OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)

[computerex]

Forgive me for assuming that you didn't need help parsing the English language.

Forgiven .

What I meant is exactly what I said. Go to the store, grab any modern game, and try to run it on Linux. In the vast majority of cases, it won't work.

:huh:

Lets think this through:

1. You stated that linux is a crippled OS because it can't do basic tasks such as playing modern games, as indicated by the following:

I still don't know why someone would make the choice to use a crippled OS that can't even do the most basic of tasks, like playing modern games.

2. I defended by stating that it is the game producers' fault for not producing content for the operating system, and that it is not a short coming of the OS itself, which is perfectly capable of running modern games (as illustrated by a myriad of videos on youtube, to which I may post a link in the end).

3. To this you replied with a contradiction without supporting it with anything.

Um, no, that's not what I said. How childish of you to think so.

4. To your very confusing and aggressive reply, I responded by first showing my disapproval of your debating skills:

Simply contradicting someone else's statements without providing reasoning behind the contradiction is childish.

followed by an attempt at clarification:

To me that (and I am sure the vast majority of the sane population) that sounds as if you are questioning the operating system's ability to play games. That is why I was puzzled, because I would expect a programmer like you to know better. What did you mean then?

5. To this you replied with (along with an unprovoked insult ):

What I meant is exactly what I said. Go to the store, grab any modern game, and try to run it on Linux. In the vast majority of cases, it won't work.

Which brings us back up to point number two, that it is not the operating system's fault that it isn't targeted (yet) by large gaming corporations for their platform of choice, so your point about the OS being crippled for this reason is invalid.

What you are saying is along the lines of: "Vista sucks because none of my hardware works with it", to which any reasonable person would reply: "It is not Microsoft's fault that the hardware manufactures haven't updated their drivers".

With that said, you have to give credit where it is due. Even though the majority of modern games may not be targeted for linux, that doesn't seem to stop people from playing them in linux.

And Windows remains the operating system of choice for a vastly larger number of consumers, despite the "threat" of Linux.

It takes time for things to change . And again, I was not comparing the user bases of linux and Windows...For god's sakes, read the post before replying....

 

[Hielor]

Lets think this through:
... (snip for length)

Okay, I'll make it simple for you.

Windows can play the vast majority of modern games. Linux can't. Even in the cases where it can, it doesn't "just work" and requires a lot of fiddling to get it going, as is the case with so many things on Linux.

The exact reason is irrelevant (and, yes, it is the OS's fault if it's not targetted by developers, because the OS isn't popular enough to justify developing for it).

 

[Turbinator]

.

 

[Hielor]

I'm sorry, and what exactly have you contributed to this conversation?

 

[computerex]

Okay, I'll make it simple for you.

Thank you, simple is always better .

Windows can play the vast majority of modern games. Linux can't. Even in the cases where it can, it doesn't "just work" and requires a lot of fiddling to get it going, as is the case with so many things on Linux.

Your repetitiveness and failure to address my points leads me to believe that you hardly know what is going on here. The argument is not whether or not linux can run modern games, it is whether or not linux is a crippled OS, as you stated. Linux not being able to run modern games was simply one of the reasons you used to justify linux being crippled. I in my previous posts have shown you my position on the matter, that your reasoning behind the OS being crippled due to the fact that it can't run modern games is flawed, as the OS is perfectly capable of running modern games and it is the game producers who are at blame for not releasing linux compatible games. For the sake argument, let us assume incorrectly that linux cannot run games. Are you honestly telling me that this one reason is enough to title the OS as crippled?

Windows can play the vast majority of the games, because they are released for that OS, that is not anything profound. It is not as if linux can't play those games, it is simply the fact that they are not made for linux. I am stressing this because it appears as if you don't understand.

The exact reason is irrelevant (and, yes, it is the OS's fault if it's not targetted by developers, because the OS isn't popular enough to justify developing for it).

Are you telling me that the reasoning behind a given phenomenon taking place is irrelevant to understanding the phenomenon?

The reasoning is very relevant. It is unfair to say that linux cannot run modern games and therefore it is crippled, because neither of the statements is true. I feel like I have to repeat myself continuously in an attempt to get this across to you.

My advice to you is to read my previous posts, and try to understand what I am saying. Really think through the posts, then it'll start making sense to you. Also, based on what you have said here I think reading a book or two about operating systems, game development, and economics might do you good.

 

[Ghostrider]

Could we please not go back to the C64 vs Speccy wars of the '80s? Just to make things clear, I'm not a windows fan (or f4nboi as it's horrorwritten today). I've used a Vanguard cargo hold load of OSs since CP/M, and to me a computer and its OS are just tools.

The only platform I was a "fan" of because I genuinely liked it was the Amiga, and then again I had to grudgingly move on because its capabilities and its software base were not on par with my requirements anymore.

Right now the software I need to work runs on Windows. Not MacOs, not BeOS, not BSD, not Linux. Switching to Linux means I cannot work anymore because there are no alternatives. Same with the games I play.

Yes, I could probably run some of them in emulated mode but I would lose some processing speed and I'd like my tasks to be done by the end of the week, not by the end of the year.

Now we could blame the software developers but it would be unfair. They're in the business to make money, and porting software (especially games) between OSs costs money that they'd like to recoup.

I'm as OS-agnostic as one can be - the tool that works best is what I use. Some years ago I volunteered to refit some donated PCs that were to be used in a school, I put a Linux distro on all of them because it gave the better capabilities at the lower cost. But I simply cannot use it for my everyday work, and looks like a lot of people are in the same situation. OS wars do not benefit anyone, when some killer apps will come up for Linux, there will a difference. It's not that there some sinister plot against Linus Torvalds or anything.

 

[computerex]

OS wars do not benefit anyone,...

They are great for passing time when you should actually be studying for the midterm that is on the following morning (4:06 am, a couple of hours for me) .

 

[Hielor]

Your repetitiveness and failure to address my points leads me to believe that you hardly know what is going on here. The argument is not whether or not linux can run modern games, it is whether or not linux is a crippled OS, as you stated. Linux not being able to run modern games was simply one of the reasons you used to justify linux being crippled. I in my previous posts have shown you my position on the matter, that your reasoning behind the OS being crippled due to the fact that it can't run modern games is flawed, as the OS is perfectly capable of running modern games and it is the game producers who are at blame for not releasing linux compatible games.

Linux is not "perfectly capable of running modern games." We've already established that most modern games don't run on Linux, and it is therefore not capable of running them (without a good deal of work on the part of the user).

Linux is capable of running software products similar to modern games, but since the modern games don't run on Linux, Linux is not capable of running them. See how that works? I'm being repetitive here because you're still missing the point.

For the sake argument, let us assume incorrectly that linux cannot run games. Are you honestly telling me that this one reason is enough to title the OS as crippled?

Yes. If I put Windows on my computer, it can run these games. If I put (exclusively) Linux on the computer, it can't. Ergo, compared to Windows, it's crippled.

Windows can play the vast majority of the games, because they are released for that OS, that is not anything profound. It is not as if linux can't play those games, it is simply the fact that they are not made for linux. I am stressing this because it appears as if you don't understand.

Are you telling me that the reasoning behind a given phenomenon taking place is irrelevant to understanding the phenomenon?

The reasoning is very relevant. It is unfair to say that linux cannot run modern games and therefore it is crippled, because neither of the statements is true. I feel like I have to repeat myself continuously in an attempt to get this across to you.

My advice to you is to read my previous posts, and try to understand what I am saying. Really think through the posts, then it'll start making sense to you. Also, based on what you have said here I think reading a book or two about operating systems, game development, and economics might do you good.

You seem to be having a tunnel-vision focus on my use of the word "crippled." Since Linux is incapable of doing things that Windows is, it is less functional than Windows, and that's how I'm using the word.

 

[Urwumpe]

They are great for passing time when you should actually be studying for the midterm that is on the following morning (4:06 am, a couple of hours for me) .

Try to escape reality? :lol:

Aw, still better as playing WoW.

 

[Brycesv1]

Hielor. I respect you as a person, and an add-on developer but the last few of your statements honestly confuse me. Linux OS is perfectly capable of running the games. it's the games that are flawed. The game was not built to run on Linux, and it's not Linux's fault. The company knows that making a game for windows will make them more money, so that is exactly what they do. When tweaking on the OS to make the game run, you are not forcing the system to run a game it normally cant. You are forcing the game to think that it is being run on the system that it was made for.

For example: a Mosin Nagant 91/30 fires a 7.62 standard bullet and is in almost every way superior to a BB gun. If you put a BB in a mosin nagant, will it shoot? No.

It's not the Mosin Nagant's fault it cant shoot the BB, it's the BB's fault for not being made to fit in the Mosin Nagant. Or more specificly, the makers of the BB for not making it compatible with the Mosin Nagant

Computerex is right and i think most people agree. Linux isnt at fault for not being able to play most modern games.

I am not a Linux fan, i use windows vista and XP exclusively. I personaly like vista more. I'm just putting the truth out there.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hielor. I respect you as a person, and an add-on developer but the last few of your statements honestly confuse me. Linux OS is perfectly capable of running the games. it's the games that are flawed. The game was not built to run on Linux, and it's not Linux's fault.

Well, sort of, it is. The developers of Linux don't care much for games, and so is the support for gaming by the Kernel. That additionally the gaming world is more and more dominated by game consoles is another matter.

There are some OS games that are more or less well suited for running on Linux, but if you look behind the curtain, you can see how many evil hacks are still needed for making the game run as well under Linux as you can do under Windows.

 

[Ghostrider]

It's not the Mosin Nagant's fault it cant shoot the BB, it's the BB's fault for not being made to fit in the Mosin Nagant. Or more specificly, the makers of the BB for not making it compatible with the Mosin Nagant.

Actually, no. It's the shooter's fault for wanting to use a BB in a centerfire rifle knowing full well it's not made for it. Air rifles have a different purpose and are made to different specs, not to mention they use a different operating principle and mechanisms. And if the BB could be fired in a conventional rifle, it wouldn't be an air rifle ammo round anymore. Its makers are not at fault, they made it for the purpose it's intended for.

If we want to use an analogy, let's say I've designed a new semiautomatic pistol that it's more accurate and reliable than anything on the market. What do I chamber it for, 9mm Parabellum or 10mm Auto? 10mm Auto is more powerful and has overall better performance than 9mm Para, which I consider borderline when it comes to self-defence. But if I make it for 10mm Auto I'll sell less, because 9mm Para is an established standard, it can be found anywhere, it's cheaper than 10mm Auto, and some people cannot really handle the 10mm Auto recoil. 9mm Para is "good enough", there's a good supply of it, many ammo makers manufacture it, there are plenty of ammo variants from JHP to Glaser safety slugs, and so on.

So I make my weapon a 9mm. I may consider building a 10mm auto version if there is an interest from the 10mm users big enough to justify the costs (mind you, I chose 10mm because it's possible to build a conversion kit that allows a 9mm frame to shoot .45 ACP, but 10mm is a different beast). If there is not, the expense is not justified. BTW, firearm design is the closest thing in the world there is to Open Source Software because there aren't secrets in gunmaking, so nothing stops you from making your own 10mm version.

It's not "fault" on the developers' side. They do what makes economic sense. It happened before, when "ports" between machines were common. At some point, they started to disappear because some machine was not as popular as the others, and there was no incentive porting the software. The same happens now, and again it's not anyone's "fault". It's market dynamics at work.

 

[Linguofreak]

Exactly. Linux isn't crippled because the developers that put out modern games don't write for it. It would be crippled if it was impossible to write a modern game for it, but I sincerely doubt that that is true.

On the flip side, just because it isn't crippled WRT modern games doesn't mean it's ideal for modern games either. If developers don't write games for it because it doesn't have a big enough market share, it's not ideal. The hardcore gamer (or at least the hardcore gamer who likes having all the games that are popular and modern) will probably want a Windows machine.

The Orbinaut will definitely want a Windows machine, as Orbiter doesn't work well at all under Wine.

I'm *not* the type of gamer that likes having all the popular modern games, since popular and modern does not necessarily = "worth playing" (Which doesn't mean that if I find a popular modern game that I really like and will run on my machine that I won't play it). I am however an Orbinaut, and leaves me with a tie to Windows. (Although this year I'm simply doing without Orbiter).

 

[computerex]

Linux is not "perfectly capable of running modern games." We've already established that most modern games don't run on Linux, and it is therefore not capable of running them (without a good deal of work on the part of the user).

That is equivocation. Not triggering an event does not imply that the potential of it being triggered is not there. In other words, it is incorrect for you to say that:

"Since most modern games don't run on linux, linux cannot run modern games."

Because, as you said, linux cannot run most modern games, which means it can run some, which would imply that it does indeed have the potential of running modern games, thus crippling your argument entirely because of you contradicting your own statements.

Linux is capable of running software products similar to modern games, but since the modern games don't run on Linux, Linux is not capable of running them. See how that works? I'm being repetitive here because you're still missing the point.

See above.

Yes. If I put Windows on my computer, it can run these games. If I put (exclusively) Linux on the computer, it can't. Ergo, compared to Windows, it's crippled.

By your logic: If I put linux on my computer, it can run kdenlive, if I put (exclusively) Windows on my computer, it can't. Ergo, compared to linux, it's crippled.

As we have proved that linux is indeed capable of running those modern games, your argument is again addressed.

You seem to be having a tunnel-vision focus on my use of the word "crippled." Since Linux is incapable of doing things that Windows is, it is less functional than Windows, and that's how I'm using the word.

Every OS has its weaknesses and strengths. Windows is no where near as functional as linux in terms of customization and desktop functionality/productivity/efficiency. The Desktop Effects offered by compiz fusion simply blow away any OS in the market, Windows/Mac cannot even compete.

But then Windows is better in gaming. Your logic is once again faulty.

1. You changed your primary argument, from "Linux is crippled" to "Since linux is incapable of doing things that Windows is, it is crippled"

2. Your argument doesn't even make logical sense. The vast majority of the things that Windows can do are available for both Linux and Mac. If anything, it is Linux that can do things that Windows cannot do, such as what I mentioned previously, desktop effects.

3. I focused on the word because that is what you are basing your argument on.

 

[Ghostrider]

It's perfectly possible to write a modern game under Linux. It's not done because it wouldn't sell many copies and unless you're doing it for the glory, it wouldn't justify the cost. There aren't exactly zillions of games running under MacOS either.
I never stated there's anything wrong with Linux. But anyone who says it's going to surpass Windows in the near future should do a reality check.

As I said before, the software I use to work doesn't exist in any Linux version. Therefore, switching to Linux would cause me to lose my ability to work and support myself. Any other argument is purely academic. I don't care if I can customize the Ubuntu desktop until it feels like the Enterprise-D computer, it doesn't run the stuff I need. You can blame the producers all you like, but you can't force them to lose money making a version that too few people would buy.

 

[Linguofreak]

Linux is capable of running software products similar to modern games, but since the modern games don't run on Linux, Linux is not capable of running them. See how that works? I'm being repetitive here because you're still missing the point.

The capability of an OS is not measured by what has been implemented for it, but by what it *can* implement. As far as I know, a modern game with all the features of [insert your favorite game here] can be implemented for Linux. Thus Linux is every bit as capable an OS WRT modern games as Windows.

Capability to implement, however, does not = implementation.

What you are really complaining about is, "There is not a great selection of modern games implemented on Linux, and I cannot/do not want to take the time to implement such a game myself."

This is a valid argument against the use of Linux if playing modern games is high on your list of priorities, but it has nothing to do with the capabilities of Linux, and is not under the control of the Linux devs. No amount of code they could add to Linux would influence the selection of modern games for Linux, no matter how capable that code made Linux. (To be pedantic, I suppose they could implement a modern FPS in the kernel, but talk about bloatware...).

 

[Hielor]

From the user's perspective, it's completely irrelevant why Windows runs the games and Linux doesn't. What matters is just that.

The poor user who's been misled into installing Linux on their computer by all the hype won't care that "it's the developer's fault" for not making a version that works on Linux without spending a few hours fiddling with it. All s/he sees is that they now have an OS which, to them, is less capable in the things that matter to them than their previous one.

When you're talking about gaining market share, which requires you to make your users happy, the user's opinion is what matters.

The capability of an OS is not measured by what has been implemented for it, but by what it *can* implement. As far as I know, a modern game with all the features of [insert your favorite game here] can be implemented for Linux. Thus Linux is every bit as capable an OS WRT modern games as Windows.

I have to heartily disagree. I don't want to sit around and twiddle my thumbs to wait for developers to start making games for Linux. An OS's capabilities include everything that OS is currently able to do.

If there existed an OS for which no one had written a browser, but which was technically capable of having a browser on it, that would certainly be a black mark against the OS from the user's perspective.

 

[Linguofreak]

If there existed an OS for which no one had written a browser, but which was technically capable of having a browser on it, that would certainly be a black mark against the OS from the user's perspective.

Certainly. No one here is arguing that the lack of selection of modern games on Linux isn't a black mark against it (at least for those who care about such things). We *are* arguing, though, that said black mark is not a matter of capabilities. It's a matter of external factors. It remains a black mark nonetheless. Just don't call Linux "crippled" because of it.

If one man has a ten foot wall to jump over, and the other has a six inch wall to jump over, it's not fair to call the man who needs to jump over the ten foot wall "crippled" because he can't do it, since it is not within the capability of most people to jump 10+ feet into the air.

 

[Urwumpe]

If one man has a ten foot wall to jump over, and the other has a six inch wall to jump over, it's not fair to call the man who needs to jump over the ten foot wall "crippled" because he can't do it, since it is not within the capability of most people to jump 10+ feet into the air.

But in terms of Linux and games, the analogy is different.

Both Linux and Windows have a 5+ ft wall and while Windows just gets into its DirectX shoes and jumps over it, the Linux jumper has to decide wether to use army boots, Ski, diving shoes or sandals. And gets so frustrated that he instead goes on hiking for years through the country with his army boots, without needing to re-boot.

 

[Artlav]

Am i the only one who think that there is a pointless argument about words and ways of saying going on here instead of attempts to unify opinions?