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

FoolsGold · External Since: Jul 31, 2007 Posts: 3

FoolsGold wrote:
> I don't like the idea
> of my hardware not being fully brutalizing.

I have no idea what the hell happened there. That's suppose to say
"fully utilized" at the end. Smile

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

Rex Ballard · External Since: Jun 04, 2007 Posts: 93

On Jul 31, 4:38 am, pc games <pcgamer23....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM!
> Simply PATHETIC!
>
> STEAM represents everything Linux fights against
Linux has has had collaborative gaming almost since it's inception.
Granted, Empire wasn't exactly real-time 3D animation, and it took a
while for hardware to catch up to BZ-Flag, but these are two very good
examples of ways that Linux users have been able to join others in a
"Community Game".

Sure, it's a bit like Jabber or IRC servers. There are directories of
servers offering the game, and the registries are mirrored, which
means that it might take a day or two for a new server to hit the
registry mirror, but once it's online, it's not that hard to find.

Creating collaborative game servers isn't all that difficult. You
have game clients, you have game servers, and you have a registry.
You could use UDDI (a wide-open Standard used in SOA applications for
business), or you could have your client connect to an LDAP server (or
have your LDAP server contact the game server's LDAP server. The
servers register themselves with the registry server, and clients
contact the registry to see which servers have the game they want to
play.

> STEAM is PROPRIETARY, Linux is Open Standards
> STEAM is RESTRICTIVE, Linux gives FREEDOM
> STEAM is EXPENSIVE, Linux is AFFORDABLE
> STEAM is MONOPOLISTIC, Linux gives CHOICE and creates COMPETITION
> STEAM represents DICTATORSHIP, Linux represents true DEMOCRACY
> STEAM is the "Windows", and Valve the "Microsoft" of PC Games and
> yet...

STEAM is also a registered trademark.

> YET Linux users are CRYING like Babies cause TYRANT RUTHLESS DICTATOR
> VALVE will not make a Linux version of STEAM!

It's certainly their choice to make STEAM a Windows only product. But
then again, there is nothing to stop some college sophomore from
taking the public description of public protocols described in the
paragraph above, create an Open Source registry, and let Linux users
register their game servers. FreeCiv, BZFlag, Poker, or whatever
else, all available for community play.

The games can be implemented using OpenGL code, which means that the
games can be played on Windows, Sony, Nintendo, Linux, and Mac.

Remember that company (Microsoft) who wanted to restrict their search
engine to "Windows Only" users. And this other company (Google)
decided that they would make ANYBODY's content searchable? How did
that turn out?

Wink

If the publisher wants to limit STEAM to "Vista Only" it's their
choice.
Of course, there are risks and consequences to that kind of choice.

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

* waterskidoo:

> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform

Why should that be the case?

> however
> with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
> under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
> the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.

Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.

It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac Wink

> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
> this worthwhile.

Which "potential performance increase"?

Benjamin

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

In article <5h9quiF3ipt8cU2.DeleteThis@mid.individual.net>,
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote:
> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.

It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.

> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac Wink

It definitely is more appealing. Mac users in general don't require
software to pass a religious test before they'll consider it, and have
historically shown themselves willing to buy good software.

--
--Tim Smith

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

dapunka <dapunka.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> writes:

> On 31 Jul, 19:58, WDS <B....RemoveThis@seurer.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 11:24 am, waterskidoo <water.ski....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform however
>> > with the exception of a few of the big games like Quake, gaming
>> > under Linux is well behind Windows. As Linux becomes more popular
>> > the game companies will begin writing Linux versions of their catalog.
>> > The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> > this worthwhile.
>>
>> The gaming companies don't care a bit about that. They look at one
>> thing, how many copies am I going to sell (i.e., how much money will I
>> rake in) compared to the cost of producing those copies? Right now
>> that is marginal at best for games for Macs and non-existant for
>> Linux. And actually, the action right now is in console games because
>> the money is better.
>
> Yes... Linux home users generally use software that's free (as in
> beer), which is no good to the games software manufacturers. And, as
> has been pointed out many times before (but never by me, until now),
> hardcore gamers generally use consoles for gaming.

Wrong. "Hardcore" gamers use PCs.

Family "platform consoley type games" are generally played on Consoles.

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

Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter DeleteThis @NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>>> and still more which run with varying
>>> degrees of success under WINE.
>>
>> With usually a lot of fiddling and with very limited performance.
>
>
> It's funny to see the astonished looks on the faces of Windows users when
> you show them multiple instances of their favourite games all running

What windows users favourite games are you talking about? Considering
that most wont run on Linux?

> simultaneously on the sides of a 3D cube, when their over-priced, over
> specified Windows computer can only (just) manage one instance!

Fool. You embarrass yourself and other Linux users.

>
> It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
> actually /worsens, the user's experience!

Only for Linux zealots. Windows is an excellent gaming
platform. Sorry. But its true. And the gaming market seems to back it
up.

http://www.lokigames.com for more details.

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

"CoinSpin" <coin^spam^spin@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:qhps28e7rp.fsf@googlemail.com...
> | waterskidoo <water.skidoo RemoveThis @yahoo.com> writes:
> |
>
> <snip>
>
> |
> | What are these potential performance increases of which you speak?
> |
> | The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
> | Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
> | companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
> | than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.
> |
>
> And the last benchmarks I saw showed OpenGL under Linux with some of the new
> unified shader video cards brutalizing DX10 under Vista... But hell,
> that's

DX10? you mean with the almost no games using it and the late drivers?
Yup. Possibly.

> not hard, most games run faster under XP than Vista (unless of course you
> are using proprietary Vista hardware/software combinations not available in
> XP, yah I know, extinguish the flames before they start). The point is that
> MS is releasing bloatware OS packages that keep getting more and more
> bloated, while Linux keeps the overhead minimized...

You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.

>
> But most people will never know or care because MS has done a great job of
> cornering the market when it comes to a PC operating system, which means
> that if you want to make money you program towards the platforms with the
> most numbers - consoles and Windows. Can't see Linux ever getting
> through

Good. We agree.

> the chokehold MS has on the market and getting out there as a true
> mainstream platform without something pushing it there... A killer
> Linux

There was a reason. MS worked with the API developers and the HW
manufacturers from day one.

> app, or something that would give it some appeal other than the "fun for the
> enthusiast or tinkerer" moniker that it gets stuck with now.

But who will invest the money? no one will buy it.

>
> It's just too bad... There is so much potential lurking there in Linux,
> just waiting to be tapped.

No doubt. But it missed the boat IMO.

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

On 2007-07-31, Benjamin Gawert <bgawert DeleteThis @gmx.de> wrote:
> * waterskidoo:
>
>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>
> Why should that be the case?

Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.
Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
the kernel. IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.

> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.

Pretty much true. They are making too much money with Windows and
console games.

> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac Wink

At the moment the Mac seems to have an ever increasing audience due
to the iPod, iPhone etc.

>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> this worthwhile.
>
> Which "potential performance increase"?

See above.

> Benjamin

FoolsGold · External Since: Jul 31, 2007 Posts: 3

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * waterskidoo:
>
>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>
> Why should that be the case?

>> The potential performance increases under Linux would certainly make
>> this worthwhile.
>
> Which "potential performance increase"?

I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
operating system = more of the games, or something like that.

graeme · External Since: Jan 09, 2007 Posts: 44

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:40:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
(snips)
> The last benchmarks I saw, saw DirectX under XP crucifying OpenGL under
> Linux in the framerate stakes. Which is not surprising since the games
> companies put a lot more effort into optimising Dx support structures
> than they for OpenGL since that's where the money is.

In the last benchmarks I saw Vista was crucified by XP. Up to a 30% loss
in fps rate. So much for optimising Dx and an "upgrade". Another reason
to give Vista a miss.

> A modern game takes 10s if not hundreds of people to design, write, QA,
> localise and distribute. There is simply no market for games by current
> Linux users unfortunately.

Unfortunately. If a decent Linux native game comes out I buy it. The
game writers more often release server binaries.

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

On 2007-07-31, FoolsGold <fg RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think he's referring to the lower overhead of a typical Linux install
> compared to a typical Windows install. Less resources used by the
> operating system = more of the games, or something like that.

Exactly.
It's 'she' btw Smile

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

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.

It's funny how each newer, shinier, "better" version of Windows
actually /worsens,/ the user's experience!

C.

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

In article <7105286.L3gu0H6RGb.DeleteThis@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups.DeleteThis@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> A main concern in this revolt had something to do with the fact that Linux
> users helped make Steam attractive. As often is the case, contributions come
> from the open source community. It's natural to expect some minimal gesture in
> return (and no, not a middle finger, but a thumbs up).

Linux users made a Windows-only distribution system with DRM
attractive??? The open source community contributed to building it???

--
--Tim Smith

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

* Hadron:

> You clearly dont know what Dx10 is all about. They tightened up the
> security and redesigned the pipelines resulting in a loss of performance.

BS. DX10 is a redesign to get rid of old things like the GDI interface.
In fact, DX10 doesn't result in a loss of performance but in an increase
in performance. It doesn't offer any new effects, though.

Benjamin

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

* Tim Smith:
>> Yes, sure. That has been believed by the community for almost a decade
>> now. Still most game developers don't give a damn on that niche system.
>
> It's a particularly bad niche for a games developer, because not only
> are they starting with a small market (Linux desktop uses), a rather
> vocal component of that market is strongly opposed to any closed source
> software, so the game developer (if their game is not open source) will
> have to put up with a lot of being badmouthed by people who consider
> their presence an affront to the purity of Linux.

Right, that's another problem. I find it ridiculous how the community
attacks gfx vendors like ATI/AMD and Nvidia because they don't want to
open source their drivers. Heck, they (the community) should be happy
that both companies develop for their operating system. Instead, they
are attacking them.

>> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac Wink

>
> It definitely is more appealing. Mac users in general don't require
> software to pass a religious test before they'll consider it, and have
> historically shown themselves willing to buy good software.

Exactly. BTW: the Mac is still the platform where Shareware/Donationware
is very strong. That's probably why there is a lot of very good
shareware available for it.

Benjamin

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

* waterskidoo:

>>> Linux from a technical aspect is an excellent gaming platform
>> Why should that be the case?
>
> Low overhead (bloat) compared to Windows.

Nope. Unlike Windows you can tune Linux for using very few ressources
but then it's far from being useable as a gaming platform (or even as a
desktop computer).

> Games can be written to take advantage of preemptive switches in
> the kernel.

Same in Windows.

> IOW, in theory the kernel can be tuned for gaming.

In theory a dog can fly if you put a rocket in his arse. But it's still
a dog Wink

Yes, you can tune Linux (which basically is just the kernel). For gaming
you need much more than the kernel. You need X for example, gfx drivers,
some sound subsystem (but which one?), networking, and a shitload of
libraries and other stuff that all need to be of the correct version to
work together. Talk about DLL hell, eh?

A fully useable Linux installation doesn't consume less resources than
Windows.

>> It's probably even more appealing to develop for the Mac Wink

>
> At the moment the Mac seems to have an ever increasing audience due
> to the iPod, iPhone etc.

Probably, even when Apple removed the word "Computers" from their name.
But now with the Mac being x86/x64 instead of PowerPC this makes porting
games more easy.

Benjamin

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

On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter RemoveThis @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. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?

That way you _don't_ _emulate_ architecture of windows, it's libs and
drivers (which would be a significant overhead even if OSS community had
the details how to do that), but use _existing_ OS and hardware
facilities.

--
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

In article <slrnfb0qse.3oc.nrubA DeleteThis @afrodita.home.lan>,
Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA DeleteThis @ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote:
> Wine is not an emulator. It reroutes calls that are windows specific to
> calls that exist on a target machine, m'kay?

(Pedantic mode on)

Actually, it is an emulator. If you go back and check out old versions
of the Wine documentation, and follow them forward, you can find the
interesting story behind that.

Originally, WINE stood for "WINdows Emulator". That was in the official
documentation for every release. It was that way for quite a while.
When Microsoft was trying to get a trademark on "Windows", there was
some concern among the developers that they might get in trouble over
the name. That's when someone came up with the idea of WINE meaning
"Wine Is Not an Emulator". However, that didn't go anywhere. The
official documentation continued to say WINE stood for "WINdows
Emulator".

It continued this way for a long time. Eventually, the official
documentation changed to say that WINE was either "WINdows Emulator" or
"Wine Is Not an Emulator", and told the reader to use whichever the
reader preferred.

What finally got them to drop the emulator part was concern that it
would mislead some people into thinking that WINE was a *hardware*
emulator. When most people think of emulators, they think of things
like Bochs, when emulator the hardware of one CPU on another. These
emulators are usually very slow. If people thought of WINE as an
emulator, they'd think that it must therefore be very slow, and avoid it.

So, for what would be called market positioning reasons in a commercial
product, they stopped *calling* it an emulator.

However, it is important to note that throughout all this, there was no
change in how it actually worked. It was an emulator before the
documentation change, and so it remained an emulator afterwards, and
still is to this day.

--
--Tim Smith