More on Microsoft's MC plans

[RavynousHunter]

True 'nuff, brotha, true 'nuff.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You just...completely missed the point, dude. I mean, utterly, totally, and irrevocably missed it by several leagues. My actual point was that unless one operating system dominates 100% of the market, omni-platform technologies are simply going to be impossible, by definition. Please, try actually reading my post again, past the first third of the first sentence. Putting words in my mouth does not make me a happy beaver.

Then maybe you also missed mine...

Other than the fact that a single OS to rule them all is a BAD idea all around from an end-user perspective, you seem to be coming at the problem backwards.

OpenGL runs on damn near anything, I haven't run across a distro that isn't capable of supporting it at least and I've been distro surfing for a while now, so your statement as posted is actually incorrect as well as looking at the wrong end. The tools such as OpenGL, Qt, and other open-source resources are platform-independent by their very nature. So yes, you CAN actually create platform-independent programs. It's only when you get into abusive corporate intellectual property pissing matches that you get platform-dependent crap.

Furthermore, because resources like these are both open-source (and thus free to distribute, and so can be used as dependencies without forcing the end-user to pay out the ying in licensing fees), any developer of an operating system can simply build their OS to incorporate them from the ground-level up so that the point is entirely moot. You *CAN* have platform independent resources, and thus games based on said resources, and thus games which are themselves platform independent. You just have to avoid BS licensed code.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

This is hardly on topic

 

[RavynousHunter]

Then maybe you also missed mine...

Other than the fact that a single OS to rule them all is a BAD idea all around from an end-user perspective, you seem to be coming at the problem backwards.

I never said it was a good one, just that it'd make the whole "omni-platform" thing a hell of a lot simpler. I'm speaking in purely technical terms, I do not think this is a thing people should actually do.

OpenGL runs on damn near anything, I haven't run across a distro that isn't capable of supporting it at least and I've been distro surfing for a while now, so your statement as posted is actually incorrect as well as looking at the wrong end. The tools such as OpenGL, Qt, and other open-source resources are platform-independent by their very nature. So yes, you CAN actually create platform-independent programs. It's only when you get into abusive corporate intellectual property pissing matches that you get platform-dependent crap.

That's not how it works, dude. Every platform has its own ways of interacting with certain resources: RAM, storage media, and so on. When designing things for it, even an abstraction layer like the Qt framework, you have to write actual code to interface with that given platform. That increases the size of the abstraction layer and increases the amount of time spent developing said layer. This is where open-source things come in handy, since you can have a diverse group working on a multitude of platforms creating APIs and whatnot to integrate with their specific platform. It has little to do with licenses. Unless we're talking about Apple.

Furthermore, because resources like these are both open-source (and thus free to distribute, and so can be used as dependencies without forcing the end-user to pay out the ying in licensing fees), any developer of an operating system can simply build their OS to incorporate them from the ground-level up so that the point is entirely moot. You *CAN* have platform independent resources, and thus games based on said resources, and thus games which are themselves platform independent. You just have to avoid BS licensed code.

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to licenses and licensed code. I...do not understand this. The GPL is, as the name itself states, a license. Almost all code, nowadays, is licensed in some way, shape, or form. Its just that some licenses are more limiting than others. Honestly, I don't mind commercial licenses that aren't uber-restrictive. At the end of the day, people need to make money. Some of them, like me, make money being software developers. In the words of that annoying Rally's ad: "You gotta eat."

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to licenses and licensed code. I...do not understand this. The GPL is, as the name itself states, a license. Almost all code, nowadays, is licensed in some way, shape, or form. Its just that some licenses are more limiting than others. Honestly, I don't mind commercial licenses that aren't uber-restrictive. At the end of the day, people need to make money. Some of them, like me, make money being software developers. In the words of that annoying Rally's ad: "You gotta eat."

Not licensing in general, just the sort of abuses that happen when corporations abuse the system. As you said, commercial licenses that are 'uber-restrictive'.

 

[GreenZombie]

Not licensing in general, just the sort of abuses that happen when corporations abuse the system. As you said, commercial licenses that are 'uber-restrictive'.

Actually, licenses in general are abhorrent. The fact that a sale of an item covered by perfectly servicable copyright - the government granted monopoly invented for this very purpose - can be transformed into a "license" by the simple inclusion of a click through agreement is so very very wrong.

 

[RavynousHunter]

I will grant ya that licensing is a massive can of worms that can, especially in the case of the RIAA and MPAA, cause more problems than they solve. It can be useful, especially for explicitly spelling out what can and can't be done with a particular IP, but our implementation of it is...somewhat lacking and in need of some retooling to get better in line with the times.

 

[Type1Ninja]

Personally, I'd love to see all OSes become "Linux", but have distros (am I using that right?) for every skill level, from "I find Mac OS X difficult" to "I wrote my own OS." Just build stuff to be compatible with "Linux," or - more accurately - Linux at it's fullest possible potential . I think programmers and all industries selling stuff is great - but as has been stated before, "uber-restrictive" (now a word on it's own) is not good. Open source is the way to go, man.
However, if we're going to discuss why copyright laws in America and Europe are not very productive right now, I suggest we start a thread in the off-topic section. Or, we could skip it; these exact same things have been hashed out a thousand times before by everyone except Congress, so we don't need to do it again.

Also, I think we're all *mostly* in agreement, we just have ambiguous wordings and slightly different case-specific thoughts.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I will grant ya that licensing is a massive can of worms that can, especially in the case of the RIAA and MPAA, cause more problems than they solve. It can be useful, especially for explicitly spelling out what can and can't be done with a particular IP, but our implementation of it is...somewhat lacking and in need of some retooling to get better in line with the times.

I agree with every part of this post. I feel that the best use for it is more like the GNU and GPL type licenses along the lines of "no stealing my code to make money without me" , but yes the implementation needs to be... rethinked.

Personally, I'd love to see all OSes become "Linux", but have distros (am I using that right?) for every skill level, from "I find Mac OS X difficult" to "I wrote my own OS." Just build stuff to be compatible with "Linux," or - more accurately - Linux at it's fullest possible potential . I think programmers and all industries selling stuff is great - but as has been stated before, "uber-restrictive" (now a word on it's own) is not good. Open source is the way to go, man.

There's plenty of different distros of linux, and not all of them are compatible with each other in every regard. For example, something written for Debian may not work properly on Red Hat. However, if all of the OS's can agree on a set of open source tools they use (such as OpenGL), and specifically write their OS's to work with them, then it becomes much less of a problem.

Also, Open Source typically is associated with the GNU General Public License. It's just a very broad license intended to prevent code stealing for profit rather than restricting access to prevent Indie development companies from being able to use it. It is what I would consider to be an appropriate use of a license.

However, if we're going to discuss why copyright laws in America and Europe are not very productive right now, I suggest we start a thread in the off-topic section. Or, we could skip it; these exact same things have been hashed out a thousand times before by everyone except Congress, so we don't need to do it again.

Also, I think we're all *mostly* in agreement, we just have ambiguous wordings and slightly different case-specific thoughts.

I think I can agree with this. Let's not and say we did.