--

Most other mundane needs are already extremely well met under Linux so
again, those markets are very dry. Agreed there. Different story under
Windows as out of the box it barely has outlook express and wordpad and
that's where it ends! So Windows obviously has more potential in terms of
software there that one can make money with.

Now, games on the other hand...here is a market in Linux and people are
paying for it. And honestly, I don't get *why* developers don't target
it. Thing is, if they target Linux, they also instantly get Mac as well.
So even if Linux on it's own doesn't have enough marketshare and Mac on
it's own doesn't have enough market share...put them both together and
the number becomes relatively significant in my opinion.

And here is why I don't get why developers don't do it. Take bioshock for
example. The company went through stupid lengths to avoid piracy that
it's not even funny. Ranging from, depending on who you ask, rootkit/near-
rootkit type security protection that you can't even remove from your
registry without special tools, to putting up servers which cost money to
maintain, run and bandwidth in order to limit the number of installers,
to support personnel to handle all the issues from the above. Not to
mention development time and cost to put this all into place. I don't
even want to know how much stupid amounts of money this company spent in
trying to prevent piracy for bioshock and how much it costs them monthly
to maintain their upkeep for their activation servers.

So they are willing to go through all that effort and money to curb some
piracy but then turn around and completely ignore 2 whole existing
marketshares? On top of that, supporting the additional 2 market shares
would cost next to nothing compared to the costs of their anti piracy
measures? It makes little sense to me.

I mean if you look at game code, it's compromised mainly of the following
parts:

- AI, Logic, game related stuff, etc.

All that code is OS independent. It's just plain simple C/C++ code that
will compile under any platform.

- Graphics and Input

Either use DirectX (Windows Only) or OpenGL (Windows, Linux, Mac).

- Sound

Either use DirectX (Windows Only) or OpenAL (Windows, Linux, Mac).

- File and Network IO

Either use DirectX (Windows Only) or a cross platform capable library
supporting Windows, Linux and Mac. They do exist.

Maybe this will happen more once OpenGL 3.0 comes out...it's quite
possible. It could be that DX10 was the best thing MS could have ever
done for Linux/Mac Gaming. At least I'm hoping.

Reason being that DX10 eliminates the fixed function pipeline and
essentially just reduces itself to an interface to the video card using
vertex shaders and pixel shaders. With the FFP gone, there's little done
outside of shaders. Only drawback of course is that this only works with
DX10 capable hardware.

Coincidentally, OpenGL 3.0 does the exact same thing. It eliminates the
FFP and reduces everything to vertex and pixel shaders. DX and OpenGL do
use different high level languages, though ultimately that just boils
down to different syntax for the same thing. No big deal.

To the video card it's all the same. It doesn't know anything about
DirectX or OpenGL, it just has it's instruction set that it can execute
and that's it. The output both from DirectX and OpenGL ultimately is
identical, especially DX10 VS OpenGL 3.0

Linux and Mac shares obviously aren't as large as Windows, but they do
exist and it's users would gladly pay for games released on it. Those
that dual boot with windows for gaming already pay for it right now. A
company though that would release a top quality title capable of running
under Linux however would definitely gain a lot of support from the
community and it'd be all over every available linux news channel. Such a
company couldn't hope for better free advertisement of their product.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰