There's another step in here: is the code copyrighted? Without that part the rest does not matter. That's why GPL has a copyright even though Stallman seems to be personally opposed to the concept with software.

Because that's what a lot of customers want and it's easy to market a Linux product to IT departments. I also think there may be some synergy between a VM running Linux and the underlying vmklinux host.

So are the console makers creating the games, or are there independent companies who make the games? Sure, Sony may not want to port to a Microsoft platform, but certainly a third party game maker would be interested in doing this.

There were games on terminal before there was even the first console or gaming computer or arcade games. So keyboards came first.

I never got used to a joystick, they were always awful. And the thing on the consoles are too much like that stupid nipple mouse thing on some laptops that are impossible to use (but which somehow some people like).

I have no idea what the alternative, they're not the sort of game that sounds interesting. Most console games fit into that category.

Of course, the idea of playing the game in a TV from my couch does sound interesting, but then you're stuck with a godawful controller that's utterly useless for gaming compared to keyboard and mouse. If you manage it then the game has a bug but you can't fix it without subscribing and selling your soul to Microsoft or Sony, can't use mods, etc. So the console ultimately is to keep the kids occupied and I don't have kids.

I think that console exclusive games are a travesty, a stupid concept that the customers *should* have boycotted to preserve a better gaming environment. This is not a matter of game companies deciding not to port a game because it's hard or the market is small, but because they signed a deal with the console maker.

I can't be bothered to pay more for a console when I already have a PC.

"We are a hedge, please move along."

SJW seems to be code words for people who don't like trolls. The definition is just so vague. Anyone trying to upset the sexist status quo, or even hinting that someone somewhere might be sexist, is an SJW. It's like a knee jerk reaction to political correctness, except that this has nothing to do with political correctness except in the mind of trolls.

Donating to a political party does not necessarily make one a rabid supporter of far left or the far right. This is not a sign that that the journalists are liberal.

Enlightened self interest, journalists are likely to have come from or be in a unionized background. Being pro-union says nothing whatsoever about tendencies on social issues, pro/anti war, size of government, etc.

Being in the center and a decline to state voter, it's a tempest in the teapot. Both sides do it, both sides are corrupt, and the current shouting and fist shaking is just another case of political theater used to hide the hypocrisy.

I disagree. Fox News is absolutely a right wing mouthpiece, and it is by design and it is not denied by the owners or management. Fox explicitly says that they don't make any attempt to be balanced. However most news organizations are not like that at all, they are not left or right wing and make at least a token effort to maintain fairness, even if they have an ownership that has a leaning very often the management will insist that they maintain control. Even the most left leaning mainstream news organization is much closer to the center and less vitriolic than Fox is on a slow day.

The biggest problem today with news media is not their political bias but their tendency towards sensationalism in order to mainain ratings. Even with Fox, they are not necessarily right wing because that is their politics, but they are right wing because that is the market segment that they are going after and they are keeping that market through sensationalism.

Some kickstarters do interact with their backers, asking them for directions, and so forth. Of course this is optional. But even with real investment if you're not on the board of directors you have extremely miniscule control other than a yearly proxy vote about whether to keep the current board.

It depends upon the items. I backed some games. The upside beyond the expense of the game is that it is also reviving interest in good old style games again, stuff that the bean counters in industry said were not fashionable enough and who decided that every new game must be an assassin's creed or GTA clone on a console. It's a long term payoff if it works for only a small percentage of premium over the cost of a game.

Kickstarter doubles as a proxy for customer to vote.

Why 3-6 months? Some of these projects know in advance it will take 2 years or more to complete. And rushing people to a deadline defeats much of the benefit of kickstarter which is to do away with the traditional bean-counters who care nothing about the product but who only want financial return on investments. I'd vastly prefer having a late product that's high quality than a typical on-time product that buggy or defective.

Ok, the only thing I've backed are games, so maybe it's different for a bike. A late bike means you're walking a lot, but if you want a good bike soon then go buy one instead of investing in a new type. Kickstarter is not intended to be a market place to buy stuff.

Because some of the employees were well known and who had proven track records with well loved games. It was a very early kickstarter so there were a lot of unknowns with the project and how it would work. I suspect there are a lot of backers who think it was a success because it helped revive interest in the genre and help other game companies learn from the mistakes.