Linux-Advocacy Digest #585, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ("ax")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Why post? (Mig Mig)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 15:00:04 -0600
In article <8a84qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh yes, I agree, I really hate the Linux "interactive makefile" approach... it
>reminds me of building an RSX-11 system image. Still, I could deal with that.
>It'd only have me imagining unusual tortures for $DISTRIBUTION developers once
>in a long while instead of every day.
Huh? Just because there is a target for 'make xconfig' to
get a nice point-n-click set of choices with help available
doesn't keep you from doing 'vi .config' instead. And now
at least redhat style distributions can do a 'make install'
to put everything in the right place and run lilo for you.
>Personally I don't trust modules, and I had a hell of a lot of trouble getting
>Red Hat 4.1 installed because their SCSI module stuff didn't actually work on
>a number of Adaptec controllers... you needed a kernel with the Adaptec drivers
>compiled in to get it installed.
There have been a lot (150?) of kernel versions since that early
attempt at packaging. Modules work as expected now...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:24:45 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
>
> > You remind me of another reason why the business owner I met
> > refused to upgrade to Linux. He was not happy with Microsoft
> > solutions due to the frequent crashing. But he was sort of pushed
> > by the situation his upline suppliers were upgrading to newer
> > Microsoft products and the e-transaction software from his
> > suppliers were not backward compatible.
>
> That's why it is absolutely essential for the public to standardize on
> communication/transaction protocols without IP encumberment. Otherwise
someone
> has you by the yarbles and will use it to keep you and everyone you do
business
> with on an upgrade merry-go-round.
>
> But if you use open protocols, you can switch vendors at will, and go with
> whichever one provides the best combination of 'cheap' and 'reliable'.
>
Good points. Hopefully those Linux companies will stick to
standard protocols.
But there seems to be a backward compatibility issue for Linux
caused by the constant changes on non-standard parts.
I bought a software application which can run on older Red Hat
Linux but cannot run on the newer version. The software seemed
to have hard-coded some Red Hat specific file names which no
longer exist in the newer version.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 21:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:06:24 GMT,
ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9mb8$hra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <7oXx4.7656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Believe it or not, owners of non-computer businesses
> really don't want to spend time learning an OS except
except they have to. At least for the amounts they need,
including doing backups etc. Or they want to hire a sysadmin for
a few hours/month. But that is completely independent of the OS.
The aviability (within your budget) of a nice and *reliably
working* interface with e.g. a one-button-backup/restore is
however very important and should definitively be used when
choosing your OS ... unless you are experienced enough with the OS
of your choice.
> a few simple software applications for accounting, planning
> and word processing. If they cannot get Linux installed
> with a few attempts, they will give up.
Do they know how to install WinNT or W2K? You can get Linux
preinstalled, many Linux companies offer installation support for
free with the box, and they also do consultancy. The only reason
not to use Linux is something like Win-(NT 4.0)-only software with
no viable replacement (at least within the budget).
> > It is more likely that you will be able to
> > tell a business owner that he does NOT have to throw his current
> > investment down the drain in order to run Linux. He can take his
> > upgrade money and give his employees bonuses.
> Small business owners are very sensitive about the cost
> since every dollar wasted is one dollar lost from his own
> pocket.
As said, Linux is not as upgrade hungry as MS. Nor is it
encumbered with license issues as Windows. If you think about 2
PCs for the cash desks (yep, I am describing a small shop!), and
one for the owner to evaluate, do purchases and manage the shop
(taxes, statistics, current prices, you name it) we are looking at
3 PCs, 3x OS, network stuff (+ software), a smallish webserver for
the netscape/IE user interface, a DB, a DB-query-www-glue language
like Perl or PHP, a printer w/drivers, some method for creating
nice-looking stationery (with and without the letter being printed
at the same time) (this could be a word processor, but a frontend
for LaTeX could be used as well), and so on.
Now, most of the software is aviable as OSS and works well within
Linux, you get (almost) all you need with your Linux
distribution. All you have to buy is all the glue and the
interface design, which means that you'll be able to get it
cheaper and/or with a higher quality.
With Windows most of the software is not as easily aviable as OSS
(unless you want to port it), though apache, perl and LaTeX are
aviable, IIRC. So you'll buy the components, either from MS or
from some after market supplier. And you have to buy 3 licenses
for your OS, and _still_ pay for all the glue and the interface.
> I guess it will take a couple of years for small business owners
> like him to even think about Linux.
I guess a good merchant can understand his needs and hopefully can
evaluate the inherent costs in each solution. Marketing tries to
cloud the second and occasionally the first part, though.
Linux has little marketing (and a lot of hype), currently, and of
course currently most programs aimed at these customers are
running under WinNT. That _will_ influence their choices. (And
then there's the old "nobogy gets fired for choosing
IBM^WMicrosoft" effect.)
Which means that you are correct, but most of these points are not
shortcomings of Linux per se.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:10:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Mike Timbol wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tell me, why does Eidos still develop some games *specific* to the PC?
>> >
>> >They're releasing 12 PC titles this year but I'm not sure what new titles
>> >they have begun - if any. The spokesperson indicated they thought the PC
>> >wasn't a game platform.
>>
>> 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?
What that fact tells me is that there's some reason Eidos still develops
PC games. Eidos looks at the cost of developing for the two markets, looks
at the demographics and potential rewards of each, and *still* develops PC
games in addition to consoles. There must be a reason, no? Obviously
your "opportunity cost" argument is not so clear cut.
>> >> >Possibly, if you stick to the categories where the PC had a lead and it
>> >> >is very easy to find console games the inspired PC titles.
>> >>
>> >> Then name them. Which PC titles have been inspired by console games?
>> >> Sports, fighting and action games are all that come to mind. RTS?
>> >> Adventure? FPS? Strategy? Simulation? All dominated by PC games.
>> >
>> >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.
Yeah, the same way that Pong inspired Doom. Meaning, not in any real sense.
I'm sure the developers of Grim Fandango and Curse of Monkey Island didn't
refer to "Adventure" at all, during development.
>> 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.
A Wintel PC is far more efficient than a console at creating content.
Still, this is neither here nor there; the fact is irrelevent to the
discussion.
>> 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".
Here's your quote:
"...it is very easy to find console games the inspired PC titles."
You still haven't named a single one.
>> 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.
Ah, so your claim is that the PC will copy/follow console titles *MORE THAN
A YEAR FROM NOW*, when the X-BOX is released. So, basically, you're just
predicting the future, yet again.
Fine, we'll see when the future gets here.
>...
>> >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.
Interestingly, Eidos still develops games exclusively for the PC. According
to your argument, Eidos is smart, because they're cutting back on PC games
in favor of consoles. However, again by your argument, Eidos is stupid
because they develop some less popular games for PCs when they could make
more money on consoles. Which is it?
>> 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.
You're spouting nonsense. Are you claiming Homeworld, Half-Life, Diablo II,
and Age of Empires aren't popular? No, you're not. They are unquestioningly
popular PC games. Yet they aren't on consoles. There must be a reason why,
no?
>Diablo like games are in development for the new consoles like DC.
Wow, I can't wait. In a few months, the Dreamcast may finally have a title
that copies a three-year old PC game. How exciting.
>> >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.
Interestingly, we have a discrepancy between your view of the market, and
the way that dozens of companies, which have been in the industry for many
years, are actually operating. There are dozens of companies that aren't
acting the way you say they should act.
Your way of explaining this discrepancy is to conclude that these are stupid
companies, run by stupid people.
I don't think that's the best explanation.
>> >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.
So, basically, you haven't really played the game. OK, can't really blame
you if you don't have a PSX. Still, in almost all of the reviews ones I've
read, the graphics and plot are praised. But few of the reviews mention
the gameplay or strategy in a positive manner. If you have the time, rent
a PSX and FF8, and play it for several hours. See how long until you get
bored of the combat sequences.
>> >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.
Then there's a huge problem in your argument. Homeworld is a popular PC
game. You're not sure if it would be a popular console game. Obviously,
there is a difference between the two markets. If the markets were
identical, then a game popular in one market would be popular in both.
>I think I understand why Homeworld is not on the PSX 1 or N64.
Interesting. OK, explain why.
>> >> If it's already over, why is Eidos, your prime example, producing PC games
>> >> at all?
>> >
>> >If it isn't over then why is MS producing the X-BOX?
>>
>> Microsoft is producing the X-BOX to get a share of the console market.
>> They see an opportunity, and they want to exploit it. That's a perfectly
>> logical answer that explains the situtation and doesn't mean the PC is
>> dead.
>>
>> Now, would you care to answer *my* question?
I'll note that you *still* haven't answered my question.
- Mike
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why post?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:17:40 +0100
mlw wrote:
[cut]
> 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.
Is this so different from Satanism where [many] satanists define Satanism
as being to opposite of Christianity in any aspect?
(Off course Satanism= Windows Christianilty=FreeUnices some (Drestin
and Chad) might view this the other way around)
> 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 think youre wrong here. Usability is very much a issue... users install
programs that sometimes break stuff that worked before so there is a need
for tools/ability to do some kind of damage rocovery.
This is true for Windows (as you probably allready know) and also for
Linux. Unfortunattely neither platform as an easy way to do this recovery
to a basic working system - Windows is leading here because of
"Add/Remove->Windows Installation" comes very handy [nearly] allways ....
but this in not even enough.
> 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?
If you only knew about Windows and your job was dependent on people using
Windows and the momentum was towards another platform... wouldnt you feel
threatned?
I think you would and i surely would :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:18:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Mike Timbol wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>PCs easily surpass the 1994 PSX console but failed to unseat it as the most
>popoular a game device.
A Porsche 911 easily suprasses a Toyota Camry, but failed to unseat it as the
most popular car. Should Porsche stop making 911s, and make a clone of the
Camry instead? Should everyone who wants to buy a 911 buy a Camry instead?
There's more to making a decision than popularity.
>According to this article, PC gaming is a maker comprised of only ~2 million
>people.
>http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000307S0008
Heh. Earlier you posted an article that showed the PC games market to have
about $2.1 billion in sales. Are we to believe that every PC gamer spends
more than $1000 on games software EVERY YEAR? If so, I'm way behind.
>> >Money spent on a PC title could have generated MORE money on a Console
>> >title.
>>
>> No. Depends on the game. You, again, treat the markets as if the
>> demographics were identical. They are not. Games which do well on the
>> PC would usually not generate more money on a console. That's why there
>> are so many best-selling PC games which are never ported to the console
>> platform.
>>
>> Your assumption is wrong.
>
>Opportunity costs Mike. Lost income due to chasing a smaller market.
You fail to realize the implications of your argument: the console is
the larger market. Why didn't LucasArts port Grim Fandango? Why didn't
they port Tie Fighter? Why do they continue to produce games specific
to the PC? Either LucasArts is stupid, or your assumption is wrong.
I'd say they know more about the markets they're in than you do.
>The demographics are irrelevant to the fact titles on consoles make more money.
>Publishers know what that means.
Eidos is a publisher, yet Eidos still makes PC games. They've been doing
both console and PC games for years, and they know both markets. They, like
LucasArts, still produce PC games, in spite of opportunity costs. Why?
>If you say the two markets produce
>different games then the conclusion is simple and horrible for PCs: The
>PC market is very small and therefore the rewards for success are very
>small and the effort LESS likely to produce revenue on the console market.
>So the more you separat ethem, the worse off the PC devleoper is since they
>are creating product less likely to run on the more profitbale device.
Your conclusion makes no sense. The situation has been the same since
the Playstation was released six years ago; two markets, with little
crossover of titles between the two. If the situation is so horrible,
why are there still so many great PC games being released even now?
>> >One also questions the need for a complicated user interface - the
>> >Homeworld game was singled out and praised for NOT being complicated.
>> >May strategy games are too realistic and detract from the fun.
>>
>> There is no objective definition of "fun", just as there is no
>> objective definition of what makes a good game. Simply because you
>> feel a particular game is "too realistic" does not mean it isn't a good
>> game. In fact, many of the games which do well on the PC are probably
>> games which you would categorize as "too realistic". Yet they still
>> sell well.
>
>Then one should not pan consoles titles for being "simpler" or not as
>"realistic" since there are subjective in that they need to bebalanced
>with the user experience.
I did not call them "too simple" or "not realistic enough", since those
are subjective judgements, but it is an objective fact that console games,
in general, are "simpler" and "less realistic" than PC games.
This is yet another fact that illustrates how the two markets aren't
identical.
>The objective criteria are the consumers
And the consumers still buy more than $2 billion dollars worth of PC
games a year.
>> That's yet another indicator of the demographic differences.
>>
>> Tell me, Joseph, what are your three favorite PC games and your three
>> favorite console games? I'm wondering if we can spot a trend.
>
>I don't play PC games but the PC game mag I get listed a 5 top innovative,
>revolutionary games and of them I think Homeworld was the most interesting
>for what they listed. Baluder's Gate and that engine seemed interesting
>so I am following the SEGA port of the engine. For PC games I used to play,
>I had a lot of fun with DOOM but more in the exploration of the world and
>was deeply disappointed at the direction ID went with QUAKE. MYST was
>another I enjoyed and Tie-Figher.
OK, so we have Homeworld, which doesn't have anything close on a console;
Baldur's gate, which may get a console port two or three years after its
PC release; Doom (which has been superceded by things like Half-Life,
Unreal Tournament, etc...), but has several console clones (but which
don't do multiplayer); Myst, which was ported to the console; and
Tie-Fighter, which remains exclusive to the PC.
If you get a PC game magazine, don't you notice that there are many many
titles which never appear on a console, and don't have anything even
close?
>I'm looking for (of all things) Tetras for the DC, and my next purchase
>will be SEGA BASS Fishing.
Tetris is one of your favorite Dreamcast games? Bass fishing? I'd say
you're way out of touch with most of the Dreamcast market. In any case,
Tetris started on the PC, as did fishing games.
>> >Consol developers hesitiate to port because of economics - Opportunity costs.
>> >The ENTIRE heterogenous PC market is smaller than the uniform PSX market.
>> >Time spent on a PC port is money lost not doing a new console game or
>> >porting to the other console or LEARNING and doing developement on the
>> >next platform: DC, PSX or Dolphin.
>>
>> No. Your argument ignores half of the available facts. Based on your
>> argument, it stands to reason that money spent developing (instead of
>> simply porting) a PC game is money lost not doing a new console game
>> instead. Yet there are dozens and dozens of great PC games that never
>> make it to consoles. And, even with the Dreamcast available, there
>> are still dozens of great PC games being produced.
>
>Economics are unquestionable. Doing a PC game is indeed a opportunity
>forfitted on a console. If someone has a personal opinion that the two
>are different or one is inferior that opinion is irrelevant to the
>economics of the decision a game publisher faces. Economics Mike.
Do you think that you know more about the economics of the gaming market
than the people at the dozens of companies that produce PC games? I
think not.
As you say, game publishers face the economics of which platforms to
develop for. And dozens of them *still* develop for PCs. If your
viewpoint requires us to conclude that the PC game companies are stupid,
then I'd say that there's something wrong with your viewpoint.
>> Don't those developers also have opportunity costs? Of course they do.
>> Yet, they usually don't port their games to the console. Why?
>>
>> Perhaps there's some reason why they *don't* concentrate on console games
>> which you refuse to recognize. The market demographics are different.
>
>No Mike, Adults play console games.
Then explain why most PC game developers don't port their popular games to
the console. This is at the core of the issue, and the answer explains the
fundamental problem with your argument. Yet you cannot explain it.
>> That's not the question -- you can't compare Planescape to Super Mario
>> Brothers. The question is, do they make less than an *equivalent* console
>> title. That is, if Planescape were released on a console, would it make
>> more money than it makes on the PC.
>
>Yes I think Planetscape would make more money on a console.
Then maybe you should tell that to Black Isle. Obviously you think you
know more about the gaming market than they do.
>> There are two scenarios:
>>
>> A. There's some reason (e.g. demographics) why a good PC game won't
>> make more money on a console.
>>
>> B. The PC game *would* make a lot more money on a console, but the PC
>> game developers are just stupid and develop for the PC anyway.
>>
>> Gee, I think A. is far more likely.
>
>The world is full of TYPE B thinkers. We have the free market to correct
>these poor SOBs who think they know more than the customer.
We have the free market to reward those companies who think they know
more than you. The PSX came out six years ago. PC game makers still
make more than $2 billion dollars a year. PC game buyers (customers)
still buy the games, because, in many cases, they can't get anything
close on a console.
>> >There are also more money losing games on the PC. There are more copy cat
>> >games on the PC - rehashed engines.
>>
>> Irrelevent. The fact that there may be 200 games that look like Quake does
>> not detract from the fact that there are more *types* of games available.
>
>It matters. There is a lot of crap and copy cat crap for PCs.
Also true for consoles. It's just that, for consoles, the crap is in fewer
categories.
>New titles are lost in the copy cat crap noise.
Perhaps a few, but most of the really good games are discovered. More
choice is a good thing.
>> If your simple argument of "opportunity costs" were true, then you'd see
>> the same types of games available on both platforms. You don't.
>
>No Mike. Opportunity costs don't have a boolean effect.
You are completely missing the point. Why isn't there a single game like
Fallout available on the console? Why is there no version of Monkey Island?
Why doesn't Homeworld exist? Why isn't there a single descent flight
simulator?
If your opportunity costs argument held up, then some company would come
along and say, "Gee, Fallout made a lot of money on the PC; let's make a
simlar game for the console and make even more money." Yet not a single
company has even attempted to do so.
Either you are just so much smarter than every gaming company in the world,
or there's something wrong with your argument. Do you really think you're
that smart?
- Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
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: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:07:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > Oh yes, I agree, I really hate the Linux "interactive makefile"
> > approach... it reminds me of building an RSX-11 system image. Still,
> > I could deal with that. It'd only have me imagining unusual
> > tortures for $DISTRIBUTION developers once in a long while instead
> > of every day.
> So.... don't use it.
> Use vi or joe or ed or pico or NOTEPAD.EXE under Wine. You could even
> be a Real BSD Man(tm) and pipe together some head and tail.
Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates? Is that guaranteed
to be even semi-sane when you upgrade the kernel?
> > Personally I don't trust modules, and I had a hell of a lot of
> > trouble getting Red Hat 4.1 installed because their SCSI module
> > stuff didn't actually work on a number of Adaptec controllers... you
> > needed a kernel with the Adaptec drivers compiled in to get it
> > installed.
> The 2.0.x Linux kernels all had problems with Adaptec controllers,
> especially with the aic7xxx chipset.
It was just fine with the driver compiled in.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
