Linux-Advocacy Digest #581, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 08:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. ("Alan Sugar fix my mind")
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ("Alan Sugar fix my mind")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Stephen Voss)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (david parsons)
Re: What the cross-posters need to grok (Edward Rosten)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Edward Rosten)
Re: BSD & Linux (Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven)
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. (Bastian)
Re: Open Software Reliability (mlw)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (mlw)
Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed (mlw)
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. ("The Unbeliever")
Why post? (mlw)
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Giving up on NT (Dr Yassam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan Sugar fix my mind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:15:33 GMT
> I did the hours-long X benchmarks for XF86 3.3.3 vs the 3.9.15
> pre-release a few months back, and found a whopping 40% speedup with the
> new version. That and some of the new features in this version add up to
> make this a very important release.
So, as linvocates claimed till now that X11 was better than Windows GUI,
now, perhaps it is closer the moment when X11 is usable. 40% faster ? What
shit code was X11 till now ? And that as supposed to beat Windows 2000 ?
------------------------------
From: "Alan Sugar fix my mind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:19:21 GMT
> Admit it; you're a dinosaur in the fast moving mammalian world of
> technology. NT is old, boring shit, and Linux is new and exciting.
NT and 2000 can do whatever Linux does, and better in many
cases (note that I do not say at every case) , do you remember Mindcraft ?
Kernel 2.3.x has now a http acceleration option inside just to improve what
failed at Mindcraft tests.
New using grap, awk, shell scripts ? Old Unix developers would lough
if they saw people use Unix as home OS.
------------------------------
From: Stephen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:34:01 -0500
> RH6.1: Installation foul-ups (e.g. if you forget to install all compiler
> libraries and components and install some later, include paths never
> search in the right places).
My favorite, is that even if you tell RH to install KDE it will install
Gnome.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 00:36:24 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There's a cool app called ``appsfilter'' which will set up your
>/etc/printcap and print filters automagically.
.
.
.
>I don't know how Linux would handle this, because I use the FreeBSD
>ports system.
I believe a port of apsfilter is out there for at least one Linux.
I'm not certain, of course, because I'm the maintainer of yet
another printer filter -- magicfilter -- and believe strongly
in sleeping in the beds I built myself. There are two or three
printing filters for Linux, in varying states of repair, so
there's no shortage of solutions for this non-problem that our
increasingly irrational friend is whining about.
____
david parsons \bi/ obBlatantSelfPromotion:
\/ http://www.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/Code/magicfilter
though I STILL don't have a point and drool printer
installer :-(
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the cross-posters need to grok
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:13:40 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Time to start killfiling entire newsgroups...
> > >
> > > Try a killfile rule for the group in question that nukes all messages
> > > with a comma in the newsgroups line. Sure it's an aggressive way to
> > > tackle cross-posts, but highly justifiable in *.advocacy...
>
> I actually tried that once, but there was pretty much nothing left of
> the newsgroup afterward. :-)
>
> The solution I found was to just put this in the leafnode filter file:
>
> ^Newsgroups:.*comp\.os\.ms-windows\.nt\.advocacy
>
> The signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a bit since then. It seems
> like all the people who abuse cross-posting are from just that one group.
> All the other advocacy newsgroups are relatively well behaved. It must
> be because the Windows NT advocates see Linux as their number one
> threat.
>
> [Interestingly enough, I never would have seen the above post if 2:1
> hadn't made an empty reply to it, due to the filter. I wonder what
> happened there...]
I'm not quite sure, my news reader said there was some kind of error.
Next thing I know, there's a blank post with my name on it...
Anyway, what I meant to say was that cross posting like the Linux vs BSD
which occured recently was really good and I (for one) like debates like
that. But I guess you've summed it all up by avoiding cross posts from
comna.
-Ed
>
> William Adderholdt
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:05:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wrong again...
>
> Close....
>
> But wrong...
>
> God this is fun :)
>
If you think what you are doing in this group is "fun" you need to get a
life.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:28:32 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
>
> Beos? Multimedia is it's game.. Could very well be a challenger.
> FreeBSD? Incorporating some obvious server security features that
BSD is by no means a new kid on the block. It is about the sabe age as
System III (I think), but BSD in general is older than Linux and
Windows.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:30:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Staf Wagemakers wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tore Lund wrote:
>>
>>That's good, but the FreeBSD variety is not so easy to find on the
>>Debian web site. Maybe someone could give me a pointer? Thank you in
>>advance.
>
>This "new" Debian distribution was mentioned in the Debian Weekly news,
>so you can look at the weekly news session at the Debian webpage.
IIRC the FreeBSD/Debian crossover project got abandoned.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> VIA NET.WORKS The Netherlands
BSD: Technical excellence at its best http://www.bart.nl
Tel: +31 - (0) 10 - 240 39 70 http://www.via-net-works.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 11:15:07 GMT
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:15:33 GMT, Alan Sugar fix my mind wrote:
>> I did the hours-long X benchmarks for XF86 3.3.3 vs the 3.9.15
>> pre-release a few months back, and found a whopping 40% speedup with the
>> new version. That and some of the new features in this version add up to
>> make this a very important release.
>
> So, as linvocates claimed till now that X11 was better than Windows GUI,
>now, perhaps it is closer the moment when X11 is usable. 40% faster ? What
>shit code was X11 till now ? And that as supposed to beat Windows 2000 ?
>
X11 is not the GUI, it is a server on which the GUIs are based. So, there are
dozens of window-managers, desktops etc. available. You have the choice you
don't have at windows. Among 20 wm's there will be one you like and that's
usable, believe me.
I admit that X was a bit slow, but I heard of similar performance-jumps in
windoze when you update your graphics board drivers.
W2k is supposed to be the successor of nt, and thus it is supposed to act as
a server or something (yes, there are exceptions...). You can run a linux
system as a server or anything without a GUI. In fact you need X only for
office programs, webbrowsers or something like this.
Bastian.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:41:03 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> int testfunction(struct yy *xx)
> {
> xx->sum = (1<<xx->count)*xx->value;
> }
>
> The is the equivalent functionality done "right."
Err, not actually done 'right' but right enough for an example. ;-)
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:44:48 -0500
bob@bospam wrote:
>
> folks, this is big, big news. greate news for Linux !!!
>
> "Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is in talks with Intel Corp. and at
> least one major computer maker to launch a line of cheap
> personal computers that takes direct aim at Microsoft Corp.'s
> near-monopoly in desktop PC operating systems."
>
> http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/TopBusiness/20000309/RCORE.html
>
>
>http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?s=b69a18f42b44d5aefdde7b4cac8ba194&T=marketsquote99_news.ht
>
> go Linux, go Debian, go Corel !!
It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:46:38 -0500
ax wrote:
>
> I plan to buy a notebook computer to run Linux.
> But I am not sure which notebook computer
> will be the best choice. Can someone tell me
> which brand of the notebook computers work
> the best with which brands of Linux?
>
> Thanks in advance.
While I am not a Dell fan, Dell is supposed to be introducing laptops
with Linux installed.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "The Unbeliever" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:03:40 GMT
> X11 is not the GUI, it is a server on which the GUIs are based. So, there
are
> dozens of window-managers, desktops etc. available. You have the choice
you
> don't have at windows. Among 20 wm's there will be one you like and that's
> usable, believe me.
Yeah yeah, I've used Afterstep, WindowMaker, KDE, icewm, amiwm, mlwm,
, twm, fvwm, fvwm2, fvwm95, CDE, blackbox and some other a can't remember
now ... but, don't like them believe me (besides, there's a lack of
compatibility
between configuration files), no t to say that installing more than one is a
space
waste really, KDE and GNOME in particular are as bloated as Windows.
> I admit that X was a bit slow, but I heard of similar performance-jumps in
> windoze when you update your graphics board drivers.
Admited, but only in low level brands, I hope.
> You can run a linux
> system as a server or anything without a GUI. In fact you need X only for
> office programs, webbrowsers or something like this.
Sorry, but that's exactly my home use, not to say that browsers are the
final interface, and are present everywhere. Even under X, Netscape (the
only
full-featured browser existent) is by far worse than Explorer (this one
almost
never freeze under NT/2K), and desktop applications are worse (my opinion)
nowadays. Running a server, on the other side, is better on OpenBSD or
Solaris (again my opinion).
Not to disturb.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why post?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:14:52 -0500
Why do people post pro-lunux and anti-linux stuff here?
Pro-Linux:
(1) Because we are dissatisfied with the status of, lets face it,
windows, and want to actively promote a better alternative.
(2) We enjoy working with Linux and wish to communicate with others that
may be similarly minded.
(3) A free UNIX, cool. (I know about BSD, but AT&T were idiots and
damaged its chances)
Being "for" something is motivational.
Anti-Linux:
As for the anti-linux camp, I am not sure. What motivates anti-anything?
Usually hate of some kind. Hate is usually irrational, and when it comes
to inanimate objects like an OS, it must be irrational. The only other
alternative, and this is falls into the conspiracy theory, is that it is
an effort which is funded by a corporation, like an astroturf movement.
I am skeptical of many of the "I tried to install Linux and failed"
posts because they seem to contain too much information for the person
to be a newbe, yet anyone with this much knowledge should have no
problems installing Linux.
(Installation is not a "Usability" issue for the average computer user,
as they will never install an OS.)
I have never met a windows user, except for these people, that isn't
frustrated with Windows' instability and forced upgrade strategy of
Office. Many windows' users would drop Windows the first opportunity
they get.
So why, I ask, would these people go to the trouble that they do, to
post a negative messages?
Are they threatened by Linux for some reason?
What could be threatening about a PC OS?
Are they paid by a corporation that views Linux as a threat?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 12:31:49 GMT
Alan Sugar fix my mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I did the hours-long X benchmarks for XF86 3.3.3 vs the 3.9.15
:> pre-release a few months back, and found a whopping 40% speedup with the
:> new version. That and some of the new features in this version add up to
:> make this a very important release.
: So, as linvocates claimed till now that X11 was better than Windows GUI,
: now, perhaps it is closer the moment when X11 is usable. 40% faster ? What
: shit code was X11 till now ? And that as supposed to beat Windows 2000 ?
Geez, man. Get a fucking clue. X11 is not a GUI.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 12:42:50 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: XFree86 v. 4.0 just hit the streets a few hours ago.
. . . .
: Use caution before jumping in; they've done some substantial
: restructuring of the internals, which means new drivers are required and
: your current card might not be supported yet.
Or it may be supported in non-accelerated mode only (this is the case
for my ATI Rage IIC for instance).
To be honest I don't recommend that anyone upgrade to XF86 4.0 just
yet unless they know exactly what they're doing, *and* know how to get
back to 3.3.x if things go too badly amok.
Once 4.0 driver support is comparable to 3.3.x - which I expect to
take a few months or so - it will start being included in new distros,
and that is the time when I'd recommend for nontechnical users to make
the switch, not before.
Question for those who have tried it: does it *look* any
different/better?
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 12:44:06 GMT
Alan Sugar fix my mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Admit it; you're a dinosaur in the fast moving mammalian world of
:> technology. NT is old, boring shit, and Linux is new and exciting.
: NT and 2000 can do whatever Linux does
LOL! :)
Let me know when W2K gets a fork(), and can run on an S/390 (or for
that matter any non-Intel platform).
Joe
------------------------------
From: Dr Yassam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:37:53 GMT
> > <snip>...
> > That's nice, but doesn't answer the question. If you want, look at
> > last year. Why did Eidos release games *specific* to the PC last
> > year?
>
> People obviously buy PC games. Edios is cutting titles form 20 to 12.
> What does that tell you or more important - what do you want that fact
> to tell you?
Perhaps you could name all those truly great Eidos games! They may have
success with games such as the Tomb Raider series (will that ever end?),
but cutting PC titles from 20 to 12 says more about the quality of their
PC games than of the PC market itself.
Also, believe it or not, developers such as Eidos do not have infinite
pit of resources available to them. If they choose to support a new
platform, then resources have to come from somewhere, and that usually
means diverting funds from other platforms. If they choose to support
the X-BOX and/or Dolphin in future, expect some resources to be diverted
from the PS2 as well.
Unfortunately, this usually means the lost of those games which are
judged least likely to become successful (console and PC). Prospective
games with innovative and creative ideas are a risk to any games company
and therefore are usually the first to be dropped. Meaning yet another
year of formulaic games from Edios containing tried and tested ideas.
> > ><snip>...
> > >Adventure - I played that game on a DataGeneral mini computer.
> > >Simulation comes from UNIX workstations. FPS - Doom was designed
> > >on a NeXT Computer - UNIX.
> >
> > OK, a number of things:
> >
> > 1. I'm talking about the adventure genre (including games like Grim
> > Fandango and Curse of Monkey Island), not the game "Adventure".
>
> "Andventure" inspired these games Mike.
Whether it did or didn't is irrelevant, it's still a computer game and
not a console game!
> > 2. Being designed on a NeXT means nothing. Do you think there's a
> > single console game that's actually designed on a console? Of
> > course not.
>
> A Wintel PC isn't the most efficient platform for creating content.
iD abandoned NeXT after Quake, moving over to WinNT for the developement
of QuakeII and then QuakeIII. MOST PC games ARE developed on Wintel
systems...FACT!
Also, the orignal Playstation developement kit WAS PC BASED. It
comprised of a card which plugged into the PC, developement software,
and a test console. What does this say about consoles? Wouldn't you
agree that the host developement environment is somewhat irrelevent?
> > 3. You've failed to name a single console game that inspired a PC
> > title in any of the categories I've named.
>
> We disagree about what it menas to be "inspired".
OK, use YOUR definition of "inspired" above when describing 'Adventure'
to answer the question! Inform us of console inspired PC games as
requested by Mike.
> > <snip>...
> > I can't do that, because I don't know. All I can say is that I'm
> > not aware of any movement by them to kill PC development, and you
> > haven't pointed to any.
>
> See Newsweek. One PC game publisher says the platform was never
> intended for games as he explained why they were shifting to the
> consoles.
Ah yes, Newsweek, the number one source for information on the gaming
market. :)
That publisher wouldn't be Eidos again would it?
If a game publisher finds that their PC games, N64 games, PSX games or
DC games etc are not selling too well, then naturally they will adjust
their resources accordingly. Saying a PC was never intended for games is
not a confession, it's a way of publically justifying the decision made,
as well as conveying a message that their slump in PC sales is not due
to the quality of their games but due to the PC market itself.
> > >The evidence the PC is emulating console games is PSX emulator and
> > >the MS X-BOX strategy.
> >
> > The PSX emulator does not demonstrate that PC games are copying
> > console games. It demonstrates that the PC is capable of playing
> > games designed for the PSX, just as it is capable of playing games
> > designed for the Atari 2600.
>
> It demonstrates that a PC is capable of emulating a console for access
> to console titles. The Atari 2600 is 80's whereas the PSX is 1990's
> games.
> X-BOX demonstrates the mechanism by which MS will let console
> devleopers port ot the PC.
And vice-versa!
> The Dreamcast WinCE is a flop but that too was an attempt to move/keep
> titles on the PC.
Explain.
> > The X-BOX is still over a year away, so there can't possibly be any
> > PC games emulating games for the X-BOX.
>
> No Mike the emulator does emulation and the X-BOX (And DC WinCE) is
> the mechanism by which PC will copy/follow comsole titles.
You still don't seem to understand the fact that consoles and computers
are strongest in DIFFERENT genres.
> > >These canceled titles are losers. Lack of interest isn't a sign a
> > >PC has the advantage - it is a sign the realism isn't a popular
> > >feature.
> >
> > Thus, my point stands; games which aren't "popular" don't get
> > developed on consoles. Lack of diversity.
>
> Lack of stupidity for consoles. They seem othave better screening of
> games and more professional approach to game development.
These are DEDICATED games machines from DEDICATED games companies, this
should be expected from them. Whats your point?
> > Now, take some other games, like Homeworld, or Half-Life: Opposing
> > Force, or Diablo II, or Age of Empires II. Are you going to claim
> > that those titles aren't popular? If not, then why aren't they on
> > consoles?
> > That's an advantage, too.
>
> Oh sure Mike the PC is full of technical and content advantages over
> consoles until you start counting the impact of these advantages. You
> have agreat hypothesis until the data fail to support that these
> advnatages are really advantages. Access to titles not popular and/or
> then canceled isn't an advantage. Diablo like games are in
> development for the new consoles like DC.
Interesting....Now answer the question!
> > >Publishers recognize this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> > >Complex games produce this $. Fun games produce this
> > >$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
> >
> > Then tell me why publishers don't spend all their money developing
> > "fun" games? Are they stupid?
>
> Some are indeed stupid and spend $ on deelopment and then have titles
> canceled before bringing them to market. Some are stupidly stubborn
> or scared and they refuse to author console titles. For the stupid
> and scared we have the freemarket. It punishes those who refuse to
> service customers. Some could not care much about lost opportunites,
> their investors will care eventually. Others need to go bankrupt.
Unfortunately you're the only one being 'stupid' (no offense intended),
not the developers, and what's worse is that you cannot see it.
> > >It isn't fair to label console agmes as instant combat kiddy games
> > >that don't require strategy. Final Fantasy 8 great example fo a
> > >console game that defies the comic-kiddy stereo type.
> >
> > Final Fantasy had a good plot. It had horrible "comic-kiddy"
> > gameplay; tedious and repetetive, usually with little connection to
> > the plot. It required very little strategy. Have you played the
> > game?
>
> Somewhat - I don't now own a PSX but I have read extensively on the
> strategy and the plot and the adult reviewers say otherwise about the
> characters and game play. Again, bashing a popular title is simply
> offering a different opinion whereas the sales and follown on games
> due to the success impact titles and devleopment.
Popularity and sales is not an indication of quality or depth. Perhaps
you would argue that all pop groups should be like the Spice Girls, or
even that the Spice Girls are one of the greatest bands ever.
BTW, what games do you ACTUALLY play, in fact, do you own a console?
> > >Homeworld was praised for its simplicity in the review. It isn;t
> > >as complex as other games where too much time is organizing and
> > >planning resources.
> >
> > So, we can agree that Homeworld is a good and popular game. Now
> > explain why Homeworld isn't available on any console.
>
> Homeworld is popular in the PC niche. I cannot say if it is as
> popular as a console title - the priase was for it's unqiusness, not
> sales. I think I understand why Homeworld is not on the PSX 1 or N64.
I see, so for you it's ONLY sales that matter...no wonder you're so
ignorant about the difference between PC and console gaming...Shame!
Still, it matches your PS2 knowledge (a console which according to ALL
the reviews I can find, has been a dissapointment to most!).
Everyone knows that console games are significantly more profitable than
PC games, and this was true long BEFORE the launch of the Playstation,
and yet more PC games are still being made than ANY other format! And
why is the PC games market about half the size of the aggregated console
market (according to the link you recently provided);
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/graphics/library/infogfx/gamemkt1.gif
This doesn't reflect the relative sales figures and profits seen between
the top selling console games and the top selling PC games, so there
must be another reason why the PC market is so large. Can you guess why
yet? Think about it (no really, do try, it wouldn't hurt, promise.:)).
Money IS being made in the crowded PC games market (did you spot the
clue?), and as your chart shows, the PC games market is STILL growing
but at a _rate_ less than that of the console market (which has always
been the case).
All the claims you make about the PC games market applied years ago, and
therefore the market should NOT be as big as it is today, in fact, it
should have died out years ago according to your evidence.
So as always, your posts are based on hope, not facts.
Dr Yassam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
