Distributing software to end users isn't a core purpose of Google Code; the download functionality (which could be, and often was, used for that purpose) wasn't, as I understand it, provided for that purpose, but provided mostly as an alternative to using source control tools to get source code bundles.

It's possible that's what they were thinking (and maybe even said) but it sure doesn't come out from the design of the site, which I've always thought has been well-geared toward the end users. There's a consistent landing page with consistent links to the downloads, documentation, and news groups. Of the "hey, stick your OSS projects here!" sites, Google Code has been the one that I most like to use as an end user.

Amusingly, the biggest counterpoint was that if you want to offer downloads you should probably use google code which is much more user (rather than programmer) friendly.

That's pretty much my view too.

The way I looked at things was that Google Code and SourceForge are a lot more centered around what an end user would want to see (either someone who has no idea about version control and coding, or for a library or something like that even a programmer but who just wants to grab a library to use) while GitHub is a lot more centered around what developers who are actually working on a project want to see.

I mean, just think about what the landing page is: on Google Code you get a page with a description of the project and clear, standardized links to the downloads and documentation, and you have to follow a couple (still standardized) links before you're at the code. On GitHub, pretty much the most prominent thing you see when you go to a project page is the directory listing; it even appears above whatever README is present (if any).

Dropping support for a quick and easy download from the former is a lot more baffling of a move than dropping it from the latter.

Oh, I know. Let me try to recap my argument, because I suspect we're not actually disagreeing all that much. :-)

The conversation started with Holi saying "Find a console that isn't locked down that people actually want then come back with your whining" and you responding with "PC", and then the discussion changed to DRM on the PC.

My argument is that DRM is still a significant factor on the PC. Sure, the situation is better than it is on consoles both because there are some DRM-free games and because you can even do that in the first place if you want, but few people in my experience are willing to actually forgo games with DRM. And in some sense I would say that's DRM is rather closer to the rule than the exception, and I suspect this post by you was more focusing on the exceptions.

It's pretty much just that focus that I objected to rather than the fact that PCs are a better ecosystem.

How do you expect a 32-bit program with no knowledge of 64-bit processors to be able to tell the OS to not give it the full 4 GB, because the developer wasn't careful?

That happens by default on Windows. By default, programs only get 2GB of address space, and Windows "uses" (just doesn't give out, really) the other 2GB.

If a programmer thinks they're careful, they opt into the larger address space by setting the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag in their PE header (usually by passing a linker flag).

So now we can get to your question, and there are two answers:

1) Even if a program doesn't have knowledge of 64-bit Windows, they can still get some benefit from setting that flag: on a 32-bit Windows system configured to support it, they'll get a 3GB address space instead of 2GB.

2) If a program has no knowledge about the large-address-aware flag at all, then they "tell the OS to not give it the full 4 GB" by doing nothing.

In Firefox's case, Mozilla has set this flag:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox>dumpbin /headers firefox.exe
...
FILE HEADER VALUES
            14C machine (x86)
...
            122 characteristics
                  Executable
                  Application can handle large (>2GB) addresses <--
                  32 bit word machine
...

(You could probably actually modify the Firefox executable to unset that flag and stop it from using above 2GB of user memory, but I'm not sure what would happen or if there are other mechanisms that can overrule it or whatever.)

The direction in which I take this line of discussion depends on what fraction of the total audience a particular game needs before it's considered successful.

Also, I don't really care what the answer to this question is. I'm not looking at things from the point of view of the game developer and trying to argue that it makes sense for publishers to include DRM or not include DRM or whatever; I'm looking at things from the point of view of the gamer, who has to decide between supporting DRM-ed products or going without games they probably want.

Or do you claim that someone is likely to browse through GOG and see absolutely no worthwhile games?

Absolutely not.

What I mean is the following: if you were to ask everyone who plays PC games (maybe exclude the guy who just dabbles in solitaire in his spare time) what their favorites are and what games they haven't played that they would most like to, I strongly suspect that almost all of those lists will have games that are only available with DRM.

It doesn't have to be the same game between different people: maybe I put Portal on my list, you put HL2 on your list, someone else puts Mass Effect on their list. But there will be very few lists consisting entirely of games available DRM-free.

Sticking to DRM-free games will cause you to miss out on a ton of good stuff. If it's a strong principle to avoid DRM then it's worth it, but for most people that's not the case.

They're games; have some principle.

But here's the thing; in some sense, I don't really view it as as ethical or moral issue. (Of course, it becomes such if it isn't disclosed.) To me, it's just another angle on the business transaction of purchasing the game. I understand people who do view it that way, but I am not one of them and nor are most people I suspect.

I mean, take one of the things that people say about DRM: that it's "defective by design." Let's assume that I agree with that. Well, here's the thing -- it's quite reasonable to knowingly buy defective stuff! There are outlet stores and whatnot where they have racks of clothes for instance where there's something wrong, and they are sold at a discount. If I can get something that, practically speaking, works pretty well as a shirt and doesn't look too bad, why wouldn't buy it? Sure, I'm not going to pay full price, but I'm not going to leave it on the rack out of principle. Same with games; maybe I'd be willing to have paid $60 for Mass Effect 3 without DRM, but since it's on the defective rack, I waited until I could get it for $30. If it was on some "really defective, you have to be online to wear this" rack, maybe it'd have dropped to $5 or $10.

The only ethical concern to me is the slippery slope: if you can't get DRM-free programs at all, and stuff like that. But that's not now. (Actually the "they're games" argument works in favor of my position, because there's a much less compelling argument re. vendor lockin. If Valve cuts off access to Portal or something I'll be pissed, but it's not like my livelihood will be threatened or I'll be unable to access years' of work.)

He is that stupid. And so are most people. Every compu-geek is saying, geee why didn't they use P-geeee-pee or Gee-Pee-Gee or one-time-pads, or steganography in images of zebras!!! And people here think that they're a lot smarter than they really are, or probably are

I believe The Onion had an interesting investigative report on the topic of that observation applied to national security.

Oooo, or the Xbox Continuum. That actually even sounds kind of markety.

Although, what would you have called its successor... Xbox Infinity-Plus-One?

The Xbox Aleph-1.

What else is there for physical media?

Flash and download.

Download isn't physical media and is inferior in many situations and fatal in some. Flash would definitely have been an alternative, but is substantially more expensive and doesn't retain compatibility with people's existing audio CDs, DVDs, and movie blu-ray discs.

Besides, I wouldn't be too surprised if there would be a way for game devs to distribute games on flash (especially if they start bugging MS for it), and I'd be astonished if there's no game download service. I mean, that already exists; it's not like DVDs are the only way to get games onto a 360. Just because MS says "hey we've got a blu-ray drive" doesn't mean that's what every single game will use.

And why does it have to be 1080p? Lower resolutions don't exist?

They exist, but given the choice between "stream a lower resolution" and "wait a couple days for a blu-ray at 1080p", for many things and in most situations, I at least would choose the latter.

Or you bought a DRM'd thing during an irrational lapse of judgement.

If "you're OK getting something like Portal", either it wasn't a lapse of judgement or said lapse is continuing.

But the vast majority of PC games on GOG or Humble Bundle are DRM-free, as are open-source games downloaded from the developer's own web site.

And what percentage of PC games that most people would want to play are available on GOG, a Humble Bundle, or as an open-source game on the developer's web site?

Many of the best games out there (including my favorite, Portal, and many of my other top games) are not available in any of those sources. I am happy that DRM-free indie games seem to be gaining popularity, but there's still a long way to go. Even some great indie games, like Mark of the Ninja (I think), are only available on Steam.

...separate L1 caches...

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the data cache. The shared I-cache is another factor that blurs the distinction and moves it closer to the SMT end of the spectrum, but still not past the halfway point IMO.

That basically leaves the shared decoder and dispatcher

I guess also the bus interface from the module.