Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miauw62]

It's not absurd at all... I would trade another 1% of my hard drive space for the luxury of never having to deal with file not found bullshit any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. That's an awesome deal. Notice how there's a couple of threads about this with multiple people complaining.  Yet how many threads do you see full of people complaining about havign 10 gigs fewer on their disks? None.

Hmm...  different perspectives, and I think we're talking at cross purposes.

I'll try to explain a little.  First of all, this is not a "Linux problem".  It's a Dwarf Fortress problem, very specifically.  It is not something that would ever happen with any of the software included in any Linux distribution, ever.  We're only even discussing it because we're trying to run software that for no obvious reason hasn't been compiled for the most popular hardware architecture in existence, a situation that is almost totally unheard-of in the Linux world.  The *only* other software I've *ever* heard of doing this (distributing 32-bit precompiled binaries only) is the Adobe Flash plugin, which virtually everyone in the Linux world hates with a fiery burning passion -- and it doesn't depend on any dynamic libraries, so the problem we're having with DF doesn't exist with it.  So DF is literally the ONLY software I've EVER heard of that this "you don't have the library, even though you have the library" problem would ever apply to.  Calling it a Linux problem is offensive.  It is not the kernel's fault that this software A) wasn't compiled for the correct architecture, B) links dynamically against non-trivial libraries, C) doesn't include copies of those dynamic libraries, D) wasn't compiled for the correct architecture, E) doesn't even know how to print a clear error message when it doesn't find the cross-architecture libraries it needs, F) isn't even available as source so that we could compile it correctly ourselves, and G) did I mention that it wasn't even compiled for the correct hardware architecture?

Point E is actually an issue with the Linux kernel. http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/13391/getting-not-found-message-when-running-a-32-bit-binary-on-a-64-bit-system/13409#13409
They could at least provide a seperate error code for 32-bit binaries imo, but vOv.

The aversion of Windows users to compiling software mainly has to do with the fact that compiling C or C++ on Windows is a goddamn massive PITA compared to Linux. In Linux, all you have to do is cd source and then make install. For Windows you have to install a huge amount of stuff to get that to work (which is just the thing we're trying to avoid)

I wonder what people generally prefer? Stuff just simply working no matter what you want to play or use? Or always proactively switching over to the most up to date technology at any moment and avoiding ever using any redundant libraries, even though disk space is dirt cheap? If only there were some way to take a vote about what most people think the "Correct" way to make an OS is:

Majority vote is a dumb way to determine what is "right". Please provide some actual arguments.

[Thief^]

The aversion of Windows users to compiling software mainly has to do with the fact that compiling C or C++ on Windows is a goddamn massive PITA compared to Linux. In Linux, all you have to do is cd source and then make install. For Windows you have to install a huge amount of stuff to get that to work (which is just the thing we're trying to avoid)

It's worth noting that the reason this generally works on linux is that you've already installed all this crap. For "make install" to work, you need a full compiler toolchain, header, library and source files (as appropriate) for all dependencies...

[GavJ]

Majority vote is the only reasonable measure when your question is what people prefer. It would have been clouded by price of software, but since Linux is free and windows is not, it only makes the answer MORE extreme, since some people probably prefer windows but can only afford linux.

[miauw62]

What people prefer is not always right. Please think up some actual arguments.

A lot of people probably don't even know what Linux is, and Linux has the largest share when it comes to servers.

Linux has always been more oriented towards power users.

Also, @windows just has to lot of ingenious stuff for compatibility modes, they do need a large team for that, and I imagine an open source project would have difficulties assembling such a team.

Besides, I don't know what we're arguing here. I just stated that I think that there I no reason not to compile 64-bit binaries. It would likely not take a lot of time and only improve things for a certainly not insignificant part of the community.

[Dirst]

What people prefer is not always right. Please think up some actual arguments.

Not an argument for users' preference for Windows, but an explanation for Windows' popularity  (setting aside for the moment that it's also older).

Typical users don't really prefer operating systems.  They prefer applications, and anything other than an embedded application requires an operating system.  If pushed on the issue, these typical users will express a preference for an operating system most like what they're used to using.

The commercial developers who make the applications tend to prefer operating systems that allow them to (1) distribute binaries that don't reveal the sourcecode and (2) maintain backward compatibility so they can upgrade on their own time.  A secondary concern is the SDKs available for the operating system.

Since users don't care, they will follow the developers.  The technical term in economics is cross-side network effects, and it's why platforms tend to have winner-take-most market structures.  (Servers are NOT run by typical users, and the typical system administrator does have strong preferences for OS features.  So Linux wins there.)

It was mentioned several posts ago that Toady could just include all of the libraries in his distribution... but aren't those viral GPL libraries?  If they are, he can't just include them in his download (though it might be possible for him to roll in a client that downloads and installs them).

Edit: typo.

[miauw62]

Your post makes sense, Dirst.

I'm not entirely sure whether it would be legal to distribute a static binary of DF.I think it would be, since Toady isn't modifying the code of the libraries. (and if he did, he could release the source for those separately)

[Dirst]

Your post makes sense, Dirst.

I'm not entirely sure whether it would be legal to distribute a static binary of DF.I think it would be, since Toady isn't modifying the code of the libraries. (and if he did, he could release the source for those separately)

It depends on what "static build" entails, basically if the GPL code would get sucked in-line into the DF executable.  There are commercial products out there with dual licensing to include proprietary and open source parts, so it's definitely a solvable problem.  I'm just not sure it's worth Toady's time and effort to get legal counsel to distribute a game that for now is free.

Once all of the dependencies are known, a Linux guru can (1) gently prod Toady into mentioning that in the documentation and (2) whip up a shell script that installs all of the required assets for distribution with the Starter Pack.  Maybe Linux already has a such a tool, and it just needs the list of dependencies?

[GavJ]

Miauw: I did give reasons already. Most people want stuff to just WORK. Windows does this. Linux does not do this. End of (short) story.

Longer version:
For the vast majority of people, the computer is a tool that allows them to run programs they want to run. The least amount of interference in running those programs is the best system. Windows shows you all your programs graphically, and then you double click on them and they work. Linux might show you a few things graphically if you painstakingly set them up that way, but for the most part, you have to learn and remember a bunch of commands, and then manually install and direct to things to run them. And as we can see in this thread with DF as a case in point: often even experienced users stuff goes wrong during that process, and you need to pour in even more effort and have more expertise to simply get a program running. Let alone people who haven't been using Linux forever, they stand much less of a chance of even being able to play the problem games at all.  As somebody mentioned earlier "it only takes like two minutes to install something" -- not only is that a best case scenario / assuming nothing like this happens, but even still compared to 2 seconds to click on an installer, that's a 60x less efficient system for just getting you where you want to be. It also requires a bunch of additional knowledge that takes a lot longer than 2 minutes to learn.

Additionally, tons of programs aren't even offered in a compatible format for Linux without emulators and even greater complexity. Even worse than doing everything manually if you simply want to run a program is not being able to even WITH manual effort, because it simply isn't supported on your system.

The groups of people who favor Linux are:
1) Certainly highly knowledgeable IT staff who need to value certain system features over their own convenience, because that's what they're getting paid for.
2) As somebody very elegantly put it earlier "OS hobbyists" -- people who enjoy fiddling with their OS just for the sake of fiddling with their OS. And being a hobbyist is fine, but you can't act all shocked and go around scoffing at people who, you know, buy their blankets at the store because they just want to stay warm, versus knitting their own by hand. If your goal is to be warm, period, buying a blanket at the store is a better solution.  If your goal is to enjoy the intricacies of the process for their own inherent sake because you happen to be into that, then knit your own.  If your goal is to run programs, Windows or mac os is the better solution -- abstraction gets you there faster and easier. If your goal is to just futz around with the system, because you happen to find it fun for some reason, then Linux is for you. But like ANY hobby, only a tiny fraction of people will ever be interested in that specific hobby.

^ Power users are not on that list. They might overlap with one of the above two categories, but there are plenty of perfectly knowledgeable users who wouldn't touch Linux with a 10 foot pole. I learned about Linux and what it could do for thoroughness, and then decided "That's really silly, I don't think that sounds fun at all, and it takes longer to do everything I want to do with my computer." I.e. I'm not a natural hobbyist of OS's and nobody is paying me to inconvenience myself for the greater good, so why?

edit: Linux might have a few features that are cool for a normal person, but so does Windows have ones that Linux does not (such as system restore points, and snapping windows to the sides of the screen for document comparison and stuff natively). This washes out, at best, IMO.

[miauw62]

Snapping things to the side of a screen is not something that you can generalize to "Linux", that's more of a distro thing. And by "it only takes two minutes to install something", I would like to point to the fact that you also have to do such horrible and complicated things as DEFINE A DIRECTORY and DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT A DESKTOP SHORTCUT when installing something. "2 minutes" was ment to include the download time, because installing anything with aptitude is literally just "sudo apt-get install [name]".
Some distros even include a simple "run from commandline" script so you dont even have to open it anymore, and when you do need it it's usually just cd to the directory and then "sh startscript" or "./executablename".

And with all the nice things that Windows gives, you also have to hand over a lot of control. Several things are harder to do on Windows than on Linux, including compiling things.

this is just a shitty "automation vs control" debate and i don't want to claim that one os is clearly superior over another, while you seem to want to etablish that windows is completely superior  to linux.

[GavJ]

Some distros even include a simple "run from commandline" script so you dont even have to open it anymore, and when you do need it it's usually just cd to the directory and then "sh startscript" or "./executablename".

The text quoted above sums up pretty succinctly why almost nobody uses linux. "Click on something and follow simple English instructions" vs. "Memorize these 20 different pieces of technical jargon, syntax, and the spelling of your entire folder directory (unless you want to type in one folder at a time), and..."

this is just a shitty "automation vs control" debate and i don't want to claim that one os is clearly superior over another, while you seem to want to etablish that windows is completely superior  to linux.

No I think Windows is better for the 99%+ people who don't have fun tinkering with command lines or who are not running 500 person networks. Not completely/for everyone.

And my point in that is not to be a crusader for a particular OS, but simply to point out that I don't think the 1% market share is by any means due to ignorance. I think it's due to the number of people the OS is actually better for. Which is important for this thread, because it would mean it's probably not going to change. Which means that catering specifically to Linux with special builds is a very marginal proposition at best. And especially for a free game in alpha/beta/whatever. And even more especially if the Linux users still won't even be happy until you release SOURCE CODE, in which case the reaction could pretty understandably be "screw that OS" from an indie developer.

[My Urist Eternal]

"2 minutes" was ment to include the download time, because installing anything with aptitude is literally just "sudo apt-get install [name]".
Some distros even include a simple "run from commandline" script so you dont even have to open it anymore, and when you do need it it's usually just cd to the directory and then "sh startscript" or "./executablename".

Do you have any idea how unintelligible all of that is to 99% of humanity?  I love Linux users, I really do. I love you guys. But you just don't get how, when you're trying to explain stuff to the average user, you sound like you're speaking Klingon Pig Latin. Linux has never been, and will never be, an option for the average Joe who just wants his computer to run programs. And the paragraph above is why.

[Thief^]

More seriously, most desktop user-friendly-type linux distros have a GUI "package manager" which will install anything from the repository that you like. It's fantastic for that.

Anything that's not in the repository, on the other hand, is a bag of arse to install.

[LordBaal]

Windows it the most wide used, doesn't meant is the best, just that is the one with most "ease of use for the average user" (your mileage may vary, then there's Ubuntu and apple's OSs for example), and is also the one that got most commercial success. Yeah, that doesn't meant that you can't try to use something better that fits more into your needs, but neither means you can go around trying to make commercial software ignoring the vast Windows market unless you know what you are doing.

Something that its stuck in my mind from college is that in real life the best system is the one that adequate or fulfills the needs or requirements of the user employing the least amount of effort and money possible.

Yeah, sure, linux distros are free and you'll find yourself not paying OS licenses no more, but what about training and capitation? How many employees you'll have to train? When are you gonna see a return on the investment? What if the administrative system of your company doesn't run well on wine? Would you pay the developers to make one that runs natively on Linux? Switch to a Java based? Buy a brand new one? How much money would be that?

Not saying that switching from one OS to another is a bad thing or impossible, but in real life there are far more implications than the fact that one might be more technically advanced/open/customizable/easy to use than the other.

Each system has it's advantages and disadvantages, sure.

Finally I don't see why an off topic discussion about that will help.

[miauw62]

Some distros even include a simple "run from commandline" script so you dont even have to open it anymore, and when you do need it it's usually just cd to the directory and then "sh startscript" or "./executablename".

The text quoted above sums up pretty succinctly why almost nobody uses linux. "Click on something and follow simple English instructions" vs. "Memorize these 20 different pieces of technical jargon, syntax, and the spelling of your entire folder directory (unless you want to type in one folder at a time), and..."

it's literally 3 commands.
to use a computer you have to learn what a "window" and a "mouse" is and, god forbid, you have to learn how to use a keyboard. it's really not that hard, and google is a thing.

this is just a shitty "automation vs control" debate and i don't want to claim that one os is clearly superior over another, while you seem to want to etablish that windows is completely superior  to linux.

No I think Windows is better for the 99%+ people who don't have fun tinkering with command lines or who are not running 500 person networks. Not completely/for everyone.

And my point in that is not to be a crusader for a particular OS, but simply to point out that I don't think the 1% market share is by any means due to ignorance. I think it's due to the number of people the OS is actually better for. Which is important for this thread, because it would mean it's probably not going to change. Which means that catering specifically to Linux with special builds is a very marginal proposition at best. And especially for a free game in alpha/beta/whatever. And even more especially if the Linux users still won't even be happy until you release SOURCE CODE, in which case the reaction could pretty understandably be "screw that OS" from an indie developer.

nobody ever said we wanted the source code to be released, please back off with your strawmen.

I only ever saw a graph indicating (presumably) worldwide use of OSs, and it seems a bit of a stretch to consider the percentages to be the same amongst literally everyone and Bay12, especically since the average age here seems to be around 20 years. (I assume that the average age worldwide is higher than that)
Not to mention that somebody that plays a rather obscure PC game with rather primitive graphics is also more likely to be an "OS Hobbyist".

I have no way to access the source of your graph, BTW.
Luckily, there ARE somewhat decent sources so your graph is more or less correct with Linux at 1 percent.

There is still no reason against compiling 64-bit binaries. It's always good to be able to use more than 2 gigs of ram, even if it's not strictly neccesary.

FAKEEDIT:
I agree with the above three posts, more or less (the top one you literally just have to start a terminal and type these commands)

[Dirst]

nobody ever said we wanted the source code to be released, please back off with your strawmen.

Actually, jonadab was pining for a tarball so he could just compile DF himself.

There is still no reason against compiling 64-bit binaries. It's always good to be able to use more than 2 gigs of ram, even if it's not strictly neccesary.

FAKEEDIT:
I agree with the above three posts, more or less (the top one you literally just have to start a terminal and type these commands)

Not sure how much work that is.  Seems like it'd be a compiler switch, but as mentioned above 32-bit and 64-bit executables use different libraries.