BI Games delivered with own Operation System

[Macser_old 0]

I don't mean to cause offense,but maybe it's time to agree that you both disagree,and leave it at that.Seeing as you both have strong opinions on the matter,you're just going around in circles. :)

[Herbal Influence 10]

@Macser:

Don't be afraid - open discussions are part of the OpenSource culture! :D

That might frighten you as a Mac-ser. :confused:

Yes, I know this. In fact, if you read my posts you would know that I was aware of this. Why suggest otherwise?

Because you wrote:

Ubuntu in trying to be a jack of all trades results in a complete lack of focus... It tries to have the latest features AND be stable at the time, which results in it being neither.

Which is clearly a description of the so-called rolling releases which Ubuntu isn't?

In my experience, Open Office mangles the docx and related files created and used by Microsoft Office 2007 and later. And who cares what other formats it can deal with - doc and docx are the ones that just about everyone uses anyway! Oh sure there's all sorts of mandates in various places to use Open Office format and the like, but do you actually encounter regular, non-techy people using them on a regular basis? I doubt it.

Checked OpenOffice 3.2?

The government of France uses Fedora Linux and OpenOffice (70.000 desktops) as does the town government of Munich, Germany - about a 12.000 desktops right now, more coming and the city of Vienna, Austria.

They wouldn't rely on what you call an unstable, slow and buggy software.

And I'm pretty sure it's easy to make MS Office support the open formats anyway.

You are optimistic concerning the solution of matters that might be negative to Microsoft.

I'm pretty sure that at last Microsoft isn't interested in doing so.

You know the reason - elimination of other systems.

Same reason they press insecure ActiveX into the WWW - with all power and might they have. I could not even open pdfs without activating ActiveX in 2002-IE - they wanted ActiveX to be activated at all costs.

For it's their license.

They wanted all websites to have ActiveX so they could have controlled the whole WWW. Same thingie they tryin with "Silverlight" - a license to the community which can be withdrawn at any time.

Same pure longing to gain more might (than 90 %!) was MSs attempt with slightly changing the Java-Code from Sun, making it impossible for others to use anything but the new Microsoft Version of Java.

Such as? Concrete figures plx.

Oh - this I leave to your imagination.

Likewise the question whether Google might be able to identify you easily.

There's two problems with this -

1) Firefox was popular long before the EU started getting angry at MS, and whilst IE was still being tightly integrated with Windows.

Yes and it would be eliminated if the antitrust case wouldn't have taken place against Microsoft.

Tightly integrated to what purpose, to what effect other than to hinder people using other browsers? For more effectiveness or speed? :o

No one hinders you to believe in their marketing language.

Next step would have been to make it impossible or 'lame' using another browser.

What innovations we would have missed, which now only takes place because of a close-to-functioning browsermarket which has been elaborated against Microsoft - with the thread of courts and big money punishment.

2) You're getting into idealism here, 95%+ of computer users don't really care about the politics of the companies who set the trends. When I say Windows 7 is a good OS, I assess this on the basis that it does what it's meant to do and it does it in a reliable manner. Sure Microsoft have done a lot of evil things and damaged the the market, but that doesn't really change the fact that occasionally (very occasionally) they manage to make something decent.

With the amount of money of Microsoft the whole world would be really be amused if Microsoft would have dared to deliver something worse as Vista again.

So - it might be stable like WindowsXP, it might be "useful".

But it still needs a steady payment to the Antivirus-Companies and you need to trust Microsoft because their program code is hidden in the darker dark.

You can have the workflow and functions with an OS that doesn't cost a thing, with Ubuntu for example.

An operation system that is that convincing and trustful - it can even show you all of it's source code without loss of security and quality.

Oh, and Opera is closed source.

So is Windows...

I don't favor strictly OpenSource but a functioning software market. :ok:

Insofar you can say: Microsoft took a lot money in the hand to hinder programs like Opera to survive or enter the market at all.

I am quite sure they still do.

I see we are far from dissenting on many aspects. :)

[echo1 0]

Which is clearly a description of the so-called rolling releases which Ubuntu isn't?

No, but I see why you made the mistake.

Ubuntu has been known to throw in some things in their mainstream releases before they are finished or mature. PulseAudio was the best example, GRUB2 in the newer releases is another good example. Unlike a rolling release distro where you can just upgrade them when a better version comes out, you're stuck with it for 6 months.

On the flipside, when Ubuntu 8.10 came out, it was bundled with a version of NetworkManager that didn't work reliably with wifi networks using WPA Enterprise security. I remember a whole bunch of us having to set up backports to get an updated version of NetworkManager that (as far as I remember) was available when the Ubuntu release came out.

Obviously there are relative advantages and disadvantages to both system, my point is that distros like Ubuntu or Fedora manage to take the worst of both worlds - the unstable nature of rolling release distros combined with the waiting involved with fixed-cycle releases.

Checked OpenOffice 3.2?

The government of France uses Fedora Linux and OpenOffice (70.000 desktops) as does the town government of Munich, Germany - about a 12.000 desktops right now, more coming and the city of Vienna, Austria.

They wouldn't rely on what you call an unstable, slow and buggy software.

There's a lot of politics involved there - a lot of the continental European governments don't trust Microsoft, and rightly so I guess. Admittedly OpenOffice would be a more tempting proposition if more people used odt files, but I find that it's lack of proper support for the newer MS formats to be a limiting factor. Which is odd given that MS has actually published the specs for the docx format.

I'm pretty sure that at last Microsoft isn't interested in doing so.

You know the reason - elimination of other systems.

I just checked with the beta of Office 2010 I have on this machine, it can read and save odt files.

The "good old days" where MS could screw everyone one in any way they wanted have gone, hopefully forever.

Tightly integrated to what purpose, to what effect other than to hinder people using other browsers? For more effectiveness or speed? :o

Not necessarily. There is a certain logic to having a tight integration with the operating system and the internet (although security is obviously a huge issue). The Konqueror web browser of KDE is quite similar to the old IE philosophy - being combination file manager, web browser, ftp/scp client etc.

But it still needs a steady payment to the Antivirus-Companies and you need to trust Microsoft because their program code is hidden in the darker dark.

Microsoft has a free AV which is surprisingly good, it detects more stuff than the likes of Nod, AVG or Avira, and is not as intrusive.

You can have the workflow and functions with an OS that doesn't cost a thing, with Ubuntu for example.

Depends very much on what you're doing. There's things I'd do on Linux and not on Windows, and the other way around.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Which is odd given that MS has actually published the specs for the docx format.

Yeah - on literally more than 6000 (sixthousand!) pages of documentation and you are quite right in calling it a MS-standard though it is an ISO-standard resulting from a very disputed way of decisionfinding.

OpenOffice accepts docx-files since the release of 3.0, now it's 3.2.

I saw some students whining (in about 2000) when their thesis at university couldn't be finished in time because of MS-Word collapsing reaching a hundred pages with footnotes ..... :o

And now Microsoft delivers 6000-pages documents! :eek:

Critics say that it is quite impossible to really implement this standard completely and that it damages Open Standards, Free Software, competition and consumers.

The result again is: within this overwhelming scope of a "standard" the mighty one succeeds.

Again: #12 infraction point for Microsoft

[Macser_old 0]

@Macser:

Don't be afraid - open discussions are part of the OpenSource culture!

That might frighten you as a Mac-ser.

I may not have worded that very well,but I wasn't implying that you shouldn't discuss things openly.

I use open source applications myself.Although I'm not running linux,I'm familiar with some aspects of the open source community.

I don't have a mac.My user name is derived from my own first name. ;)

[Herbal Influence 10]

@Macser:

Sorry, I tried to be funny.

Nice to hear you use OpenSource.

I can't help but those who do seems more Open-minded to me. ;-)

Mac-Users could say: Hey, our marketing says we use Opensource tooooo! Yeah, and Apple let's you take a look at part of the OS. But only to tell them how they could improve it ... you are a pure helper-application then to double their income ;-))

A propos:

For those who want to stop MicrosoftXP/Vista from phoning home, click here.

But don't forget - only with Linux you regain full control of your system again. Even the HP printer drivers for Microsoft let's the printers itself phone home! ;-)

Edited March 11, 2010 by Herbal Influence

[NoRailgunner 0]

Herbal Influence are you trying to be funny with nicknames?

You seem to be infested with the "freedom" of Opensource and now trying to propagate your opinion. Try to inform yourself why most people and companies are prefering to use MAC OS or Windows. ;)

Btw Photoshop/Indesign etc are much more professional than any Opensource project.

Imho this thread is better for Offtopic section - only BIS/publisher will decide on developing own "Gaming OS". I highly doubt that game developers have enough time, manpower and money to find, develop and test such ideas beside their main work on games.

[Herr_kalashnikov 10]

Please lets keep using the software where its meant for.

Linux to host a cheap and easy customisable 'internet' server hosting WWW, mail, ftp, mysql etc

Windows to run my games and malwares ;)

[Herbal Influence 10]

@NoRailgunner:

I do know that.

Yeah, Nicknames are for fun, don't you think so?

@Herr_kalashnikov:

Ubuntu Linux is - in many regards - much better on the Desktops:

Faster installed (incl. OpenOffice), nice workflow, faster, easier to find and install software.

About Microsoft take a look here how much freedom is concerned.

But everyone should use what he wants to - that's my opinion and credo.

Don't ya steal it from me! ;-)

[-Snafu- 78]

I don't really understand this topic or why open source is talked about as if it is some sort of ideology.

What I have learned is that HI doesn't use Windows as "they" might find out what dodgy videos he likes to watch on the internet.

My opinion, as someone who doesn't give a crap about this OS rivalry, is that I am not interested in tweaking or jumping through hoops to get something working on a supposedly superior OS. I am not interested in fiddling about with a dual boot either.

Yes, I like tweaking OFP and ArmA but that's because it's fun and enhances the experience of the game. It isn't a chore.

Furthermore, when I buy a game I want a game. Not a game that comes with a bunch of software I am not interested in. I already have an OS that handles internet browsing, gaming and word processing sufficiently well and (largely) without hassle. "MilSim with OS?" I am not interested and most other people would likely share that view.

IMHO, this would be a waste of BIS resources.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Snafu

[echo1 0]

I don't really understand this topic or why open source is talked about as if it is some sort of ideology.

Some people treat it as a religion. It kinda ruins it for the rest of us.

What I have learned is that HI doesn't use Windows as "they" might find out what dodgy videos he likes to watch on the internet.

This. I mean -

Oh - this I leave to your imagination.

Waaah?

[Herbal Influence 10]

It's you that says talking about freedom is talking about a religion.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Herbal Influence

[hoot 0]

Some people treat it as a religion. It kinda ruins it for the rest of us.[...]

True! That's why I'm with BSD most of the time now, that simply keeps me outside of those stupid debates why the own OS is much better than this or that. And since the last kernel updates for Ubuntu shut down my WLAN automagically I also tend to say that's the same difference with every OS, advatanges and disadvantages. Most people just use open source to feel better, although they never had stuck their heads into the code before, never analyzed what is going on. So in the end, they also depend on folks telling them that all is fine. Of course, open source OSs gives one the possibility to have a look under the hood, but be honest, most of the today's Linuxusers never ever touched something like C before so reading through LOCs is like reading a book about übermath without being skilled in math at all. And this does not stop here. Because of being able to read code does not mean to understand what happens there and with related things. Most would need a deeper knowledge of coding structures, techniques, patterns, do's-and-dont's plus all the stuff that comes with a specific language - pointer arithmetics anyone? So for my liking, the whole thing open-source is interesting for folks knowing their profession, the rest sticks with precompiled binaries and generic kernels!

I would say there is simply not enough ROI for BIS. And as BIS will never open up their sources because it's their business to sell engines in a compiled form, the open-source idea will rest with the OS, but not the game.

[echo1 0]

Well said.

Out of curiosity, which of th e many BSDs do you use? I've been meaning to try Net- and Free-, but haven't quite got around to it yet.

[hoot 0]

If you want to run servers (mail, ssh, sftps, http(s) or whatever) stick with FreeBSD or OpenBSD which are more lightweight and shell-oriented, but if you want something desktop-like and easy to handle give PC-BSD a try. PC-BSD is based on FreeBSD.

PC-BSD is a free operating system with ease of use in mind. Like any modern system, you can listen to your favorite music, watch your movies, work with office documents and install your favorite applications with a setup wizard at a click.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Freedom counts.

To have the freedom to look behind the veil if you want to, is freedom.

If you are allowed to change code, it's even more freedom.

FreeBSD and OpenBSD are free.

OpenGL is comin, read here and more easy to understand but only in German, here, including a nice Video Demo.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Herbal Influence

[hoot 0]

You can also decompile binaries, so you also have 'freedom' on proprietary operating systems, somehow *lol*. And that's illustrating pretty well what I meant. If you are lacking in knowledge of certain things, the whole open source 'freedom' becomes a pseudo one. The normal user doesn't care about code much. Those users want systems they can handle without needing an university degree in computer science. Linux made some good steps into that direction during the last decade, but it's still lacking in some software where WINE cannot help or where you would need a virtual machine, and the dual-boot is more handy. I don't want to bash any OS. Everybody may use what he or she likes, and above all, what fit to their needs. But often I get the impression that folks pro Linux are mostly arguing from a wrong base, because they want to proselytize people to use Linux whether or not this OS would fit their needs.

[Herbal Influence 10]

And you don't mind the proprietary softwaresellers (Microsoft, Apple) "proselytizing" with millions of Dollars each months? :confused:

If I sound proselytizing :o Linux it's just because of my personal fascination for two things: freedom and technic.

I don't get any money for that. :(

And I've personally seen no-tech-freak-kids installing Ubuntu Linux incl. OpenOffice without help as parallel OSs on their PC as I know of very old people using Ubuntu Linux on an every day basis ... that's fascinating because I use Ubuntu in a professional and private environment flawlessly.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Herbal Influence

[echo1 0]

Have you even considered how much it would cost BIS in terms of time and effort to port ArmA to Linux?

[raedor 8]

Well I think it's meanwhile obvious that it's a strange idea to sell a game with OS ... and if we're only talking about porting the RV engine, the old thread is enough:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=73279

So I'm closing here.

(And no, it's not because I'm M$ fan or whatever, I do have a dual boot with debian lenny running here and would be happy to play A2 on debian ... ;))