Even though I'm a PC gamer I have to agree. I've played FPSes for probably about 15 years too, but I can't be arsed getting so damn obsessive over it. It's too much energy expended in something trivial.

This story is about as far from Slashdot's slogan as you can get.

Commercial games are, for the most part, dead on the Linux desktop. There are some occasional exceptions but for the most part, if you want a big-name game to appear on Linux you're gonna have to go use WINE as native builds probably won't exist. That said, there are still quite a lot of decent older games which have Linux ports and Ryan does continue development on ports for commercial when he can.

I think if you really want to avoid disappointment with regards to Linux gaming and want to continue enjoying gaming on Linux... get used to indy games, and forget the big-budget commercial stuff. Indy developers need all the audience they can get and as the Humble Bundles have shown, Linux users are often the most generous per purchase due to a desperate need for games. :)

Big-name commercial studios like EPIC and iD have abandoned Linux (unlike his previous games John Carmack has expressed a certain doubt about supporting Linux with Rage). It would certainly be NICE if we could get more commercial support, but until that happens, it's less depressing to just aim for indy games.

No, but you can bypass it with 1 multitool

But only if you're got 'Master' electronics training.

Aren't updates tested before being pushed out? Or would useful testing of definitions take too long with modern AV software that they just pass the barest of qualifications before being approved?

Seems to have worked for World of Goo. The developers just supplied static libraries where necessary instead of relying on the user to have the right libs already installed. This is EXACTLY how commercial software should be distributed in Linux. It takes the environment down to a more manageable level.

Then, finally, you have the fundies who say you should never have proprietary software ever if it isn't baked into the hardware who drum up a racket any time the topic is raised and will even hit you with a mail campaign and other waste-of-your-time activities. It's less painful just to ignore the market, even if it is large enough to be worth considering, it's just a pain in the ass.

So then you ignore the fundies. They weren't going to buy your software anyway.

Those damn dicks didn't even bother to look into my suggestion of rewriting the game in lisp and bf and/or port it to MSX,C64,TI89 and TDS220.

I know you're being facetious to prove a point, but Linux isn't exactly obscure or old anymore. It might not be mainstream but it's common enough for it to have had ports of commercial games for it, and also ports of games from indy developers. It's no longer unreasonable for someone to ask, that's all. I've seen plenty of indy games with Linux ports to make me believe there's potential in it.

The thing is that random people on internet making requests is so common that there is no way to research everything that is suggested.

True, but they appear to be misinformed about Linux and are instead going off a stereotype. They're programmers, shouldn't they be at least aware of what's out there? Or am I just being naive?

No, not PETA, the developers of Super Meat Boy.

After hearing about this game I was curious as to whether a Linux version was available or in the works. I ended up at http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2010/10/indiegamescom_podcast_5_super.html, and a commenter put a link to a podcast with the developers here: http://www.levelfortytwo.com/2009/12/talk-is-cheap-12-21-09/

The relevant bit starts at 43:55. Basically, they think that a Linux version would mean it would have to be open source, which obviously it doesn't. To quote one of the developers: "Linux can fuck off as far as I'm concerned." Gee, thanks. I don't mind if you're not going to bother making a port to Linux, but to not even bother to understand what people are asking and instead resorting to profanity shows these guys are a bunch of closed-minded dicks.

I'm in my mid 40's as of about a week ago. I still play games, single and multiplayer, and I still own the kiddies who think they are hot stuff. Getting older doesn't mean you can't have fun.

This could be just how my brain works, but I figure if I'm 40 and I am still able to own kids in fast-paced multiplayer games, then this is actually a BAD thing because it means I've invested way too much time into the game when I should be doing other things with my life. Not to criticize you in any way, it's just a reason why I feel that sucking at such games as one gets older is nothing to be ashamed of at all. Means you've moved onto other, more important things.

it can almost feel like a movie with limited interaction.

I believe a comment was made about the Call of Duty games, especially Black Ops - there's a video floating around on YouTube which shows the first part of the game at least can be played without firing a shot, save for a couple of short tasks which are required as part of the story.

There appears to be a significant market for games which are basically interactive stories, where you just go along with the flow as the story progresses around you, rather than taking charge of a lot of the plot through your own choices (Deus Ex would be an example of the latter). I don't like to criticize... much, but I feel it does mean that you'll have a generation of people who don't care for "complex" games and just want point & click shooters that don't require much thought. This, in turn, will lead to more mainstream dumbing down of games to cater for the masses.

Maybe this is why games created by independent developers are enjoying a resurgence. People want the variety.

Your point about limiting browser support at this stage is perfectly reasonable, I agree 100%. But you also appear to agree that sidelining IE browsers in the manner they're doing is rather immature. If they blocked IE and explained why they were doing so without sounding pretentious, then it will look a lot more professional.

It's a closed beta FFS. They can do whatever the hell they want, and I say bravo to them for only choosing where to draw the support line while they work on other things.

Bullshit. If that were the case they could have worded it a little better than they did, instead of a blank page and silly comment as the title.

Just had this pointed out to me:

* Goto http://www.joindiaspora.com/ using Internet Explorer

Instead of showing the page, what do you get? I'll tell you... a blank page with the following title:

You need to use a real browser in order to use Diaspora!

I'm not a IE fan, but this happens with Internet Explorer 8 for goodness sakes. Probably happens with IE9 too. FFS stop showing your fanboyish nature guys; you're basically stating that a good portion of users who only use IE, even if they're using a modern version of it with modern security features like sand-boxing and whatnot, is apparently not "real" enough for your fucking site.

This really does piss me off. Makes the rest of us "open" FOSS users look like a pack of childish geeks who have no idea. You want your little social site to work? Don't arbitrarily restrict browsers!

This sounds like it's referencing something in pop culture, but for the life of me I can't work out from what.

has revealed it's plans

has revealed it is plans?