Linux - is it time yet?

[imported_argie]

In regards to gaming, Linux suffers from the same problem as Mac: unless it becomes a gaming platform it will not be widely used; but because it is not widely used, gaming companies does not bother to port the games.

It is a good example of good old catch-22. The only way to dodge it, is to break the logic that governs the catch-22. In other words: make games to a platfrom despite that it is not the most economically sane thing to do.

But there is one big thing speaking against BTS porting CM to Linux. When they made it available to both Windows and Mac, they maximised their numbers of potential customers. But when it comes to Linux users, I would guess that any Linux user who is a gamer already has a windows partition or separate machine.

But it would be nice with a Linux port. Then I would be able to use Windows even less. And that is something that I have been looking forward to for a while, but my gaming habit has prohibited me from that.

M

My humble guess is also that Linux users are overrepresented in the CM community, (you know ... geeky things go hand in hand )

[Brian]

Originally posted by ianc:

Brian,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I've been a SysAdmin for over 12 years and I've seen linux grow from exactly as you describe it, to a stable and extremely powerful and useful OS. Windoze, in the same time frame has become basically what unix was nearly 5-7 years ago. Everything Gates trumpets as being "new" and "superior" in 2000 or XP, with the exceptions of the bells and whistles stuff of the GUI, was in unix then and unix was still more secure than windoze is today.

I've had over 8 years as a sysadmin/network eng myself. At my last job, NT/2000 handled mail, DNS, Firewall/encryption and frontend web/ftp services very capably and reliably. Backend was Sun running Oracle, and it was also very reliable. Both staffs were the same size. The Sun machines were less numerous, but more expensive to purchase, maintain and configure in terms of support, man hours and initial purchase price. Regardless of this, both implementations were the right solution for the job.

</font>

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

To all Webmasters - that is all that must be said about it... Not? Okay - LINUX is a perfect OS for computers nets. Period. But the typical gamer is not in need of a net OS. I guess what ianc meant with 'tinker OS' was the home users, not the professional webmasters. Windows is like this : 'I don't know how it works, I just turn the key an the thing runs.' In LINUX, you better know what you are doing.

[Gyrene]

I think Microsoft's bad rep would have been greatly reduced if they had made Win2K their sole operating system and skipped on 98SE and ME.

Gyrene

[Priest]

"I agree that linux will have to make significant inroads into the desktop market in order to have most game companies look seriously at it as a platform. However, it should also be remembered that the very demographic the game companies are often aiming at, are the ones who are also most likely to be using linux, either for fun or for work, so one should be careful about not shooting the goose that laid the golden egg and ignoring linux completely."

-Brian

I disagree, I doubt most Myst and Tetris players even know about Linux. And they make up a huge proportion of the gaming community. Each game is different with a different demographic. Personally I love Win2k and would not want to use another system on my personal box. Linux is good at what it does, right now it does not do the desktop thing well or as well as Windows.

Windows XP has been a success and while I do not use it I see it enhancing Microsofts grip on the desktop and home market. Sorry folks MS is here to stay and stay on top.

[NightGaunt]

agree with priest...

but more importantly

HI MOM!!!

[Priest]

Ahhh yes CMBO forum....right!

In that case...... Tiger, Rommel, Russia, CMBB WOOT!, and PENG THREAD HAS A LIFE OF ITS OWN.

and of course!

HI MOM!

[Kurtz]

Do your mothers use Linux?

[Redwolf]

Guys, please don't do Linux advocacy/Microsoft bashing in this thread. It will only have it moved to the General forum.

I would appreciate keeping this thread open to report any progress on the Wine front, that is actually running Combat Mission in Wine.

Thanks!

[Brian]

In light of Redwolf's request, I'll merely point there is another two alternatives to wine and vmware - Win4Lin and Lindows. Win4Lin is available - they're on version 3.x I think from memory by now. I don't believe it can yet handle DirectX but that has been promised in the future.

Lindows on the otherhand, looks potentially much more interesting and that is why Micro$oft is acting so swiftly to destroy the company through its usuall bully-boy tactics in the courts. It promises to allow both Windoze and Linux applications to run side-by-side, by producing a kernel which will handle both. How this will differ from Win4Lin, I'm unsure (Win4Lin utilises kernel patches to allow Windoze programs to run under Linux) but Lindows appears to be saying that you'll be able to have windoze and Linux kernels residing side-by-side.

The danger though is that Mr.Gates will shut down Lindows before they have even started. It is this sort of tactic which makes me most annoyed with Micro$oft. For all its talk about wanting to foster innovation, it will do so only on its terms and direction.

[ianc]

However, there is a world of difference between the desktop and the backroom server and that is where windoze falls down.

Brian,

Sorry to disagree with you, but it just ain't so I'm afraid. Until they were ultimately replaced by PIX boxes when my company was acquired by Autodesk, I ran four Checkpoint FW1 boxes on NT4 and Compaq servers in four branch offices for a period of two years. Each box was simultaneously handling in the range of 20-100 VPN tunnels and carrying all employee web sessions for a total of about 400 employees. In the two years that I ran these boxes (8 machine years total), I had exactly 3 unplanned reboots, and these were because of an instability in a service pack released by Checkpoint rather than any inherent problem with NT's IP stack.

I've racked up similar reliability records running Exchange 5.5 servers on NT4 as well.

NT/2000 is an extremely reliable server platform provided the apps it is running are well-behaved. To suggest that it can't cut the mustard in the back office is just not the case.

I don't always agree with Microsoft's marketing tactics etc., but you need to separate that lot of hyenas from the coders who are doing their best to bring you a solid OS.

Windows does a damn good job relatively inexpensively with whatever task you throw at it.

ianc

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Brian:

Lindows on the otherhand, looks potentially much more interesting and that is why Micro$oft is acting so swiftly to destroy the company through its usuall bully-boy tactics in the courts.

If I'm not mistaken, this is just Wine nicely packaged. Running CM has had no bigger chance than in Wine then.

Transgaming has is own branch of Wine, WineX. In my tries they seem to have broken even more of their non-target games than normal wine. - no chance of Combat Missioning.

I never tried Win4Lin, but without 3D is doesn't have any real advantage over vmware (which runs CM fine in 640x480 softmode).

The main branch of Wine seem to stabilze, though. They started using a formal test suite, so that they don't break so many already running applications in each release, and some of the overly careless developers seem to have gone. TacOps 3.x runs fine in recent versions of Wine.

[ February 14, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Brian]

Sorry, Ian, I decline your effort to challenge me to a jihad. You're entitled to your opinion. I just know that you're wrong.

If you want to take it offline, I will talk to you privately but here is not the place for an argument which has so much potential to create an all out flame war the size, this board has never seen. I've seen it happen all too often before. Its worse even than PC versus Mac for that potential.

[Brian]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

Lindows on the otherhand, looks potentially much more interesting and that is why Micro$oft is acting so swiftly to destroy the company through its usuall bully-boy tactics in the courts.

If I'm not mistaken, this is just Wine nicely packaged. Running CM has had no bigger chance than in Wine then.

Transgaming has is own branch of Wine, WineX. In my tries they seem to have broken even more of their non-target games than normal wine. - no chance of Combat Missioning.

I never tried Win4Lin, but without 3D is doesn't have any real advantage over vmware (which runs CM fine in 640x480 softmode).

The main branch of Wine seem to stabilze, though. They started using a formal test suite, so that they don't break so many already running applications in each release, and some of the overly careless developers seem to have gone. TacOps 3.x runs fine in recent versions of Wine.</font>

[ianc]

Sorry, Ian, I decline your effort to challenge me to a jihad. You're entitled to your opinion. I just know that you're wrong.

OK. It was well spoken, but we'll just agree to disagree on this one. Take care,

ianc

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Originally posted by Brian:

I use linux both at home and work. Like others, I'd prefer not to have to use Mr.Gates' creations in order to play CM if I could. Unfortunately I can't so I have to have an extra machine set up with Win98 in order to do it.

Use a Mac. Who cares about M$ if only reason is to run CM?

[SpazManOught]

D'oh, MS vs UNIX vs MAC.... this is crap

1) For the desktop you have MAC verses WIN2000 XP NT (the 98 ect versions should not be used in offices) in this situation the Mac should win, have any of you used a Mac? The only thing going against the Mac was its crap network support which has been sorted with MacOSX. But ultimately this is irrelevant as winNT has all the software and all the support including staff that know about it. Try advertising for Mac support staff and see how many applications you get from experienced users you get.... zip I tell ya.

2) Windows as a server.... give me a break.... what you need is a combination of dedicated software and hardware...and that means Unix...not Linux...I mean Unix. If you are running a web server then sure use Linux. But if it’s a business critical server then the hardware has to be sound, and that means a proper dedicated 64bit Unix server. The hardware is what is critical but the operating system helps. Our current Sun server has been up an running for 2 years straight.... never crashed...never been powered down and runs just as fine as the day it was taken outa the box, this is what you need from a server. All you Linux users should note that you use a poor copy of Unix on poor PC hardware, web servers is all that it is good for, no system admin will ever use Linux on a business critical system.

I should round this of with a conclusion but I cannot be arsed.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

I use linux both at home and work. Like others, I'd prefer not to have to use Mr.Gates' creations in order to play CM if I could. Unfortunately I can't so I have to have an extra machine set up with Win98 in order to do it.

Use a Mac. Who cares about M$ if only reason is to run CM?</font>

[Brian]

Originally posted by SpazManOught:

D'oh, MS vs UNIX vs MAC.... this is crap

1) For the desktop you have MAC verses WIN2000 XP NT (the 98 ect versions should not be used in offices) in this situation the Mac should win, have any of you used a Mac? The only thing going against the Mac was its crap network support which has been sorted with MacOSX. But ultimately this is irrelevant as winNT has all the software and all the support including staff that know about it. Try advertising for Mac support staff and see how many applications you get from experienced users you get.... zip I tell ya.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. I've worked Mac's PC's Servers Minis and Mainframes. There are dedicated Mac people out there, at least here in Oz, thats the case.

2) Windows as a server.... give me a break.... what you need is a combination of dedicated software and hardware...and that means Unix...not Linux...I mean Unix. If you are running a web server then sure use Linux. But if it’s a business critical server then the hardware has to be sound, and that means a proper dedicated 64bit Unix server. The hardware is what is critical but the operating system helps. Our current Sun server has been up an running for 2 years straight.... never crashed...never been powered down and runs just as fine as the day it was taken outa the box, this is what you need from a server. All you Linux users should note that you use a poor copy of Unix on poor PC hardware, web servers is all that it is good for, no system admin will ever use Linux on a business critical system.

I should round this of with a conclusion but I cannot be arsed.

Well, your characterisation of linux is a little behind the times. There are many "business critical systems" now ported to run under linux, all major databases now have iterations for linux, as do most other such systems that I'm familar with (accounting, GIS, etc). Linux is pretty much rock stable, much more than NT/2000. I've had linux boxes equal the performance of your unix box. Again, it depends on how they are set up and maintained, more than anything else.

However, once more I find myself dragged into what is essentially a pointless debate. The Microclones of Bill will always worship the ground over which Bill's feet hover, the unix gurus will always point out the failings of Micro$oft, the Mac users will sit back and snigger and everybody will wonder what drugs they are on and the linux people will get on with the job in hand. Never the twain shall meet, unfortunately.

[SpazManOught]

I really cannot believe that any major company would entrust their main servers to Linux. If they do they must be completely mad.

Just imagine some Merchant bank going...

Director "So all our Oracle data just disappeared when the Linux server threw a fit?"

IT Manager "Yeah, that's about the sum of it"

Director "Who did we buy this Linux from any way and are they liable for our multi billion loses?"

IT Manager "We bought it from some company called Turbo Linux. Even if they could be held liable they only have a staff of 4 and a turnover of £1.50p a year. So I don’t think we are gona recoup our money from that route"

Director "Mr IT Manager! You’re sacked! You idiot"

I should round this of with a conclusion but I just cant be arsed.

Edited because I am an Idiot

[ February 15, 2002, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: SpazManOught ]

[karch]

Originally posted by Brian:

...The Microclones of Bill will always worship the ground over which Bill's feet hover, the unix gurus will always point out the failings of Micro$oft, the Mac users will sit back and snigger and everybody will wonder what drugs they are on and the linux people will get on with the job in hand. Never the twain shall meet, unfortunately.

AMEN!!!

......snicker... snicker... snicker

[ianc]

Dear users,

All right, maybe I should let sleeping dogs lie, but I've had a couple of beers and am feeling a bit ornery.

Every reference to Windows I've read thus far has always referenced 'The Evil Bill Gates' in some way or other. That would be fine if we were carrying on a discussion of Microsoft's business practices, etc. Some of these are abominable I'll grant, but believe it or not, ol' Bill has done some good things. I want to say that he's probably done more to bring this country into the computing age than any man alive. Did you also read the last issue of Newsweek where he's set up a foundation to give 24 billion dollars away for the benefit of health services and children in third world countries? That factoid is ultimately as irrelevant as any other about Bill in this argument.

The subject under debate is operating systems. Bill's business practices have absolutely no bearing here whatsoever, any more than whether Ferry Porsche's sexual inclinations might sway me from buying that new 911.

UNIX, Linux, Mac, Windows: all are good OS's, and have their advantages and disadvantages. For myself, I prefer Windows, but I don't bear any ill will towards people that prefer others, nor would I think of deriding them for their choices.

What I don't like is to hear Windows OS's and the people that use them denigrated because of the political leanings of the users of other OS's. I don't like the elitist attitudes displayed here. Can't you be content to use what you like and leave others to do the same? If the only reason you can think of to bash Windows or not use it is because of MS's marketing practices, then you're deluding yourself and not really contributing anything useful.

The debate started here was whether a Linux port would be economically feasible. Who knows? Only Charles probably, since only he knows what's necessary in porting the app over. At present he doesn't seem to think it's worthwhile, but in time that may change.

In the meantime, how about a little tolerance, eh? Thanks,

ianc

[Brian]

Originally posted by SpazManOught:

I really cannot believe that any major company would entrust their main servers to Linux. If they do they must be completely mad.

Just imagine some Merchant bank going...

Director "So all our Oracle data just disappeared when the Linux server threw a fit?"

IT Manager "Yeah, that's about the sum of it"

Director "Who did we buy this Linux from any way and are they liable for our multi billion loses?"

IT Manager "We bought it from some company called Turbo Linux. Even if they could be held liable they only have a staff of 4 and a turnover of £1.50p a year. So I don’t think we are gona recoup our money from that route"

Director "Mr IT Manager! You’re sacked! You idiot"

I should round this of with a conclusion but I just cant be arsed.

Edited because I am an Idiot

*SIGH*, tell me, do you think Sun gives some sort of indemnity with its hardware or IBM, HP, Compaq, etc? Get real will you. You get what you pay for. You pay Sun et al a maintenance contract and they, in return will guarantee certain things but the one thing they will not guarantee is against the indadequecies and the stupidities of the users. If your SysManager types "rm .*" at the root prompt, and there is no backup, well, whose to blame? Sun, et al? Get real, will you.

You can purchase exactly the same maintenance contract from a large number of linux installers and maintainers as you can with the big unix houses. Hopefully you'll get the same level of service but don't assume that simply 'cause Sun and Co are megahuge that you'll get better service from them.

The linux contract will say basically the same thing as the sun, et al ones do. What none of them do is guarantee that your data will be 100% intact, 100% of the time. If you want that sort of assurance, yes, it can be provided, mirroring, backup systems, fallback systems, etc. can all be provided - but be prepared to pay for them. Exactly as the Linux houses would charge.

The problem is, some idiots who are SysManagers assumed 'cause the software is free, that its either absolutely useless or that they can get away on skimping on the backup which all OS's require. Neither is true.

Simply 'cause its got a penguin for a symbol doesn't make it any better or any worse than another OS which has three letters in its manufacturer's name.

BTW, if your Sun server throws "a fit" where does your Oracle data go? Into exactly the same bit bucket that your Linux server would throw it, when it throws "a fit". And before you say that Sun technology is inherently more reliable than PC technology, I can tell you a story or two, if you so desire that prove they can be as bad as each other.

[killmore]

Stop complaining guys!

I am stuck at well paid position but I am programming Novell NetWare!

NETWARE! - Please microsoft kill it! BillG where are you when I need u!

And besides that taxes are too high

[Brian]

Originally posted by ianc:

Dear users,

All right, maybe I should let sleeping dogs lie, but I've had a couple of beers and am feeling a bit ornery.

Every reference to Windows I've read thus far has always referenced 'The Evil Bill Gates' in some way or other. That would be fine if we were carrying on a discussion of Microsoft's business practices, etc. Some of these are abominable I'll grant, but believe it or not, ol' Bill has done some good things. I want to say that he's probably done more to bring this country into the computing age than any man alive. Did you also read the last issue of Newsweek where he's set up a foundation to give 24 billion dollars away for the benefit of health services and children in third world countries? That factoid is ultimately as irrelevant as any other about Bill in this argument.

The subject under debate is operating systems. Bill's business practices have absolutely no bearing here whatsoever, any more than whether Ferry Porsche's sexual inclinations might sway me from buying that new 911.

UNIX, Linux, Mac, Windows: all are good OS's, and have their advantages and disadvantages. For myself, I prefer Windows, but I don't bear any ill will towards people that prefer others, nor would I think of deriding them for their choices.

What I don't like is to hear Windows OS's and the people that use them denigrated because of the political leanings of the users of other OS's. I don't like the elitist attitudes displayed here. Can't you be content to use what you like and leave others to do the same? If the only reason you can think of to bash Windows or not use it is because of MS's marketing practices, then you're deluding yourself and not really contributing anything useful.

The debate started here was whether a Linux port would be economically feasible. Who knows? Only Charles probably, since only he knows what's necessary in porting the app over. At present he doesn't seem to think it's worthwhile, but in time that may change.

In the meantime, how about a little tolerance, eh? Thanks,

ianc

An interesting claim, particularly when one considers that you wrote the following as your introduction to the topic:

Linux is great, but you may be sure most people use it for two reasons:

1) It's dirt cheap or free.

2) They hate Bill Gates and M$ for their own reasons.

Linux is still a tinkerer or hobbyist's OS, and therein lies part of its charm.

Mmmm, not much tolerance there, Ian.

As I said, the twain shall never meet. It is like Protestantism and Catholicism at the time of the 30 years war. You can worship your false idol if you so desire, Ian.

Indeed, while I have some grave concerns abouts Windoze as a server OS, on the desktop, its fine as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, I use it myself, when I have to and can get by, quite happily. Ditto for the Mac. My personal preference is for unix or linux, thats all.

I find it very difficult to divorce the policies of a corporation from the man who heads it and directs those policies, Ian.