billg cleans up Doom ..

[snips]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:47:14 +0100, William Poaster wrote:

> Seems like Quack *still* needs a clue..

_a_ clue?

Brett Ryan <bsryan DeleteThis @hal-pc.org> espoused:
>
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ John Locke on Monday 30 July 2007 16:33 : \____
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:17:34 +0100, Doug Mentohl <doug_mentohl DeleteThis @linuxmail.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "As the lights fell, a video screen lowered above the stage; It was time
>>>> for the main event. The crowd cheered as the Doom's familiar corridors
>>>> began to roll. But it was not the Doom soldier chasing the demons, it
>>>> was... Bill Gates! Microsoft's fearless leader was superimposed running
>>>> inside the game in a long black trench coat and brandishing a shotgun
>>>>
>>>> http://www.reelsplatter.com/doommedia.html
>>> That's pretty damn funny...wasn't Bill Gates an anti-gun advocate ?
>>>
>>> I know one thing. This was back in the day when Microsoft was
>>> focused on customer needs. In this case, the gamers.
>>
>> Microsoft has become the gamer in recent years. It games the ISO, it games the
>> customer's needs, it games the EU...
>>
>> Microsoft -- we got game!
>>
>
> Well Roy, you can't blame them for being creative when it comes to legal
> and marketing issues. M$ has big game there. Now Windows Vista, it is
> in the penalty box. I've heard and seen nothing but nightmares from
> that product, and several ISP's here in Texas are refusing to support it
> until service pack one comes out.
>

Microsoft have been leading the world in marketing and legal
manipulation for business purposes for at least the last 15 years, and
it has served them very well. The attack on the gaming market was quite
simply because the Atari and Commodore machines had been beloved of the
gaming community, and Microsoft were desperate to get them onto the
comparatively rather less functional PCs of the day.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:20:10 +0200,
> Hadron <hadronquark.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> cc <scatnubbs.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 6:45 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr....DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2007-07-30, Linonut <lino....DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Which makes me wonder why so few game studios target Linux.
>>>>
>>>> > You know the answer. It's a numbers game; Windows has the numbers right
>>>> > now.
>>>>
>>>> But many game studios release Mac versions, and it is widely claimed
>>>> here that Linux is bigger on the desktop than Mac.
>>>
>>> Maybe Mac is bigger on the desktop than Linux? Maybe Mac commercials
>>> just make it seem bigger than it is, roping in game makers? Maybe open
>>> sourcing code just isn't that enticing for companies who put in alot
>>> of man hours developing games?
>>>
>>
>> All of those and one more.
>>
>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>
>> See http://lokigames.com/ for more details.
>>
>> (ps you don't have to open source your games)
>
>
> funny, *I* bought games, including Loki games, so your intimation that
> Linux users don't buy games is as relevent as pointing out that Win and
> Mac gamers pirate software.
>

I have Loki Rune and Rune Halls of Valhalla here, as well as Loki
Heretic II; I also have Quake 3, but I don't recall the source of that
one.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

"[H]omer" <spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov> writes:

> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>
>>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>
> Really?
>
> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.

You are a dickhead of the first order.

"mostly they just steal it".

Yup. Whatever conspiracy boy.

So even less of a reason for Linux to be lagging eh? How come that since
the SW producers are making no money then their SW is so much better
QA'd and documented and generally usable out of the box?

After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> On Jul 31, 5:54 am, Hadron <hadronqu....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Games could be developed easy without touching a single piece of GPL
>> > code?
>>
>> Ask ID or Epic neither of whom released their Quake/Unreal code with the
>> game releases. I wonder why?
>
> I guess I assumed that it would be alot of duplicate/unnecessary work
> unless you used some GPL code. Guess not. I've never done any game
> development, or any graphic development under Linux at all (without
> java), so thanks for the tip.

It depends what libraries they /need/. Most of them are LGPL, which
lets one link to them without releasing the source code that is linked.

The only GNU library I can think of off the bat that is not LGPL is
readline (there are surely a few others?), but I don't think that is an
issue with gamers.

Of course, if one were a smart games writer, one would have written
one's game engine in a portable manner from the beginning. That does
take some extra savvy and experience, though.

--
Tux rox!

After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> cc wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 9:50 pm, "[H]omer" <s....DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>>> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>>>>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>>
>> Then how are software companies making so much money?
>
> Microsoft does it through fraudulent accounting, of course. Just ask any
> cola idiot - they'll tell you.

Not true. Microsoft has much more than /one/ trick up its sleeve.

As I've seen in a sig: "You are being MICRO-attacked, from many angles,
in a SOFT manner".

One trick that they utilize, but all too infrequently, is writing Solid
Code. (I'm only partly joking here, but they may have gotten better due
to their security initiative.)

As for making money on software? It would be interesting to see /who/
is making the money. I suspect it is predominantly business software
writers. I'm sure the usual suspects will come up with countervailing
URLs.

--
Tux rox!

After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> On Jul 31, 10:38 pm, Rick <n....DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:31:15 -0700, cc wrote:
>> > On Jul 31, 9:50 pm, "[H]omer" <s....DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>> >> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>> >> >> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>
>> >> Really?
>>
>> >> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>>
>> > Then how are software companies making so much money?
>>
>> Well, there are still sales ...
>
> So mostly they steal it, except of course when they're spending so
> much money on it? 35% of software is pirated according to some
> estimates, so mostly people buy it.

So we know that, in Homer's circle, the number is much greater than 35%.

Perhaps it is that those who know how can "steal" it, while the common
majority must "buy" it. A fact Bill Gates seemed to have in mind when
expressing his desire to let people prefentially steal his software now,
in hopes of collecting later.

--
Tux rox!

On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s....TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote:
> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
> >> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>
> Really?
>
> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.

I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
the software creator. Or something.

Linonut <linonut.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> writes:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Jul 31, 5:54 am, Hadron <hadronqu....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > Games could be developed easy without touching a single piece of GPL
>>> > code?
>>>
>>> Ask ID or Epic neither of whom released their Quake/Unreal code with the
>>> game releases. I wonder why?
>>
>> I guess I assumed that it would be alot of duplicate/unnecessary work
>> unless you used some GPL code. Guess not. I've never done any game
>> development, or any graphic development under Linux at all (without
>> java), so thanks for the tip.
>
> It depends what libraries they /need/. Most of them are LGPL, which
> lets one link to them without releasing the source code that is linked.
>
> The only GNU library I can think of off the bat that is not LGPL is
> readline (there are surely a few others?), but I don't think that is an
> issue with gamers.
>
> Of course, if one were a smart games writer, one would have written
> one's game engine in a portable manner from the beginning. That does
> take some extra savvy and experience, though.

And, of course, as usual you are full of it. Them making their engines
portable has no effect on the subject in hand - namely the use of open
source libraries.

On Aug 1, 12:56 pm, "[H]omer" <s... RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
>
> > So we know that, in Homer's circle, the number is much greater than 35%.

Homer stands alone in that circle, but he pulled his statement from
his booty.

> Specifically, and IME, when it comes to corporate sales, *companies* buy
> software, people ... end users ... invariably steal it.

No they don't. A minority(not exactly small, but still only 1/3) use
pirated software. Those that do, in general, still pay for it, but
less. Stealing implies getting it for free. End users don't invariably
use pirated software either. As a whole, most use and pay for legal
software. It would be nice if more than 65% of software used was
legal, but what can you do.

If you want to refer to specific developing countries and say most
people use pirated software, well then you can find many cases where
90% of the software used (I think Vietnam was one of the places) is
pirated. But you were talking about everyone.

Then again there is the problem that none of studies I saw gave any
sort of idea of this 35%/65% distribution worked out. Almost all
references said that the 35% number was on the high end by the way.
Anyway, every software user in the world isn't using just one piece of
software, so it is almost certainly a mix of both pirated and legal
software. This still refutes your point though, because you were
implying that Windows and Mac users are unwilling to pay for software,
and steal most of it. In fact, Windows and Mac users are more likely
to be using legal software, but may occasionally use some pirated
software. Again, they still spend money on it. When looking at the
spread, developed nations are way more likely to be using legal
software. It's the poorer, developing nations that do a lot of the
pirating. So end users don't invariably steal software. 2 times out of
3 they are going to be buying the software they use. Not as high as it
should be, but still in legality's favor. I eagerly await your
retraction of your false statement.

> As for exact percentages, I don't know or care, but I am left with the
> overwhelming impression that it is a majority. Then again, it seems
> fitting that a company as reprehensible as Microsoft, should have their
> users behave in an equally reprehensible manner. One might call it Rough
> Justice.

Your impression has no basis in reality. As for exact percentages, why
do you think it is being reported so high already? Microsoft, of
course, silly. Many of the reports out there either hint at, or
directly explain that the numbers are a little high, mainly because
companies like Microsoft want you to believe that so many people are
pirating software.

> I consider it my duty to explain to such people that it is ridiculous
> they should steal proprietary software when they could simply use what
> is often superior Free equivalents.
>

You must know a lot of criminals. Most users choose to buy proprietary
software (as in spend some money), instead of using Free versions.
Sure there are many reasons, but a big is, they can't really be called
Free "equivalents."

On Aug 1, 7:27 am, Linonut <lino... DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 10:38 pm, Rick <n... DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:31:15 -0700, cc wrote:
> >> > On Jul 31, 9:50 pm, "[H]omer" <s... DeleteThis @uce.gov> wrote:
> >> >> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
> >> >> >> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>
> >> >> Really?
>
> >> >> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>
> >> > Then how are software companies making so much money?
>
> >> Well, there are still sales ...
>
> > So mostly they steal it, except of course when they're spending so
> > much money on it? 35% of software is pirated according to some
> > estimates, so mostly people buy it.
>
> So we know that, in Homer's circle, the number is much greater than 35%.
>
> Perhaps it is that those who know how can "steal" it, while the common
> majority must "buy" it. A fact Bill Gates seemed to have in mind when
> expressing his desire to let people prefentially steal his software now,
> in hopes of collecting later.
>

See my response to Homer, but yeah, that's basically it. A majority of
software is obtained legally, so Homer's comment was completely wrong.
At first I thought you meant that Homer's done some research and his
"circle" came up with a number greater that 35%, but then I thought
you meant he just runs with a lot of criminals. So I'm confused.

Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:

> So we know that, in Homer's circle, the number is much greater than 35%.

Specifically, and IME, when it comes to corporate sales, *companies* buy
software, people ... end users ... invariably steal it.

As for exact percentages, I don't know or care, but I am left with the
overwhelming impression that it is a majority. Then again, it seems
fitting that a company as reprehensible as Microsoft, should have their
users behave in an equally reprehensible manner. One might call it Rough
Justice.

I consider it my duty to explain to such people that it is ridiculous
they should steal proprietary software when they could simply use what
is often superior Free equivalents.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
17:54:14 up 2 days, 3:09, 2 users, load average: 0.31, 0.23, 0.18

dapunka wrote:
> On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s....DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>>>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>
> I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
> software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
> DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
> the software creator. Or something.

Interesting. I'm curious how you gained ownership of KDE and OpenOffice
just by downloading them for free. Please enlighten cola.