Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Tim Smith wrote:

> On 2007-08-02, chrisv <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> "Hadron" and "Tim Smith" are trolls. They've had this explained to
>> them already. I'd advise filtering them.
>
> Yeah, right. I cite the *developers* of Wine saying that it is a
> Windows emulator, and you claim that this is trolling. You are an
> idiot--or do you think the Wine developers are trolls, too?

ChrisV - you're right. *Plonk!*

C.

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:57:47 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> XP = a mess
>> Vista = a derivate of a mess
>> XP and Vista = 90% of the desktop market
>> Linux = about 3% of desktop market
>
> I'm sure you can back up those figures, with something *other* than sales
> and revenue or web stats, right? After all, you wouldn't be so dishonest
> as to examine sales and revenue when examining a product freely
> downloadable and freely copyable, would you?
>
> No, you're a good, honest, upstanding fellow; therefore you must have real
> numbers, real validation of those claims above. I'd be fascinated to see
> them.

It's just blustering nonsense. There are parts of the world where Windows
has 0% of the "desktop market". For example, on a recent trip to China,
the /only/ Windows machines I saw were at an airport check-in desk - and
they'd /all/ crashed!

C.

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

The thick mick wrote:

> Then it is established: you are a liar.

OK. If that's what you want to believe, carry on. I'm sure it makes you
happy. Stay slack-jawed and ignorant, and get back to the bog where you
belong.

*Plonk!*

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

*Plonk!*

Benjamin Gawert · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 16

* Roger Christie <rochrist@:

> Nonsense. Macs have supported multiple monitors and desktops
> seamlessly for just about forever.

Macs do indeed support multiple monitors for a long time already (as
does Windows). But multiple desktops, no, it doesn't.

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 16

* Benjamin Gawert:

>> Nonsense. Macs have supported multiple monitors and desktops
> > seamlessly for just about forever.
>
> Macs do indeed support multiple monitors for a long time already (as
> does Windows). But multiple desktops, no, it doesn't.

BTW: that's an announcement of multiple desktops in MacOS 10.5.

<http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/spaces.html>

Probably you should tell Steve Jobs that Macs support multiple desktops
for ages already.

Benjamin

Davorin Vlahovic · External Since: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 305

On 2007-08-02, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.RemoveThis@gmx.de> wrote:
> BTW: that's an announcement of multiple desktops in MacOS 10.5.
>
><http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/spaces.html>

Since we're announcing, MacOS X 10.5 is officially Unix:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/unix.html

It's got Sun's DTrace and there'll possibly be ZFS. Right now, Macs are
the ultimate in Unix workstations.

Too bad Sun fell asleep and SGI slipped. [sigh]
--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2707

On 2007-08-02, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert RemoveThis @gmx.de> wrote:
> BTW: that's an announcement of multiple desktops in MacOS 10.5.
>
><http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/spaces.html>
>
> Probably you should tell Steve Jobs that Macs support multiple desktops
> for ages already.

I don't know if you'd call it ages, but how about several years?

<http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/index.php>

That's one example. The OS has had the support for this for a long
time, but Apple has not provided an interface to use it, but, as you can
see above, outside developers have. In Leopard, Apple is offering for
the first time an interface of their own to this.

Pibbur · External Since: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 2

På Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:12:26 +0200, skrev Tim Smith
<reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com>:

> On 2007-08-02, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote:
>> BTW: that's an announcement of multiple desktops in MacOS 10.5.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/spaces.html>
>>
>> Probably you should tell Steve Jobs that Macs support multiple desktops
>> for ages already.
>
> I don't know if you'd call it ages, but how about several years?
>
> <http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/index.php>
>
> That's one example. The OS has had the support for this for a long
> time, but Apple has not provided an interface to use it, but, as you can
> see above, outside developers have. In Leopard, Apple is offering for
> the first time an interface of their own to this.

I we are talking about 3rd party interfaces to multiple desktops, that has
been available for Windows as well, For instance NVidia's Desktop Manager
and Stardock's Object Desktop, to name a few examples. But I supposed the
starter of this subthread was talking about native interfaces to multiple
desktops.

--
Pibbur
"- Luce, pater tuus sum"
"- Minime! Minime!"

Pibbur · External Since: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 2

På Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:18:32 +0200, skrev waterskidoo
<water.skidoo.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>:

> On 2007-08-02, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.RemoveThis@gmx.de> wrote:
....>
> Why should they?
> I dunno, but the point is that *can* if they wish to.
> In fact every game manufacturer could release a custom tuned
> kernel and graphics subsystem with their games if they
> wanted to.
>

I can't really understand why a professional game developer would want to
that, for several reasons
- the cost and complexity of getting to know/adapting the source code of
the kernel
- what happens when new versions of the kernel is introduced?
Compatibility issues? (I'm only asking here)

There is a reason why the current paradigm of programming is
object-oriented programming, where encapsulation of methods is a very
important feature.

So while it is a possibility, I can hardly see that it is a relevant
option.
>
>> And this all on a quite well documented platform with standardized APIs
>> and really good development tools and also a lot of help from MS.
>>
>> And you really think that this would be better on Linux? I doubt that.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> It depends upon who is doing the writing.
> The point is it can be done with Linux.
> How do you fine tune the NT kernel or graphics system?

By parameters and what API mfunctions you call?

> You have an API to interface to it's features but
> you are still using the same kernel as someone writing a Word
> Processor.

But you'll use different parts of the API.

--
Pibbur Dragon ( -==UDIC==-)
d++ e++ u++ 4567'!S'!89! a52
"- Luce, pater tuus sum"
"- Minime! Minime!"

waterskidoo · External Since: Jul 10, 2007 Posts: 308

On 2007-08-02, Pibbur <oopsREM.OVE512.DeleteThis@tele2ca.psno> wrote:

>
> I can't really understand why a professional game developer would want to
> that, for several reasons
> - the cost and complexity of getting to know/adapting the source code of
> the kernel
> - what happens when new versions of the kernel is introduced?
> Compatibility issues? (I'm only asking here)

Most likely just like various other stuff in Linux is tied
to the kernel.

> There is a reason why the current paradigm of programming is
> object-oriented programming, where encapsulation of methods is a very
> important feature.
>
> So while it is a possibility, I can hardly see that it is a relevant
> option.

I would say for maybe the ultimate game?
Cost effective, probably not considering the number of Linux
users but it could also be re-used much like the various
game engines are re-used.

> By parameters and what API mfunctions you call?

Ye, but you aren't you still tied to what scheduling, etc has
been written into the kernel?
(I am asking)

> But you'll use different parts of the API.

True, but you are held by what Microsoft allows you to do.

I am not a programmer (in case you haven't figured that out yet!)
but here is an example of what I am considering from a user POV.

Two years or so ago, low latency audio was difficult to obtain
with a stock Linux kernel. Mr. Morton introduced his low
latency kernel, specifically desgined for multimedia use and
it was a God send to those of us that needed that type of
performance from Linux.
Granted the number was few back then, but now with film
studios moving off expensive designed systems (SGI etc)
and on to the Linux platform, this is now huge.

How would that be done with Windows other than Microsoft
having to re-write and optimize the NT kernel?
Even if all the drivers, asio/wdm and *stuff* in the I/O
subsystem were optimized by say the hardware manufacturer,
they would still be tied to GIGO as far as the kernel is
concerned,

I may be totally off base here, and of course the argument
can be made that Windows, at that time, already had
sub 3ms latency anyway, but humor me a little, isn't
having access to the kernel/gui/x/etc source code
like the holy grail for game developers like it is
for the film studios in Hollywood? IOW the customization
factor.

Zaghadka · External Since: Jul 31, 2007 Posts: 7

This message is not archived

Zaghadka · External Since: Jul 31, 2007 Posts: 7

This message is not archived

Zaghadka · External Since: Jul 31, 2007 Posts: 7

This message is not archived

Christopher Hunter · External Since: Jul 08, 2007 Posts: 67

waterskidoo wrote:

> How would that be done with Windows other than Microsoft
> having to re-write and optimize the NT kernel?

Even MS internally doesn't understand how much of their kernel code works -
the folks that wrote it are long gone, and there's no proper documentation.

However, the Windows fanboys will tell you that it's "perfect" - even though
it's obviously very broken.

C.

Ivan Marsh · External Since: Jan 26, 2005 Posts: 438

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:53:55 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Zaghadka <zaghadka DeleteThis @hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:32 +0000 (UTC), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
>> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter DeleteThis @NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about?
>>>>> Considering that most wont run on Linux?
>>>>
>>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications.
>>>> In many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under
>>>> Windows.
>>>
>>>Wine is not an emulator.
>>
>> In fact, in the tradition of GNU, that's what it stands for:
>>
>> (W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator.
>
> Wrong. That was a suggestion not taken up by the developers. Google it
> up. WINE was and IS an emulator but the emulator was taken from the name
> because, as in this thread, people with no ability to think outside of
> the box and thought they were technical geniuses because they knew what
> a CPU emulator was got confused. See posts in thread for links to facts
> and not baseless opinions.

I don't know if you're a liar or just stupid, but stop making stuff up:

http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wine-faq/index

Ivan Marsh · External Since: Jan 26, 2005 Posts: 438

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:42:46 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Tim Smith <reply_in_group RemoveThis @mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> In article <pan.2007.08.01.20.23.13.919771 RemoveThis @you.now>,
>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed RemoveThis @you.now> wrote:
>>> > And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to it
>>> > as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>>>
>>> Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
>>>
>>> "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running
>>> Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating
>>> systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs
>>> would, running without the performance or memory usage penalties of an
>>> emulator, with a similar look and feel to other applications on your
>>> desktop."
>>>
>>> From the Wine FAQ:
>>>
>>> "Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
>>>
>>> They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original
>>> name for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there
>>> really is no point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please
>>> use the simpler, current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."
>>
>> It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original name of
>> the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, on
>> comp.os.linux.misc:

Considering the Wine project started in 1993 I'm not sure what you're
trying to say here.

>> The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
>> Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like
>> best.

That would seem to prove and disprove both statements being made in this
thread.

> Thanks Tim. I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish
> to change history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang
> seem to get some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a
> little knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here.

Indeed thanks Tim... you proved that neither of us are correct and we're
both correct.

Hadron, the whole "Linux zealot" bullshit makes you sound like a troll...
especially since you have no idea what my experience is.

Also, if you're going to whine about people trying to change history it
would appear that the Wine developers or FAQ maintainers are the ones you
should be focusing on.

Let's start the does "Xwindows exist" argument now.

Davorin Vlahovic · External Since: Jan 03, 2005 Posts: 305

On 2007-08-03, Zaghadka <zaghadka.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose we could just term it a Windows API (Win32) "wrapper?" But that makes
> it sound too trivial. "High-level emulation" sounds sexier.

Yep, that's probably the reason why every techie dreams of shooting at
marketing-type people. Smile

I prefer to adhere to K.I.S.S. principle.

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Benjamin Gawert · External Since: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 16

* Tim Smith:

> I don't know if you'd call it ages, but how about several years?
>
> <http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/index.php>

Yeah, right, a 3rd party application.

So that means you just confirm that MacOS up to 10.4 doesn't support
multiple desktops.

BTW: such third party apps already were available for WindowsNT 3.51
(which now is 12 years old). Go figure.

Benjamin

Hadron · External Since: Jul 17, 2007 Posts: 305

Tim Smith <reply_in_group.TakeThisOut@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> On 2007-08-02, chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> "Hadron" and "Tim Smith" are trolls. They've had this explained to
>> them already. I'd advise filtering them.
>
> Yeah, right. I cite the *developers* of Wine saying that it is a
> Windows emulator, and you claim that this is trolling. You are an
> idiot--or do you think the Wine developers are trolls, too?

Chrisv has had it explained to him that he is a know nothing fan boi
with the brain the size of a pea. But does he listen?

It's kind of funny that this debate about "emulator" is the reason why
the developers dropped the "emulator" tag from the WINE name - they got
sick and tired of no nothing wannabees thinking they knew what
"emulator" meant. Small minded pedants.