[gameprogrammer] Re: yawvlff(yet another windows versus linux flame fest, yawn) Re: Re: OTP: deleting porn

 From my point of view, neither does a good job at all. Windows is 
bloated and slow, and linux is hard to use and slower. Let me qualify 
this. In a comparison on a p100 with a s3 64v+ 2Mb video card and 32Mb 
ram between windows 98 and mandrake 8.1, windows ran smoothly but slowly 
and linux ran jerky and slower (by the way before you tell me this is an 
unrealistic comparison, that no one uses this kind of hardware anymore, 
this was what I was using up until a year ago, being what my parents 
could afford), you can probably tell which one I chose to run.
    I have two problems with Linux, the first being x-windows and the 
second being the directory structure. X-windows might be great for 
things like distrubuted processing and network applications, but when 
you can barely afford one computer, all those fancy features don't do 
much for performance.(Yeah, probably I could have turned a few off, but 
I wasn't about to search around the sluggish system with hard drive 
grinding for the settings which were probably hidden in some obscure 
text file.)  So I went to the comand line. Now I started computing on a 
dos machine, so I am very comfortable using the comand line. I liked 
lots of the fancy features of the unix/linux command line, especially 
the path completion feature, but I really couldn't hack the directory 
structure. It really seemed to me a cobbled up mess. Especially things 
like all the programs being dumped in /usr/local/bin or whereever. Half 
the time not on the path, plus most of the programs installed by 
mandrake seem to be x-windows programs which immediately put them in the 
very slow basket. So after about two months of struggling around I gave 
up and went back to windows.
     However last year I got my first job and so now I have a nice new 
computer. I am going to give Linux another shot(with the extra 
performance I should be able to start using the system and I'll probably 
get used to the directory structure after a while, after all I got used 
to windows mucked up organisation), so I have set aside 40 Gb for it. I 
would like some advise on applications for game programming.
    What I need for game making is a developement enviroment (comes with 
the system: gcc), 2d graphics editor(gimp), 3d modeller and 
renderer(blender3d), and sound editing software(??). I have put in what 
I know about, so any suggestions for alternatives are welcome. Also any 
suggestions on tools that I haven't thought of would be good.
    My last question is what do I need to know to make games on the 
linux/unix platform? From the little I've read the only reliable way to 
access the graphics hardware is opengl and networking is normal tcp/ip 
programming, what about input and sound? Before anyone mentions it, I'm 
not really that interested in sdl. I prefer to do things as natively as 
possible.
Thanks in advance.
Dominic McDonnell

David Olofson wrote:

>On Monday 30 August 2004 02.08, Bob Pendleton wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>>I don't like it - it even scares me from a big brother POV - but
>>>it looks like this is the way computing is going.
>>>      
>>>
>>Not a chance in hell. I spent a lot of time (years) working on
>>business plans for exactly that business model for a $50 billion
>>telecom company. To do what you describe you have to provide
>>enormous bandwidth from the server to the home and be willing to
>>upgrade it almost continuously. It costs the telecom comapany
>>orders of magnitude more export the desktop over broadband than it
>>does for you to buy a computer.
>>    
>>
>
>One might argue that this will change over time, as broadband 
>technology evolves - but I strongly doubt it will change anything at 
>all, at least not in the next 50 years or so.
>
>There's really no limit to how much bandwidth you can use, and so far, 
>faster hardware has only resulted in more demanding applications. Why 
>would that change all of a sudden?
>
>Think there's a limit to the bandwidth humans can make use of? Wait 
>till holographic displays hit the mainstream. :-)
>
>
>  
>
>>It looks good on paper until you try to factor in games and video.
>>I have done lab trials of running games on remote servers on a
>>fiber (OC3) network, and it didn't work.
>>    
>>
>
>How strange. I didn't realize there's actually a reason why monitor 
>cables cannot be extended without insanely expensive amplifiers. ;-)
>
>*doing some calculations*
>
>Well... If I had that kind of money required to get remotely 
>sufficient bandwith for remote gaming out here, I'd rather buy a quad 
>Xeon box with a pair of Wildcat Realizm 800 cards, some high-end 
>CRTs, a Barco CRT projector (fast and no LCD artifacts) and some 
>other nice gear. I suspect I could throw in a nice car as well, and 
>still have some money left.
>
>Ok, so I don't live downtown within UDSL or ethernet range - but I 
>still live in a country where broadband is available to around 90% of 
>households at reasonable costs. That's not even nearly sufficient for 
>the kind of bandwidths required for remote gaming *today* - and games 
>will hardly use *less* bandwidth in the future.
>
>
>Besides, there is no way renting power from some server is going to be 
>less expensive than buying the hardware, even considering the time I 
>spend building, installing and maintaining the systems. Maybe if I 
>used computers 2 hours a day, but I don't. It's more like 12 hours a 
>day.
>
>
>  
>
>>The economics are all wrong. The telecom infrastructure costs to
>>much and the ROI (especially the rate of return) is unsustainable.
>>    
>>
>
>This seems to be a fact of nature.
>
>   * Why did we move away from mainframes many years ago?
>   * Why do supercomputers have many CPUs?
>   * Why does a gaming PC have three processors? (CPU, GPU, DSP.)
>   * Why do insects distribute control of all those legs to local
>     "mini brains"?
>   * Why are human reflexes wired to bypass the brain?
>   * Why do individual creatures have their own brains?
>
>Simple: Distributing the load and keeping the processing power where 
>it's needed results in faster, more efficent and more reliable 
>systems.
>
>I don't get it. Why do people try to fight this law all the time? We 
>see it over and over again, in politics, economics, computing and all 
>other fields where it may (not) apply, and it always results in major 
>inefficiencies, and usually breaks down sooner or later.
>
>
>  
>
>>>BP> The more people that use Linux, the more developers will work
>>>on the OS BP> and the applications and it just keeps getting
>>>better.
>>>
>>>This is true, but you need people using Linux - creating a market
>>>- before most developers will develop for it. The problem is that
>>>there's already a huge market in Windows and I don't see this
>>>disappearing anytime soon.
>>>      
>>>
>>You are thinking near term, I am talking long term. The number of
>>Linux users is growing surprisingly fast and we are already seeing
>>the effect I described. I believe we are just past the tipping
>>point. Give it a couple of years. Just take a look at the major
>>players who are offering their products on Linux. Where the major
>>lead, the small guys will follow.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes. I guess most of us have seen messages, or been asked off-list, by 
>Linux newbies, about developing Linux and other s/w for Linux. There 
>is a lot of interest among hobbyists and one man shops, and it seems 
>like this interest is turning into real products aleady. I think that 
>matters a lot more than people realize.
>
>
>  
>
>>>BP> Eventually most US corporations will be forced to switch
>>>either to be BP> compatible with their foreign customers or their
>>>foreign divisions. They BP> will also start to see MS as an
>>>unneeded cost.
>>>
>>>Perhaps, I think it more likely that broadband will play a much
>>>bigger role in remote storage...
>>>      
>>>
>>Do the math. A gig of storage is now less than 50 cents US and
>>going down every month. The cost of laying a foot of fiber is still
>>so high that you can't justify doing it unless you are a monopoly.
>>    
>>
>
>And either way, after you've purchased a drive, it's all yours. You 
>don't have to pay someone a constantly increasing fee to (not really) 
>guarantee the survival of your data. You can take relatively simple 
>measures to make sure no one but you can read your data. And of 
>course, you can access the data as much as you like at any time, 
>without artificial bandwidth restrictions, and without paying 
>anything extra.
>
>Either way, I'm going to use local storage devices for as long as it's 
>technically viable (which I suspect will be for the rest of my life), 
>even if I have to *more* than for remote storage - which I don't 
>think will ever happen. Someone will need to make money, and the cost 
>of the hardware is already next to insignificant.
>
>
>[...]
>  
>
>>And that one about Linux viruses? Unix has been fighting network
>>based intrusions since long before Windows had network support. It
>>is nearly impossible to create a virus for a UNIX/Linux heritage
>>system that can do the sorts of things that an MS virus can do.
>>Sure, you can write viri for Linux, its been done. It is just a lot
>>harder to make it do the kind of things that a Windows virus can
>>do. UNIX/Linux has a long history of paranoid developers.
>>    
>>
>
>Unfortunately, a rock solid OS doesn't help much if the major 
>vulnerabilities are in the client applications. As pretty much every 
>application these days has one or more forms of scripting and other 
>potential security hazards, all it takes is a bug in the script 
>sandboxing, and all security goes out the window.
>
>I wish the current breed of developers were as paranoid as previous 
>generations of Un*x developers, but considering that an increasing 
>number of developers are previous Windows users/developers, I'm 
>starting to worry.
>
>That said, Linux has proven to be totally safe so far... None of my 
>Linux systems have been compromized, despite some of them being 
>on-line around the clock with no firewall or anything, and me surfing 
>with scripting, plugins and whatnot fully enabled. (Those days are 
>over though, and I need to do something to protect those bl**dy 
>Windoze boxen anyway.)
>
>
>  
>
>>>BP> It used to be that using Linux on a desktop was a hardship.
>>>Now that you BP> can buy a Linux computer at Walmart or Fry's
>>>that just isn't true BP> anymore.
>>>
>>>I disagree about it not being a hardship, things have improved
>>>but there are many things - such as installing GL drivers - which
>>>are insanely difficult for the average joe. Luckily, the average
>>>joe normally doesn't use Linux...
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, installing things like GL drivers are hard.
>>    
>>
>
>Why? Ok, I've had to mess a great deal with my FireGL card in the 
>past, but that was mosty ATI's fault (crappy drivers and apparently 
>no interest in cooperating with anyone in any way) - and even *their* 
>drivers can be installed automatically by some distros now. (Just 
>tried that with Yoper... Let's see if it actually works.)
>
>And it's not like I've never had trouble getting OpenGL working on 
>Windows...
>
>
>  
>
>>But, people who 
>>buy machines with GL drivers already installed don't face that
>>problem.
>>    
>>
>
>Nor do the majority of people who use current media oriented distros, 
>AFAIK - and the situation is constantly improving.
>
>
>  
>
>>Last time I had to reinstall a print driver on my daughters
>>computer it took me 6 hours. An average user could not have done
>>the job at all. It is a myth that installing drivers is easier on
>>Windows than on Linux. It may have been true once, but it isn't
>>true now.
>>    
>>
>
>Last time I tried to install Win2k on this box, it *totally* refused 
>to recognize parts of the chipset, the FireGL card, and several other 
>devices. Dunno what went wrong, and after countless hours of 
>reinstalling and messing with it, I gave up and just created an ext3 
>file system on that partition...
>
>This time, though, it mysteriously worked - although the crappy dual 
>head support with Win2k + ATI drivers is lightyears behind Xinerama. 
>The only advantage is has is that it (sort of) supports OpenGL, 
>whereas I have to fire up an extra X server on Linux for that. (Can't 
>use "large desktop" mode, as my RAMDACs and monitors are different, 
>and the driver just won't let me waste a small area of VRAM.)
>
>
>  
>
>>It is true that it can still be hard to get drivers for 
>>Linux, but even that is changing.
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah... Most of the time, they're already in place, or fairly easy to 
>get and install - or they just don't exist at all, in which case you 
>have no choice but replacing the hardware. (Which happens with 
>Windows as well, BTW. Win2k+ drivers for old hardware are often crap, 
>if they exist at all. Had to replace my Tulip based NICs because of 
>that, even though they've always worked great with Linux.)
>
>
>//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
>
>.- Audiality -----------------------------------------------.
>|  Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia.  |
>| MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... |
>`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
>   --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
>
>
>---------------------
>To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
>
>
>
>  
>




---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: