Linux Gaming: A Field Report 178
Christopher "shaithis" Buecheler writes: "GameSpy.com has posted not one, but two articles dealing with the Linux Operating System, and specifically addressing some issues about gaming. Of particular interest to Slashdotters might be the second article, as it will no doubt stir up conflicting opinions.[In] The Linux OS: James Hills talks about the advancement of Linux as a gaming platform. How far has it come, and how far does it have left to go? [And in a]
Linux Gaming Overview: James also takes time to create a ten-section comparison between Linux and MS Windows, checking out the differences between the two in a variety of areas." Quick -- can you name seven gaming companies that have entered the Linux scene in the last year? James can.
Re:Confusing directory structure? (Score:1)
Re:Comment from Me (Score:1)
---
Re:ummmm..... (Score:2)
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:1)
Re:Militant Linux users (Score:1)
Microsoft bought Visio, so don't hold your breath
Chris
Re:Primitive? (Score:1)
I'm sure there's some good advice in there, but unfortunately you went zipping past me. I'll be out and about looking to figure out what you're talking about later on to be sure.
rm "This is a single filename with a lot of spaces in it."
Doh! Ya know something, I actually knew that but had forgotten. I mentioned it in my post because I recall having problems with that. Sortta like I STILL can't seem to remember to add that "./" before a file when I'm in the same dir.
In time you will try to highlight right click, click center click even in NT. and it won't work there
There's already tons of things I get messed up on going between OS's these days. Sometimes it's little things, like trying to use Ctrl-C in Netscape under Linux, or trying to drag a window to a virtual desktop that ain't there on NT. I could write up a very lengthy post with all the little oddities that arise when you constantly bounce back and forth between NT and Linux, with just a smattering of Mac once in a while. I'll spare the viewing audience that rant for now.
Here is a good reason. I hate trying to debug scripts where the same program is referred to as Wipeout, WIPEOUT, wipeout, WipeOut and wipeOut interchangeable. It makes it nearly impossible to find every reference to the command wipeout when I am replacing that script with something else.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not here. It seems that this would be an outstanding argument against case sensitivity, as most Windows based editors allow for search and replace without regard to case. This is probably a bit trickier with a regular expression style of s&r, but I never did get a handle on them darn things anyway.
But it doesn't have too! UNIX has had job control for 25 years now. Instead of typing "xview stars.jpg" type "stars.jpg &" and you will run the GUI command in the background. Quite handy and far beyond the capability of Windows9x.
To find out more about job control run the command "man bash" and look for a section titled JOB CONTROL.
Cool! I'll have to play with that later on here.
Re:Primitive? (Score:2)
Re:Primitive? (Score:1)
One thing that just came to mind concerning a comparison of the two CLI's has to do with the help system involved. After playing with the two, I have to say that NT's help at the CLI level is still better than Linux's.
I realize that Linux tends to provide a LOT of depth about each and every command through the use of "man" or "--help". The problem is, it's a LOT of depth. One example here is a paragraph from the "cp --help" command.
"By default, sparse SOURCE files are detected by a crude heuristic and the
corresponding DEST file is made sparse as well. That is the behavior
selected by --sparse=auto. Specify --sparse=always to create a sparse DEST
file whenever the SOURCE file contains a long enough sequence of zero bytes.
Use --sparse=never to inhibit creation of sparse files."
Here I am, the idiot user who wants a file to go from over here to over there. After looking at this I get to thinking that maybe that file is doing hunky dory right where it is. I've been using a variety of computer platforms for over a decade now, and I still have no idea what a "crude heuristic" is or why I should care. I know Linux is international and all that, but where do I go to pick up the version in English?
NT's help system on the other hand tends to be a lot more straight forward to getting the info I need. DOS used to have a help system that resembled the "man" system quite a bit for it's commands. It was actually pretty cool, and it may still be around in Win9x, but I haven't looked for it.
Just to get the disclaimers out of the way here, I know that a *nix CLI is always going to be at some disadvantage to me due to many years of working with DOS (back to before 2.0) and all its variants. Furthermore, I also realize that many of the *nix commands have a lot more capability built into them. Thing is, I still find it far easier to pick up a DOS style command than a *nix style command. This may be due to the above reasoning, but I also believe that the help system plays a very large factor.
Maybe some of the more basic CLI tools need a couple levels of help. "--helpwalk" and "--helprun" kind of approach. Just a thought.
Last bit of a rant here, as a few weeks ago I located what might have been a really useful "How-To" which got into explaining to someone with a DOS background the equivalent actions on Unix. The thing was written like a propaganda sheet for Unix rather than a tutorial. There didn't seem to be a paragraph in the whole thing that didn't include something along the lines of "...and that is why Unix is so much better than DOS...". To make matters worse, the author had several mistakes in his interpertation of DOS commands and what they could do. Mind you, I don't have a great love for DOS beyond the notion that I do understand how to use it pretty well. I just can't stand reading the work of a zealot, even if I agree with them. How can you concentrate on material if the voice in your head keeps screaming, "Bullshit!"
Maybe some day down the road when I actually get to understanding Unix CLI a bit better I'll get into writing my own How-To for this topic. In the mean time, I'll just keep plugging along.
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:1)
I agree that SDL [libsdl.org] would be a nice solution to the common API problem. Why? IMHO because it is and it aims to be be cross-platform. I think that Linux (and other unices) need to have some common API with Windows to ease the development of games to many platform at once. We can't (yet) even dream of a situation where leading-edge games were developed primarily on Linux - now it helps to have some common API with Windows.
There are alternatives, too. I can recall Allegro [demon.co.uk] and Clanlib [clanlib.org] right now.
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
2) People shouldn't have to run a shell script, plus, its never that easy is it? To upgrade ALSA I have to do all kinds of scary things (what the hell does lsmod do?) I don't even know where I can go to configure my USB devices. The problem is that Linux treats drivers on a case by case basis. Graphics drivers have special requirements, sound drivers have a different set of installation requirements, etc. People can get the hang of installing drivers in Windows, just like I can get the hang of compiling the kernel. However, I by the time people get the hang of all the different procedures for all the different driver types, they've given up and rebooted.
What about configuring? (Score:2)
The GUI setup utilities don't have all the options you want. (Linuxconf, Control Panel, etc...)
Linux:
Go online, find documentation, and modify the actual config files. Not particularly hard, provided you have the brains to use a text editor.
Windows:
Regedit. Reboot, to see if it worked. Repeat.
And thus, I rest my case.
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
Re:ummmm..... (Score:2)
Re:Comment from Me (Score:1)
---
How far do we *really* want it to go? (Score:3)
Seems to me that Linux is a bit young to have to start worring about being a major gaming platform. Especially with the changes in 2.3.x, new XFree, etc. Maybe we should wait until things settle down a bit before we start thinking about trying to get the best games ported to Linux. How are developers going to feel when they put their time and money into porting some fabulous game, then some major changes role in and break it? They probably won't port another game, making us lose games in the long run.
I think in the future Linux may be a viable gaming platform, but things are moving so fast that we may drive off future ports. Just my opinion anyway.
What's holding Linux back? for me at least... (Score:2)
Flight Simulator
Flight Unlimited
The Janes series
etc.
Or more generally: sophisticated 3D games, which go beyond the FPS à la Doom/Quake/Unreal.
This is the main reason why I dual boot into Win these days. For actual work, I've found pretty much everything I need on the Linux side (however, once I'm already in Win, it's a lot faster to just fire up word rather than reboot into linux, especially since my personal files are available trough both samba and nfs)
...And I know about flightgear [flightgear.org], thank you.
Am I alone here?
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:1)
why? because of all the different distributions. Too many things to cover. Maybe condense all into one you say? Too many people would get pissed off and it would just form another distribution... One won't topple all else, we have already seen that (even w/the large support RH gets).
<i>I want support for USB devices like mice out of box. I know this is going to be difficult, but these are areas Windows is flogging Linux in. I can set up a Windows 98 system, plug in a few peripherals, have the system detect them, install the latest DirectX and bam, full support for 99.9% of the best games out there. </i>
even though there is all this support coming in to Linux, who is saying that Linux is the superior gaming platform (minus any radicals out there
Linux and games. (Score:2)
The damage many linux 'advocates' are doing cannot be understated. I see many requests to do linux games, and most of them are astoundingly uninformed (and sometimes rude) about any number of things relevant to linux and gaming. The general feeling around here is that the type of people lobbying for linux games aren't the type of people who would then go out and buy those games. It nearly makes me ashamed to be a linux user.
The second thing is economics. Modern games are quite expensive to make, and the developer receives a small to moderate percentage of the retail price, making it quite hard for most developers to turn a profit. In this environment, justifying the cost of multiplatform development (which is much more expensive for games than less performance-oriented applications) becomes extremely hard, and targeting the comparatively small linux market exclusively borders on insanity.
Unless a publisher specifically asks for Linux support before signing a development contract, it is unlikely official Linux support and development will be done by most game development companies.
Re:What's holding Linux back? for me at least... (Score:2)
Virtual Strip Club 4.0
Sex Simulator
Sex Unlimited 3D
Jane's ******
etc.
Or more generally: low class sex games, which although crappy, go beyond the FPS Allah Doom/Quake/Unreal in terms of plot and characters.
This is the main reason why I dual bot into Win these days. For regular porn, I've found pretty much everything I need on the Linux side (however, once I'm already in Win, it's a lot faster to just fire it up then reboot into linux, especially since my personal life is a trough from which pigs, rats, and other disgusting mammals refuse to eat from)
I am alone here.
---
Re:ummmm..... (Score:1)
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:What's holding Linux back? for me at least... (Score:1)
BTW: This is also true for Bungie games now
Re:and the cluestick swings! (Score:1)
Re:ummmm..... (Score:1)
_____
Re:"Standards" conflict (Score:1)
Whole heartedly agree. When I think "standardizing" I tend to be thinking more along the lines of how HTML compares to Word Docs. By
standardizing HTML it allows for a wide variety of applications to view and edit these files, where as Doc files can't. To carry this analogy
further, I never meant to suggest that standardizing meant that only Netscape should be used as a browser. When standards are done properly
and adopted, like with HTML, it actually expands the number of applications that can be built around it rather than stifling them.
WinZip isn't really a good analogy
The only thing I was attempting to illustrate was WinZip's ability to track an application's installation process. You are quite correct in that it
makes for a poor example to directly compare this to what a package manager does. I don't think I illustrated my meaning well enough there.
You know, for the most part, I think the issue is file interoperability between distributions and/or similar software... if dpkg and rpm could use the
same files (successfully!) or if KDE and gnome could use the same files (for example), we'd be in business.
Maybe this conversation could draw more bad analogies to WinZip. For example, what WinZip actually does is front end several types of
compression routines. Heck, it's only the more recent versions that don't rely on having PKZIP around on the system. It'll recognize
.arc,
a fair example of a front end for several back end processes bringing it all together in a pretty decent UI. Unfortunately, I think the problem is far
more complicated by the fact that each package manager is maintaining their own db without regard to what the other is doing.
As far as the Gnome & KDE issue, I'm pretty much able to run KDE apps under Gnome without too much of a glitch. My biggest complaint has to
do with file associations. Since RH installed Gnome by default, the KDE installation I did later didn't pick up any file associations. I was amazed
that something this basic wasn't handled well below the window manager level. Until such a time comes about where I want to spend many an
hour manually creating associations, I can't really use KDE full time whether I like it or not.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I do agree that there is a need for some semblance of standards to not push distributions too far away from each
other, but I think we have to be *very* careful about it.
Your quite welcome. And a return thanks for a reply that reads like a well thought out letter. Just goes to show, folks coming from Linux and NT
backgrounds can have civil conversations. Sometimes easy to forget that point after reading a bit too much
It seems like a lot of the windows-y people coming to linux want to see linux look/feel/act like windows without looking into what linux has for
itself, and where it's going on it's own.
Had a phrase where I worked a long while ago I rather liked. "The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer." The
notion here is that us folks coming from a Windows GUI perspective have certain expectations from an OS. Sometimes these are good things,
other times not so. Despite the rhetoric, Microsoft really does have some very cool UI ideas built into Windows. To date, they are still the only
company to bring an OS to the masses. There is considerable value to Linux in recognizing this as projects such as Gnome and KDE mature.
Huge Disclaimer: Nothing of what I stated above is meant to suggest that Linux should look to clone it's likeness into Windows. Get the good stuff
out of it, then move on.
The only other part of the article(s) that I couldn't stand was the "even your parents, sister, or girlfriend" could use it gem. Excuse me, but my
sister is pretty damn smart, and it is I who teaches my husband about linux. *snort*
Yeah, I work with my ex on various programming projects still yet. She still runs circles around me when it comes to SQL and XML. She's still
very heavily in the realms of MS, as she's making a very nice living knowing how to muck around with Site Server and ASP.
If I had moderator points that I could use, I'd give you a +1 for your contribution.
Okay, I'm a sucker for flattery
Just a great Quote (my emphasis) (Score:2)
Re:How far do we *really* want it to go? (Score:1)
I even heard a *rumour* once that a universal kernel driver system was in development; a system which would allow the same kernel module to be used in both Windows and Linux. This should be possible, since what does a kernel module need? Direct access to the hardware though IO ports, DMA, and the PCI bus. Also a way of interfacing with the rest of the driver code; the rest of the driver code provides the API for the applications.
If it was possible to share driver code across platforms, it would certainly save development time on the part of the manufacturers.
Just my 2 cents.
- Mr. Meanie
Re:Are you *kidding*? (Score:1)
For NT Workstation I'm kinda doing the same kind of hack that the original poster is talking about. Unlike the 9x flavors of Windows, NT does a pretty fair job of providing a multi-user OS. Perhaps the worst aspect of this is how deep into the Winnt directory you need to go before you actually get to a specific profile.
To get around this, I keep a number of short cuts on my desktop that point to those specific user folders. For example, I've got one called "My Documents" that actually points to the document directory within my profile. When setting up an NT Server, I'll set up short cuts to the short cuts that are in the start menu for the various admin tools, so that service packs and upgrades know where to find the proper path to add their short cuts.
Thing is, even in NT there are certain "expected" directories that just make life easier to leave them be. I have no idea exactly how much havoc you'd cause if you went in and just changed the "System32" directory's name to something else. I sure know it wouldn't be pretty.
I do have to wonder what the true value of having a mutli-user OS is for everyone out there using computers. Heck, even on NT I pretty much use it 100% with "Administrator" (aka root) rights all the time. The multi-user thing starts making a lot more sense to me when you get into talking about servers, and different admins with different rights to it. For workstation use it feels more like a barrier than a feature. The significant difference here being between local and network rights and permissions.
On my Linux set up I pretty much went and did it like I was supposed to. I created a user account with limited rights where I spend the bulk of my time. Thing is, hardly a day goes by where I don't have some reason to "su" my way into control. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing at this point, just an observation. If this were an actual production box I'd probably be a good bit more concerned with the specifics of the setup. As it is, this thing is on a non-routable IP behind a proxy that's on my NT.
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
As for putting them together, I'd certainly be willing to help setup an easy LKM install system for people such as the original poster.
Quake 3 for Linux was somewhat easy to install becuase it used a version of a sharchive. It wouldn't be too hard to make a shar that extracts to a tmp dir, checks that the proper major (and minimum required minor) kernel version exists, that a compiler exists, and then compiles, etc.
The file which insmods the kernel file at boot would have to be SysV (it's just easier to modify automagically compared to BSD-style, and Slackware supports SysV stuff out of the box anyway
If you want my help, my contact information is at the bottom of my webpage.
---
Re:SUPERB IDEA I JUST HAD (Score:1)
Did anybody ever hear about what the ratios of WinQ3 Vs LinQ3 was?
Re:fp (Score:1)
Did you mean to post that to the "functional programming" thread?
--
MLGs (Score:1)
My own fault ending up with this simple little job I realize, but I don't mind it as long as I've got something to keep me occupied and useful. A little Sun or even Linux server for this new image DB with web extensions should be just about right.
-jpowers
Re:Free-ISPs; Linux doesn't get a 10 for question (Score:1)
I'd have to agree with what you said. Now, if I only knew what you said! ;-}
(Seriously, I've read this a half dozen times and I don't know what I should comment on, if anything! It sounds good....)
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
ESR [tuxedo.org] is working on making the Linux Kernel config scripts smarter with his CML2 [tuxedo.org].
I'd personally love to have the equivalent of apsfilter [freebsd.org] for video and sound cards -- just run SETUP, answer some questions, and all is done for you.
But everything takes time. Linux has had to get to the point where people asked, "hey, can I just slap my new soundcard drivers on this thing?" before the quesition could be answered.
---
Re:Rules to live by (Score:1)
2. Don't post anything not-bad about Microsoft.
2. Don't post anything bad about Open Source.
3. Don't post a first post.
Still using that first-gen pentium chip I see...
These are all true, with a condition on the M$ rule (Is that 2 or 2a?). I've found that when I sit and think about something before I post it, I generally get left alone or even modded up [slashdot.org]. If you moderate your own posts by supporting/clarifying/stating clear conditions under which your points are true, you tend to get treated well, even if you, like me, are not a true computer guru.
-jpowers
Militant Linux Geeks (Score:5)
This is an excellent point--I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users (I've been using/developing under Linux since '94) but consider themselves "Linux Gods".
The elitist attitude that they spout forth does more to damage the Linux "cause" than they know.
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:2)
Re:No Way--Windows Dir Structure Makes *More* Sens (Score:1)
You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\
I have Documents and Settings at the same level as my WINNT folder, just FYI. I guess this makes it easier to completely reinstall the operating system without losing user files.
Re:Confusing directory structure? (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, I don't like to use Windows for anything more than games, but I wanted to set the record straight.
--
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:1)
2.It's happening,check the Berlin project.
Why the heck was this moderated as insightfull since the guy doesn't even now how Linux works ???
Re:SUPERB IDEA I JUST HAD (Score:4)
If Blizzard did port Diablo2 to linux, very few people would buy it because if they had really wanted it they would have already have bought the Windows version.
In addition, the usual intelligent arguments about that Blizzard won't/can't anyways. etc.
---
Re:What BS... (Score:1)
---
Re:I must politely disagree. (Score:1)
Re:No, I *Never* Troll... (Score:1)
Re:Primitive? (Score:1)
>and that a command line is often the best for certain jobs, and a GUI for others?
Because as long as those who wish to use only the GUI are forced to also use the command line because the GUI just isn't up to the more technical jobs, then the OS doesn't offer the best for certain jobs, it offers a primitive command line, take it or leave it.
I wouldn't know, perhaps the GUI can cut it (I'm very new to Linux) but that's not the impression I get - could anyone here use Linux without ever so much as touching a command line for an entire year, and not run into major trouble (eg adding new hardware support, software, etc)?
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct in saying that to install new drivers you have to do scary things.. This is not surprising bearing in mind where in the architecture these particular bricks go. This is true for windows as much as it is for linux, the difference being that windows is sufficiently monolithic that they dont need to offer anything but a binary download and an installer - frequently using the built-in progs for updating system components. That "update driver" button does the same scary things (apart from compiling it but I'll address that below) it just puts a pretty progress bar on it and a user-friendly face. If the average windows user knew what was happening under the hood of that driver update they'd probably be too scared to click the button.
But isnt what I just described just as applicable to the process of pulling down an rpm for a redhat box and installing it as it is to pulling down a zipfile, unpacking it and clicking an "update driver" button? I'm not doing the linux evangelist thing here, I use whatever OS will run the apps I need at the time, but this is one of the points made by the author in the article - you want that kind of convenience, it is a factor in which distro you pick. People putting out drivers for their hardware under linux usualy make rpms available, or debs or both as well as source - if you want bleeding edge latest stuff or if you have a so-called "hardcore" distro, or even a highly customised install of an "easier" one then the source is available and you can use it to build a version of the same driver that is optimised for your box. Downloading source and compiling it yourself is not a scary thing to make folks flee the OS, its a way to ensure that no matter how horribly tweaked your linux system is there is a way to get hold of something that will work on it. Its also something you mostly dont have to do unless you want to. Just look at what formats the drivers you want are available in first - just like making the choice of what OS to load based on the apps you want, pick your distro based on how you want to use it.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
Why would you want that? (Score:2)
I think you're mixing up cause and effect here. The Linux configuration tools don't have all the options because the creators of such software know you can always revert back to console tools if you have to. In my opinion, this encourages bad software and interface design.
Sure, many people -- if forced to, and with proper training -- can go in and manually edit a text file to bend the computer to their will, but why? These are types of things that computers are really good at automating. One of the alleged advantages of the computer, in fact, is that it unburdens the human from such menial tasks, and frees us up to question the meaning of the universe and such.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
No, I *Never* Troll... (Score:3)
> Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents
Most Windows users do not use Win2K. Most Windows users, especially end users, use Win9x/ME, and that has the dir structure I outlined. When the 2 OSes, Win2K and the 9x codebase, get merged into one unified OS for both consumer and business desktops, I would expect that they'll go with the 9x/ME dir structure because it's what end users and most business users (non sysadmin types) would prefer. So my point stands and I'll ignore your tangential argument about the NT/2K dir structure, which I repeat will probably be replaced in the next release with a more consumer friendly 9x style since it will be intended for home users too.
> And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system?
No, because I am an end user and not a systems administrator. I don't need to do a damned thing remotely, like 99% of computer users. Don't assume that the average user does stuff like that, they don't, so it's a pointless argument. While I do have more knowledge than the *average* user, and less than an *average sysadmin*, at least I know enough to make arguments and points that are useful and relevant to a discussion about how OSes work for the vast majority of people. The vast majority find the Linux directory structure confusing and too restrictive, with the Windows system making much more sense.
> Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications
Poorly coded ones, I'm sure, however any third party apps made by *real* developers work fine. I did once try that; for fun I installed Win95 on my laptop in a directory called FuckingUseless.
> Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad.
I repeat, start thinking like a user, not like a developer. What percentage of Windows machines used as either workstations or home computers are single-user? I'd bet the vast, vast majority are, in which case customizing the directory structure is fine. Not just fine: PRODUCTIVE. I get things done much faster when the PC is set up with the directories how I like them. And since most Windows boxen are single-user, this means that it's a great feature. Stop thinking like an admin, start thinking like a user.
> I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single
> user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made
No no no no no no no. You don't seem to understand that I'm talking about workstations and home computers, not servers and shared corporate machines. This is the fundamental problem with a faction in the Linux community: some people refuse to start looking at how Linux needs to evolve in order to replace Windows both at the workstation and the home computer levels. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, and I'm not a troll. I use MS operating systems because, for a GUI user like me, who also likes easier-to-use Windows-style apps, I can get things done faster and more efficiently in Windows even when I factor in a daily crash. I don't expect the Linux community to make things more like Windows in order to cater to my personal needs, but the *fact* remains that if you ever want to replace Windows, if you ever want to eradicate MS both from the corporate and home desktops, you have to start thinking about what non-geek and even windoze-geek and mac-geek end users want: ease of use. We don't care about how it works well in a milti-user setup, because most users use single-user workstations and home PCs. MS understands this, and as long as Linux geeks want to continue to write for Linux geeks while ignoring the mass of users, MS will always dominate. I don't want it to, but that's the way it is.
Dreamcast is not WinCE-based (Score:3)
Dreamcast is not WinCE-based, it is WinCE-capable. Each piece of software can opt to use WinCE as its operating system, or an alternative. I believe most shipping games use an alternative.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:"Interesting" post by person on crack. (Score:2)
Apple corrections (Score:3)
I have to admit, I don't really get this point. I don't see how having interface guidelines impeded Quake III development. I also don't see how this situation is signficantly more difficult than the Windows side of things.
Apple has to get off its bandwagon and start positioning OpenGL within the system (as they are doing in MacOS X) NOW to developers, instead of continuting to push stale standards like QuickDraw (Apple's Vietnam, next to OpenDoc).
Ummm, okay.
First, Apple has been pushing OpenGL as the primary Mac 3D API for more than a year and a half. Here is the original press release [apple.com]. It has been standard issue since last October.
And as for QuickDraw being "Apple's Vietnam", QuickDraw is actually the foundation for 2D graphics on all versions of Mac OS prior to X (Mac OS X uses Quartz). Every single Mac application ever created uses it. QuickDraw 3D, however, was a good 3D API. There was no other reasonable alternative when Apple created it. Some Mac developers feel that it is easier to developer for QD3D, but Apple realizes that OpenGL is the standard, so it is (wisely) backing it. And unlike OpenGL, QuickDraw 3D has a standard file format (3DMF).
------
Scott Stevenson
Primitive? (Score:4)
Is anyone else sick of Windows people saying "primitive command line"?
Maybe it's because they used to be forced into using the DOS command line - a brain-damaged version of a unix shell.
I recently heard it from a guy who flunked out of a Solaris sysadmin teaching program. Apparently, he couldn't handle having to compile up Apache ... following the instructions was too much for him (how he expected to sysadmin without basic computer knowledge, and why he thought he should be paid £30,000+ is another matter).
Why can't these people realise there is more than one way to access a computer - and that a command line is often the best for certain jobs, and a GUI for others?
ummmm..... (Score:3)
does anyone else find it exceedingly odd that an OS that's older than 95, 98, and the majority of the NT strain of Winvirus is the new OS on the block?!?!
Wouldn't that make Windows 2000 some sort of embryonic OS???
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Games are the killer 'information appliance' (Score:2)
From the article:
If these trends continue, Linux will become the center of the computing world, as we move into a more multi-platform industry where console devices are rising in popularity and the Windows dominated PC market faces increased competition from Apple's OS X. Windows on the other hand is hindered in this area and only a few small efforts have been made to add Unix, Mac, or Linux compatibility to Windows.
For those who's only computer is a games console, windows is not important. People will get basic web access through a TV box, or some hybrid game/music/media device, and the wintel illusion that the PC is somehow 'central' to the home network is just not going to happen in the mainstream.
This is because when people shop, they buy a game 'box' and games to play on it. They don't buy [box, os, game], just [box, game] -- there is no space in the mind of the home non-techy consumer for the concept of an OS. This is logical, because the OS is the software environment, and the box is the hardware environment -- both necessary and 'indivisible'.
This is why people say their computer is 'windows' or their software package is 'microsoft'. For the average consumer, the OS is as obscure and embedded as an engine is in a car. Or an electric motor in a toy car. I think this what this part of the article is alluding to... that to live long and prosper, the OS of choice must be happy in an embedded, open and friendly to interoperability context. Exit windows, enter Linux.
Re:Why the hell does Gamespy care about Linux? (Score:2)
The average gamespy audience is not the typical slashdot audience. Is "gamespy" a monolithic corporate voice, or a group of people sharing some common goals with a fair amount of independant expression?
...
Gaming, like porn, could do more than many expect to advance current technology. Especially given that many earthlings next or only computer _may be_ a (game) console device such as a PS2, Indrema, or Dreamcast. After all, going forward the Dreamcast is really best thought of as a WinCE based, Java capable, net console, that also plays some pretty kickass games for a 128bit graphics system with a total of only 24MB of RAM.
You underestimate the sysadmins... (Score:2)
I disagree completely. Talk to the CTO or CIO or GM of IT or whoever makes the purchasing decisions at most companies, and you'll find that ease of management, standard configurations and security are high priorities. It costs a lot of time and money when a machine breaks and it's got a non-standard configuration. The solution at every company I've worked for has been to reimage the windows box from our standard image and tell the user 'tough shit - unsupported means unsupported'
The thing that keeps IT managers from adopting Linux now is app compatibility and the cost of retraining. The IT managers want security and remote management on your workstation. It saves money, they can prove that it saves money -- so the board of directors wants it too.
--Shoeboy
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
Good for consumers? (Score:2)
Okay, granted, that's a logical reason for you. But do you feel that this is a reasonable approach for the average mainstream consumer/gamer?
Granted, this is a slightly different issue than my original post, but still applies to the overall topic of linux gaming.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
Re:ummmm..... (Score:2)
Re:Free-ISPs; Linux doesn't get a 10 for question (Score:2)
Re:There...there.... (Score:2)
Hold the phone there, pal. I was saying that Windows was better than Linux at gaming, not that it couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't be used. Hell, I check out linuxgames.com [linuxgames.com] every day, and I can't wait for Parsec [parsec.org] to come out. But face facts: Windows is better at gaming than Linux. How that sentiment is "militant Linux attitude", I don't know. Seems more "militant Win32", if anything.
I was mainly just saying that the article was pointless. When I'm booted into Linux (on the one machine I have that is actually fast enough to even play games, and the only one with a Win32 partition), I don't think of Gamespy as being a particularly helpful resource. Their client won't work in Linux and they have little to say that can help me, this article included.
I'm well aware of issues like driver support, standards, etc. It didn't stop me from getting X 4.01 and V3 drivers running, and I didn't need Gamepsy to tell me anything about them. I was already in a position to be aware of the issues. Again, that isn't being militant about Linux. All I'm saying is that anyone bent on getting their Linux box into gaming shape doesn't need Gamespy articles which point out the obvious for them. Gamespy and Linux have about as much to do with each other as shellfish and pr0n [prawnography.net].
And anything I post should never be construed as YOU MUST do this and you MUST do that. I'm too much of an idiot to bear that burden... :-) And anything I post doesn't change the fact that Windows makes for better gaming that Linux. At least for now.
-B
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
The gentleman who said that WindowsUpdate doesn't update drivers is not in tune with Windows entirely. Going to the WindowsUpdate site will only update critical system components, you are right. But going into Device Manager, selecting a piece of hardware and telling Windows to search the WindowsUpdate site for "updated drivers" is what I'm talking about. I was able to download the "proper" Voodoo 3000 AGP drivers (1.0.4 WQHL). Windows was able to identify the beta I was using and flag it as a potential problem.
Anyone who thinks that modules isn't the future of driver development on Linux is fooling themselves. Yes, having specific devices imbedded into the kernel itself is nice (and speeds driver load time), but what about all the drivers that *don't* need to be in there, such as the amateur radio drivers compiled into the kernel up until a few years ago? The ability to remove, update, and add new drivers at will is a strength of the Windows platform, and should be copied (or at least emulated) on Linux. Call them what you will (Windows calls them drivers, Mac calls them extensions, Linux calls them modules) they are fully needed.
The view that Linux cannot be a gaming platform is clearly amateurish. If it cannot, why are companies like Loki even bothering? Why do most distributions include Gnome and KDE games out of box, even when the install is set to "server" mode? Clearly there is a need, albiet a small one at present, to have entertainment on the Linux platform. You can turn this stuff off if you like, but when DeCSS makes such a dent on news sites regarding Linux, it's clear that *someone* must be viewing the platform outside the bounds of "workstation-only".
Very funny.. (Score:2)
---
Teletype Terminal emulator are VERY advanced.. (Score:2)
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:2)
Someone once said that the three essential personality traits to be a successful computer programmer are impatience, laziness, and hubris. Sounds like they just have an overabundance of the third.
No Way--Windows Dir Structure Makes *More* Sense (Score:3)
But the most important thing about Windows is that you don't even have to use its directory structure at all. You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want--and because the information about which folder does what is stored in the Registry, almost all installation routines will still work properly, and if they don't automatically pick the right folder a few clicks will point them to the right one.
Of course, there's little reason to completely change most system folder names, but the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." For example, my root directory looks like this:
Desktop - I like to use an open folder for my main workspace, and keep the "real desktop" clear.
Downloads - I put all my downloaded stuff here, subdivided into \Documents \Installers \Icons \Pictures and several other types.
Games - All my game programs, because I prefer them separate from the rest of my apps and adding them to a subdir in \Program Files doesn't seem as useful as giving them their own dir.
Girls - Well, pictures of girls, mostly porn, further subdirectoried into \Amateurs \Bestiality \BJs \Bondage \Cartoons \Cheerleaders \Facials, and many others.
MP3s - Since I have so many, and use them so often, they deserve their own root folder instead of being in Downloads.
My Documents- I use this folder only for documents I myself write and pictures and mpegs I myself scan and capture, not for all user stuff.
Program Files- Duh, all the non-game programs
Temp - I prefer my Temp dir in the root of the drive, not in \Windows, so I changed it.
Toolbars - I use two big toolbars on my desktop, which is one of the reasons I work in a window called Desktop instead of putting documents and icons and shortcuts on the real desktop--the Left and Right toolbars list all the shortcuts I ever use, and put everything just 1-click away. So, the folders full of shortcuts which I use in the toolbars are here.
Windows - The system files.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with. In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration. And what the Hell is up with
As for your question about how the directory structure under C:\Progam Files\ should be, the answer is "whatever you like it to be." I find it amusing how Linux users like to be able to customize their window managers and desktops, but say woe to the man who customizes his directory structure... Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming or anything, I'm just saying that Windows *does* make sense in its directory structure, more so than Linux because customizing that structure is easy and you aren't expected to always stay within a rigid hierarchy. For example, in my ow \Program Files directory, I subdivide by type of application, like \CD Burners \Compression \DVD Utils \Graphics \HTML Editors \Internet \Office Apps \System Utils and a few other directories. It makes perfect sense and makes me able to navigate quickly and easily.
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
Re:ummmm..... (Look at a timeline...) (Score:2)
If indeed Win 2000 is a new kid on the block, I would have to congratulate M$ on the ability to put out such a good OS in such a short amount of time. As it stands, they have had at least 3 years more to come up with something that they have to run flawed benchmarks on to compete with a "new" OS.
Also, a comparison between the original 1991 Linux and the modern OS is a crock. I believe that Linus' own words were "It could run GCC and sh, and that was about it" (paraphrased, I don't feel like looking it up.)
If we keep bellowing the cry that Linux is so much older, it undermines the power of Open Source. Also, in a few years, M$ will be yacking about why use something "old" like Linux when we have the newer, better Win2003! Microsoft FUD has alredy gone in that direction with their criticism of *nix and it's derivitaves.
Are we new?? You bet ya! (And M$ is the one that's lemon scented.)
Rave on cats he cried!
HamNRye
Re:Good for consumers? (Score:2)
How many people really know how to or enjoy configuring a modem or sound card? Certainly not the masses at large. Some relatively small percentage, perhaps. I believe the masses would much rather use a GUI, and would feel that a command/line text file approach would qualify as "making things difficult."
Sometimes I seriously wonder if people realize that the slashdot population is absolutely nothing like the rest of the world.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
In all my years of using Linux, I have yet to be able to install a driver off an RPM
I'd have to say you were unlucky - I use mainly 2 linux distros, RH & slackware - (and NO I do not think either is "better" than the other so all you distro evangelists dont bother to flame me ;) ) If I want slackware drivers I usually build them from source, for RH I use RPMs if they are around. So far they have been in about 80% of the cases. I HAVE had problems with a few of them - usually the driver rpm has not kept step with others and fails the dependency checks. When this happens I can get away with jamming it in using --nodeps about half the time, the only places it is guaranteed to fail is where backwards compatibility breaks from one version of a lib to the other. Yes, these situations do exist but maybe I've just been lucky not to encounter them because I havent run into them that often. In fact I've run into similar problems with win* "driver updates" that broke more than they fixed just about as often so I suspect the playing field on this one is a little more level than it is perceived to be.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:3)
2) I fail to see why you are saying this. DRI [sourceforge.net] does this now. Linux 2.4.x-pre supports your USB devices now (and will be released RSN
3) I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Putting game binaries in
Btw: OpenDoc is Corba, and is alive and well in Gnome, etc. Please keep your facts straight.
---
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:3)
> Is there some environment where they are most common?
It's called slashdot.org
--Shoeboy
Militant Linux users (Score:3)
There are a few of these around. I suspect that a large percentage of them are former Amiga owners (Which holds a special place in my heart as a truly magnificent machine). I have always been amused to see these folk arguing "My OS is harder to use than your OS so I'm superior so nyaaah".
I've also never quite understood the BSD/Linux and Linux distribution controversies. It really doesn't matter to me which distribution of Linux or whether BSD ends up taking over the largest marketshare as long as some Linux derivative is out there competing effectively with Microsoft.
To me, it's all unix. I tend to select my distributions based on who has the biggest marketshare not because I favor one over the other, but because I want to support a move for consolidation among the distributions and because I haven't seen enough difference between the distributions to really care (I've used RedHat, Mandrake and Slackware). I use my system to do real work and from my viewpoint each distribution enables me to do it remarkably well.
On the other hand, I have a windows partition because
The Linux mantra nowdays consists of "World Domination", but the Linux militants seem to want to keep it within the fold of the hardcore unix geeks. Sorry guys, you can't have your cake and eat it too. World domination comes hand in hand with user friendliness.
"Standards" conflict (Score:3)
Many people are working to create standards today such as the Linux Standards Board or LSB. This group is working to create standards for how Linux operates. While the lack of standards is an area that threatens to kill Linux right now, it is changing dramatically as the OS becomes more mainstream.
Later, in section #10 (distributions and open sourcce), he says:
You have no options as to how Windows 98 will look, act, or what applications will be included.
and
With Linux however, that product can be specialized to give your customers EXACTLY what you or they want. Furthermore, you are never stuck with a single vendor.
So, because windows has so many "standards", it's light years ahead of linux in that department. But because of those "standards", you are stuck buying from one vendor. Hello.
When we start to have "standards" aren't we erasing the choices that many of us make that make our systems different but also make them *ours*? I don't like KDE and I don't like enlightenment, but somehow these have become "standard" to new users as to what a window manager and a desktop environment are. They never got to make the choice. Some people are the same way with their feelings about bash, but it's the majority of default shells on linux distributions.
I think the LSB and others that have standards goals need to be more specific as to what these standards are. Are they something like "a distribution must contain these applications and use these environments" or "a desktop environment must have these features"?
I think "standards" can go too far. I don't *want* a unified linux. I don't want to be forced to use something I can't stand. I want to be able to choose the look and feel of my computer from numerous different vendors.
I don't think the "let's be like windows" solution is a good one.
-nicole
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
Oh, go troll elsewhere (Score:2)
Ya know, be-fan, you've gone downhill. You at least used to bring some interesting discussion and some useful sanity checks to the Linux lovefests we usually get around here.
Modems
Like a gammer who is really concerned about performance is going to use a sucky, crappy, fart eating, slug loving software-driven winmodem! They suck! Even on Windows machines with the latest hardware and software, they suck! When I upgrade a Windows machine with a Winmodem in it, the first thing I do is rip it out and bash it up with a hammer, and then burn it.
ISPs
Your average ISP works very well with Linux, than you very much. Often better, in fact. Sometimes Linux is even optimized, because the ISP is often running Linux, too.
True, some of your "free" ISPs don't work well with Linux, but a hardcore gammer isn't going to be using a sucky free ISP with a bogged pipe and ad software to steal bandwidth and CPU cycles, is he?
A friend of mine just got a DSL connection. Their game performance actually increased when we put them behind a Linux firewall on an old Pentium! That's how kooky Windows's IP stack is!
Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat (Score:2)
My initial point was that to be on the real bleeding edge you are going to need driver source. If you're on stable releases and not quite on that edge THEN you have the option of binary installs and those are as simple as the "update driver" button. If manufacturers were as quick to put out linux drivers for their hardware as they are for windows then guys with setups like yours would have that option too but at present you dont, not really.
I use linux both at home and at work and at work it doesnt have to be on the edge but it DOES have to work. I have this mental list of hardware that works or gives problems with which distros - For example the only distro that seems to have rpm drivers that work reliably with compaqs older proprietary net cards is redhat - so on a compaq machine I'll usually reach for my RH cds. Systems with no fancy hardware that just need to keep plugging and do one or two jobs well I usually install slackware, workstations where I want the bells and whistles, its back to redhat again. So far I've successfully installed or updated drivers from rpm for 3com, compaq and intel network cards, matrox, 3dfx, older ATIs and compaqs proprietary S3 video cards, Creative sound cards. This is on systems with whatever was the most recent stable kernel release at the time. On test machines or at home where I dont mind breaking it then I tend to use the latest kernel I can get my hands on provided only that its been developed far enough that it will actually compile :). On those machines forget packaged drivers, its either get the source or accept that you have to use the previous generation of peripherals.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
Re:"Standards" conflict (Score:2)
WinZip isn't really a good analogy, package managers not only provide the data, they install it, too (along with all the intermediate stuff like checking for dependencies and previous versions). WinZip on linux would be more like a graphical tar/gzip/zip/etc.
You know, for the most part, I think the issue is file interoperability between distributions and/or similar software... if dpkg and rpm could use the same files (successfully!) or if KDE and gnome could use the same files (for example), we'd be in business.
I think one of the big painful things is going to be the kernel and drivers. Recompiling the kernel may not be tough for me, but it's tough for a lot of people. Drivers some people can understand, but kernel modules? It's going to take some explaining.
For the most part, kernel versions aren't that big a deal between major versions, but I *do* have to ask if someone's using a 2.0 or a 2.2 kernel (at least) before I can help them out with some things. The biggies I think you mentioned, which version of X, which version of kernel, which version of glibc. Maybe if there was some sort of system tool that was universal that told you all of this information without having to scramble for it, it'd really help some of these people out. Some kind of simple shell script even.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I do agree that there is a need for some semblance of standards to not push distributions too far away from each other, but I think we have to be *very* careful about it.
It seems like a lot of the windows-y people coming to linux want to see linux look/feel/act like windows without looking into what linux has for itself, and where it's going on it's own. The only other part of the article(s) that I couldn't stand was the "even your parents, sister, or girlfriend" could use it gem. Excuse me, but my sister is pretty damn smart, and it is I who teaches my husband about linux. *snort*
If I had moderator points that I could use, I'd give you a +1 for your contribution.
-n
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:2)
> I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users
<not_a_rhetorical_question>How common is this type of individual? Is there some environment where they are most common? Is it an age-related phenomenon? Is it qualitatively or quantitatively different from the same attitude toward other "geek in stuff", such as particular languages, tools, applications, gadgets, etc.? To be honest I've never seen it in anyone I've met, though that does not mean I don't believe the phenomenon exists. (After all, your work/social environment is a big filter on who you do meet.)</not_a_rhetorical_question>
--
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:3)
The writer James Hill certainly paints "self-fancied hardcore" Linux users in a bad light, especially those using distributions such as Debian and Slackware, but these extreme cases militant elites are exaggerated and represent only a small part of the community.
The majority of elite users of Linux are NOT generally hostile to new users. I believe that Hill has misinterpreted their motives entirely. Just pop into the Openproject's IRC network irc.openprojects.net and into any of the semi-official and de facto IRC rooms for distributions such as #Debian and see how many users, no matter how arrogant they seem at first are willing to guide newbies through to fixing their problems.
The "schism" appearing between hardcore militants and mainstream users is not aimed at users themselves, but at the vendors that are developing the easier to use distributions. Elitists are proud of the Unix tradition, remember their roots, and see the new rash of distributions as more of a threat and more often than not, a pollutant that threatens to bring in the same problems that have rendered platforms such as Windows impotent. A hindering pollutant from the Old World of Microsoft that Linux does not need.
Sure newbies will always need easy-to-use point and click UIs to let them get a foothold in Linux, but we don't wish for them to cling onto the same principles that drive those distributions. But they have to realise that there is much more to Linux than KDE and simplistic programs.
Elite users are not hostile to Linux users; most of them are willing to help any new user become just as skilled in using Linux as they are - as long as they are using the same "hardcore" distributions, not giving into shallow marketing campaigns and adopt the same principles that many of us share such. This is so that they too can enjoy Linux to the same depth as hardcore Linux users believe the rest of the populus should.
good article until... (Score:2)
these comments are not true in every case, and are becoming less of an issue rapidly.
example: linux uses the openGL *standard*. MS does not. if anything, MS should have gotten a "0" and Linux a "10" for this *standards* issue alone.
example: both debian and redhat derived systems use package managers that greatly simplify driver installation. in many cases, there is no "build" at all -- only an install. And XFree86 4.0.1 takes care of the driver issues for the most part -- it's all there!
So, my take on the article is:
Overall : 5
Standards commentary : 0
Driver Commentary : 2
...i had to stop reading after the driver and standards section; they were just too wrong.
Why the hell does Gamespy care about Linux? (Score:3)
And why do they talk about driver issues and "user support" differences in the OS'es? Please. Linux ain't windows, never will be. I figure that anyone who wants to get Linux running their Nvidia, SB Live, Athlon Big Gaming Box Bad Boy probably doesn't give a rat's ass about how to get drivers installed. They could probably actually figure it out without Gamespy bothering to mention it to them. Gamespy's article doesn't really break any new ground, does it? I mean, it's not like the Linux gaming issues are big secrets, right? Two points to Gamespy for stating the obvious.
People just don't use Linux for gaming that much -- it's still best as a server and a rock-solid workstation. Yeah, it's nice to play Q3 sometimes, but not crucial. Windows is still better at gaming, probably because MS gives hard/software developers one place to aim. I know a lot of people that dual-boot just to play games. To me and them, windows is the console of the computing world: we use Linux to get stuff done and windows as a game machine. Another point and a half to Gamespy for much ado about gaming nothing.
Although I might be talking out my ass, though. Once I can run both Eudora and Tribes2 on my Linux partition, that windows drive I've got is in serious jeopardy...
-B
"Interesting" post by person on crack. (Score:2)
This is actually kind of suprising, since Linux is a true multitasking, multiuser machine, and Win98 is still kinda dos-based underneath. Win98 should have been much faster than Linux in every case, if your suppositions were true.
Win2K? NT? not exactly the ideal gaming platforms, last time I checked.
Perhaps you are posting about DirectX performance under Linux. I admit, that ain't working so well.
Militant or passionate? (Score:2)
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
and the cluestick swings! (Score:2)
2) XFree4.0.1 has accelerated GL built in when you use a supported card.
3) rapid advances are being made to do the updates more cleanly on the redhat side.
4) I have seen plenty of Windows 98 machines lock hard, with the latest DX6, and the latest drivers, while Linux just keeps on running under OpenGL.
Are you *kidding*? (Score:2)
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:2)
Mikael Jacobson
Free-ISPs; Linux doesn't get a 10 for question #9 (Score:3)
Linux - 3 / 10 (promoted / actual)
Windows 98 - 10 / 8
For general networking, Linux is amazing.
Having said that, there is one area for ISP support that Linux isn't as good as Windows; free ISPs. Most free services either require Windows or are hostile to non-Windows systems, including Macintosh and BSD.
On top of that, some free ISPs are thwarting attempts to login using anything except for the Windows-only tools they provide. The reason is simple; a Linux system connecting to these services doesn't use the ad-laden login tools, so the free services can't justify allowing these freeloaders on thier systems!
I think getting a free ISP for the cost of some advertising is a fine exchange...but the ISPs are not doing anything to get thier ads on the 'un-supported' systems. Catch-22? You decide.
So, while many free ISPs can be made to work with Linux, fewer support it and a few are actively making it harder to use thier services.
Because of the minimal support by free ISPs for anything that isn't IE under MS Windows 98, I'd can't give Linux a 10 out of 10 in this category.
In a blatent attempt to get people to tell me something I don't know, here's what I do know so far.
First off, this month Juno -- a free ISP that hasn't supported Linux in the past -- has bought both FreeWWW and Worldspy -- two ISPs that have had support for Linux. Some people have complained that Juno's free service can't use Netscape or other browsers and requires IE...though I'd like to know if that's the case or not. Supposedly there's a way around this.
Free ISPs that can be used with Linux;
www.freewwweb.com [freewwweb.com]
Freeweb Linux link; read the notes on Juno's buy out of Freewww [teledyn.com]
Worldspy - Bought out by Juno
www.freei.net [freei.net]
www.netzero.com [netzero.com]- first have to set up in Windows to get encrypted password/ID, then put in login under Linux
www.freedsl.com - I know nothing; some Linux users. See this link to a Usenet post [deja.com]
Notes on how to use different free ISPs; I'd give attribution for the information below but I didn't keep it when I first grabbed it!
[Most of this is from Deja and Google from 2 months ago; I didn't write it, I'm just passing it along.]
-----
A very good success story. If you and your friend are looking for a backup to freewwweb, Worldspy does work (with a little effort) but you need to setup and run the process from Windows in order to obtain the DNS info along with the cryptic user name. That means that if your username you signed up with is Ron123 then your Linux name to key into kppp will be something like: nvnet.asdfasdf@microportal.com . Trust me it does work and several others on this NG have made it happen as well. Good luck. blariz
--------
Better go to http://autoreg.freewwweb.com/ for a fast registration without downloading those huge browsers.
-----------
Well, that sort of depends on the definition of 'is'! :-)
I had noticed two mentioned, FREEWWWEB and DIAL4LIFE. I went to the web site for freewwweb to get an access number, but they all end with XXXX, which doesn't work. So I then went to dial4life and looked up their access numbers. It turned out to be the same list of towns and numbers except this one had the last 4 digits posted correctly. I followed the link to their instructions, and lo and behold, I was back at freewwweb!
So, I ended up installing freewwweb using the dial number I found at dial4life. And it WORKED! That little bit of good luck was my payback for putting in two solid weeks of hell trying to get linux installed at all!
BTW, I wasn't asked for a credit card at all.
-----------
I just called worldspy's tech support and asked about Linux and he said "you could try it, but they don't support it". I then asked if they used pap authentication and the support guy had no idea what I was talking about. I had tried it briefly this morning before going to work and got the connect, but immediately pppd died (I'm assuming because of the username/password authentication). I don't know whether that's because they don't use PAP or whether my account that I had just signed up for 30 minutes earlier hadn't been activated yet.
------
Actually I had to do a little hacking but didn't have any problem. I use Win95's dialer when in Win95. After installing worldspy.net and getting frustrated with all the windows that are used just to log on, I decided to find a way around them. Checking the DUN file it created for dialing I found that my user name was relaced with a code that looks like a wierd email address. Then I created a new dialer and copied the code to it and used my normal password. It worked! I logged on without going through all the BS they give you. Next I switched to Linux and set up ppp the same way and it works too. Now I have a FREE ISP with none of the BS, not even their home page. Try it, you'll like it.
-----
The ticket is to get a bogus account set up under Win98, then run RASSpy or a logging program to get the user/password strings (which are usually encrypted or modified by their software) required for a straight logon, then just configure a standard call-up profile with this info in whatever program you're using, then throw away all the FISP's software. Works for any platform or O/S.
Instant raw ISP!
Naturally, you get rid of all their ads, timeouts, spyware and other crap in the bargain.
Some FISPs have gotten wise to this hack and have blocked logging in their DUN profiles or made it impossible to run RASSpy, but at least 2/3 are still hackable using this workaround.
NetZero, which is otherwise pretty high-quality access, has made this impossible in v.3, but if you can get an earlier version of the software you can run the hack and use the info for a clean login.
Juno, Freei, Bluelight and a whole bunch more are currently easy to do this with. I get faster connects with NetZero and NZ is less congested than the other FISPs I've tried, but this may vary from user to user.
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:2)
Re:ummmm..... (Score:2)
Wouldn't that make Windows 2000 some sort of embryonic OS???
No, that makes 95 a new kid on the block. It makes 98 a source of noise and vile messes. And it makes W2K packaging resemble a condom.
Re:No Way--Windows Dir Structure Makes *More* Sens (Score:4)
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that)
Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\ How does that compare with
\Program Files folder for applications
Which, incidentally, you need to have on each drive if you're committed to putting apps in that folder. Since drives get mounted under an individual letter, there's no way to have a coherent filesystem hierarchy on a system with multiple drives.
a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
\WINNT on real MS operating systems. I object to the assertion that this makes more sense than
You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want
Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications. Broke a lot of in house apps too, and I was working at MS at the time. Even a lot of older MS applications couldn't handle it.
the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad. Your files go in %windir%\profiles\username on NT. In linux they go in ~username. Only castrated systems that don't support multiple users make it easy to pollute the top level directory.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with.
If you ever work on a shared system, you'll lose this freedom in a hurry.
In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration.
No one has ever cracked my linux box and criticized my filesystem layout. I doubt it's happened to you. You can fuck with the filesystem all you want as long as you're using it as a single user box.
And what the Hell is up with
So what's in \WINNT\Driver Cache and how does it differ from \WINNT\System32\DLLCache and how does this differ from \WINNT\System32\Cache? It seems that the details are always a bit fuzzy. And how do I know if a dll is in \Program Files\Common or \Program Files\Office?
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made to keep one user from mucking with anothers files. NT makes a lot of those tradeoffs too.
--Shoeboy
militant linux geeks and misogynist game nerds (Score:2)
i really enjoy the irony here. elitist linux hackers are bad for linux's reputation, but it's okay for the author to stereotype my parents, sister, and girlfriend (what about my boyfriend, anyway?) as clueless lusers. that's the way to get more people interested in technology! k-r4d d00d.
tyler
It's all about standards and driver implementation (Score:5)
What Linux needs to push it into the realm of gaming heaven:
1.) A feature like WindowsUpdate, which downloads and installs the latest drivers for hardware. This is an underappreciated Godsend for Windows users (where I dabble on occasion). Why can't a Linux distributor, particularly a highly-paid one like Corel, Caldera or RedHat, implement a simple website which includes up-to-date driver downloads? I don't mean the "system updates" that RedHat offers, with the simple updates to the kernel. I'm talking full-on driver updates, something I can just click and it will say "You are not using the best drivers for your GeForce board? Should I download and install the newest ones for you?" Review the changes (of course) and bam, one step closer to gaming heaven.
2.) A better standardized X needs to be in place. I want full support for DirectX-like screen calls and antialiasing for fonts. I want OpenGL embedded in the system itself if I'm going to use it. I want support for USB devices like mice out of box. I know this is going to be difficult, but these are areas Windows is flogging Linux in. I can set up a Windows 98 system, plug in a few peripherals, have the system detect them, install the latest DirectX and bam, full support for 99.9% of the best games out there.
3.) Position Linux to developers as a viable gaming platform. This is the most difficult task, and can only be done after the first 2 are completed. The Mac has been jockeying for developer support for years. The problem (and how Linux cannot fall into the same trap) is that Apple refuses to bend the needs of the OS towards developers' needs. All the standards for UI and UI consistency across apps doesn't do a heap of good when iD is trying to port Quake III Arena to the system, which has its own UI. Apple has to get off its bandwagon and start positioning OpenGL within the system (as they are doing in MacOS X) NOW to developers, instead of continuting to push stale standards like QuickDraw (Apple's Vietnam, next to OpenDoc).
These are not simple changes, but they are necessary to gaming development on the Linux platform. Hopefully distributors will realize them and get Linux in a position where it can take over Microsoft's PC gaming crown.
Confusing directory structure? (Score:3)
Does anyone else find the Windows directory structure more of a PITA than *nix? It seems to me that /etc, /usr, /usr/local, /lib, /usr/lib/, and /home all have a fairly defined purpose, whereas %WINDIR% (whether it be C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINNT or whatever) tends to a black hole, there usually isn't a $HOME, the directory structure under C:\PROGRA~1 is often odd (do programs go in C:\PROGRA~1\company\proggie or just C:\PROGRA~1\proggie?), and there's a whole lot of crap in C:\, etc
Re:Are you *kidding*? (Score:2)
What about when you want something to be in two places at once? What about when you want to move something, but don't want to mess with any programs that may be configured to point at it?
At any rate, who said you can't create
If you want to clutter up your root directory, be my guest, but don't try to argue that having the ability to keep your files in your own space is a hardship.
--Shoeboy
Re:Primitive? (Score:2)
--Shoeboy
Re:"Standards" conflict (Score:2)
They forgot speed. (Score:4)
Re:Free-ISPs; Linux doesn't get a 10 for question (Score:2)
Re:Militant Linux Geeks (Score:2)
I use FreeBSD at work and I think that is the number one problem that hurts FreeBSD. Elitist in the FreeBSD community is a real turn off to most people, and that is why I think Linux is so much more accepted than Linux. Linux people tend to be alot nicer and helpful than FreeBSD people. I just hope that all the attitude that FreeBSD community has stays with it and Linux people don't turn into assholes.