Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That was 20 years ago.

 

You left out the bits where the judge was found to be biased and Sun's ceo seemed a bit too cheer full.

 

And i must assume you agree with Sun since your liked that article, Sun Bought by Oracle in 2009.

Oracle a company notorious for crazy as f. law suits and mafia like licensing schemes

 

I think this should have ended here:

3 hours ago, blazemonger said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with monopoly laws and suggesting as much is outright preposterous and nonsense.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We need "Dramatic Exit" doors in real life, it would be hilarious  

I’m generally OS agnostic and run a multitude of OSes at my business place but I do find that each OS is more suited to different tasks.    For me, though, Macs are for work, including design,

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, Kurosawa said:

I think this should have ended here:

 

Fortunately neither you nor blaze call the shots on when discussions end. 

 

Its quite clear that opting for the alternative of windows results on allot of aplications not working, including this game. 

 

You can blame the lack of support on market share. 

 

But with other technologies, rules were made to prevent this. 

 

All mobile phones work with all mobile antena manufactures.  

Several standards were created to prevent companies being able force customers to choose from a reduced number of manufacturers. 

 

Programs in binary format also need a standard. 

One that makes everyone using the standard to program, have their programs working on every operating system using a standard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

Here is an article with interesting quotes.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/judge-rules-that-microsoft-must-be-split-in-two/

Here is an interesting one: 'Chief antitrust lawyer Joel Klein hailed the ruling. "When the remedy is implemented, customers and consumers will decide for themselves what software they want to purchase ... Neither a monopolist nor the government can dictate that choice.'

Are you really quoting an article from 2000? Seriously?

 

You do know that no one makes you buy a PC or Windows, right? You can go right ahead and purchase something else. Also most sane software development companies are in this to make money and have the right to only publish for the platforms they think will be profitable. Maybe. just maybe, this is business doing business?

 

Have you ever considered that MS don't do much Linux stuff because they just won't make enough money? Also there are a whole slew of Linux developers who are anti-MS so why would they buy it anyway! What is the point for MS from a business perspective.

 

If you want Linux tools buy them from a Linux tools vendor - or use open source tools. It is not that they don't exist it is just that they are not that good, but you gets what you pays for.

 

Did you know you have to buy an Apple PC to write and certify iPhone apps? Should we split Apple in two as well? What about Google with search and Android, never mind their hardware - in three?

 

Look, in the end, it is Linux. Almost no one cares who is not running a server. Even the Linux OS companies don't care. If they can't or more likely wont come up with a set of appropriate standards then it is their problem no one else's. All this monopoly stuff is a smoke screen to try and divert blame away from where it belongs - Linux and its creators/maintainers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cheith said:

Have you ever considered that MS don't do much Linux stuff because they just won't make enough money?


Yes. Me and others considered. Then we found MS spending extra money, in doing extra code, and paying fines just to make sure things stayed incompatible.

So, yes we considered it. And we found it to be false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:


Yes. Me and others considered. Then we found MS spending extra money, in doing extra code, and paying fines just to make sure things stayed incompatible.

So, yes we considered it. And we found it to be false.

Still not sure why you think MS has to build their tools to work on Linux or generate Linux compatible software. They don't have a monopoly on dev tools and there are plenty of other tools out there. Also, if I remember correctly, Linux is most definitely an option in their Azure cloud offering (yep it is - just checked).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cheith said:

Still not sure why you think MS has to build their tools to work on Linux or generate Linux compatible software

For the same reason that Samsung Smart phones have to work with Huawei's antennas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:

For the same reason that Samsung Smart phones have to work with Huawei's antennas.

That is one of the wildest and likely deliberate misunderstanding of software architecture I have ever seen. I don't even know what to do with that, it is beyond comprehension why you would compare the two. There is exactly 100% no way to compare them - it is like not even close.

 

If you are doing that type of comparison then if an ethernet card in a PC would not work in the same network as an ethernet card in a Linux server then you would have a point. As far as I can tell I can hook a Windows PC up to a Linux server without any issues - again maybe a relevant comparison. Dev tools, not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cheith said:

That is one of the wildest and likely deliberate misunderstanding of software architecture I have ever seen. I don't even know what to do with that, it is beyond comprehension why you would compare the two. There is exactly 100% no way to compare them - it is like not even close.


Its not?

So you have 3 operating systems running on the same cpu architecture (x86-64) using the same PCIe devices. all 3 OS use a screen, a mouse and a keyboard. All are desktop oriented. All have an X to close the window. All minimize to some kind of tray bar.

So what is the big showstopper for having a standard here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joaocordeiro said:


Its not?

So you have 3 operating systems running on the same cpu architecture (x86-64) using the same PCIe devices. all 3 OS use a screen, a mouse and a keyboard. All are desktop oriented. All have an X to close the window. All minimize to some kind of tray bar.

So what is the big showstopper for having a standard here?

Huh? I think I'll stop this now as we have officially reached a strange place that I have no desire to go to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

For the same reason that Samsung Smart phones have to work with Huawei's antennas.

 

Except they don't .. that is another silly assumption/claim which is entirely off the mark. 

If brand A makes antennas, there is no requirement for brand A to make these work with/for brand B. It is actually for Brand B to make that antenna work for them. Obviously if B would be willing to buy 10 million antennas, it is likely A will make the effort to facilitate B using their product.

 

Microsoft has no obligation to make a developer's binary for Windows work with another OS, the developer writing their application for Windows has no obligation to consider support for another OS.

 

Microsoft has nothing to do with this at all and the developer would possibly consider this if and when doing so makes sense from their perspective, generally in an economical way.

 

In the context of this thread, Neither MSFT, NQ or EQU8 has any obligation or requirement to make their software work on anything but Windows as theirs is _a windows product_ i.e. it is designed and intended to be run on a Windows hardware platform.

 

Saying anything else IMO is just plain nonsense and has no basis in anything but a mindfart.

 

image.png.3f733decd9f5eab53a2916443126011d.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, blazemonger said:

Except they don't .. that is another silly assumption/claim which is entirely off the mark. 

If brand A makes antennas, there is no requirement for brand A to make these work with/for brand B. It is actually for Brand B to make that antenna work for them

 

Im talking about cellphones connecting to operator antenas. 

Not the antenas that are inside the cell phones.. 

 

Standards exist and in allot of technologies. 

 

All im saying is that compiled executables could have a standard. 

And they already do. But each OS has its standard instead of a common one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

Standards exist and in allot of technologies. 

 

Sure.. has no relevance at all to the OP topic. The reason why OP can't run DU on Linux is because the anti cheat software doe snot support being run on Linux and due to the nature of the software, I'd say that makes sense.

 

You keep derailing the topic and trying to make it about something it is not. That in itself is actually a breach of TOS for the forums and thus has been reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

Sure.. has no relevance at all to the OP topic. The reason why OP can't run DU on Linux is because the anti cheat software doe snot support being run on Linux and due to the nature of the software, I'd say that makes sense.

 

You keep derailing the topic and trying to make it about something it is not. That in itself is actually a breach of TOS for the forums and thus has been reported.

 

After the attempt to ridicularize and the insult, now you do the report. 

Fine.

 

How does this have nothing to do with the OP's topic? 

 

The op wants Linux support(in some kind of form, even if emulated) 

 

Everyone reached the conclusion that Linux does not have support, because of bad market share. 

 

I proposed a solution (not applicable by NQ) to the problem: executable binaries should have a open standard instead of being locked to a OS. 

 

You may not like or agree with my solution but its definitly on topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

I proposed a solution (not applicable by NQ) to the problem: executable binaries should have a open standard instead of being locked to a OS. 

 

 

I am not sure if a standard for native binaries really does make sense because of internal differences between operating systems.

But there are already a lot of languages which do some abstraction to make it easier for the developers to write platform independet code. For example Java, Python, etc.

And even Microsoft has started to take this path with C# (which is used by DU AFAIK) and .NET Core because they realized that not many people want to write windows specific code when you have to do software which runs on BigData/Cloud/etc.

So Microsoft ported .NET Framework to Linux/Unix and called it .NET Core because they realized they will lose a huge market share if they keep the language windows only. However they ported it without the GUI parts to make windows a little more special. But your idea is not new and actually being done for a long time.

 

However something like an anti cheat protection will probably always be very platform dependent.

And if you have developers which are so used to Windows that they hardcode Windows specific things in their software like expecting a "C:" drive or a "registry" no amount of standards can help to fix this problem.

 

Yes i would also like to see a Linux port for DU. But it does cost money if not every part of the software was developed with having multiple platforms in mind initially.

A huge amount of indie games does that however. I think the more money is involved the more it is about the ROI and then Linux support is most of the time a very low priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, board_user said:

I am not sure if a standard for native binaries really does make sense because of internal differences between operating systems.


We already have several standards. Wine uses one to run windows programs. Windows 10/win 2019 uses another to run WSL and docker.
So its more about imposing it via regulation then actual technical challenge.

 

Java and python could work well for low CPU apps. But you won't see C++'s performance in a java program. And python is a script.

Each instruction will translate in 10 or more machine instructions.

Those 2 languages are not capable of replacing low level programming language's speeds.

 

But let's say we find a new language, running on a new subsystem, that can actually match c++ in performance.

No way, programmers would quit their favorite programming language to follow a standard.

And let's face it, Some programming languages are better suited for some tasks than others.

 

29 minutes ago, board_user said:

However they ported it without the GUI parts to make windows a little more special. But your idea is not new and actually being done for a long time.

 

Of course, they did.... their idea is not to bring Windows apps to Linux. But to bring Linux apps to windows...

And we all know Linux is all about non GUI.

But my idea is not about companies finding a way to do it out of their own will.

My idea is to make it mandatory by law. Like cellphone standards.

Making MS pay heavily until they positively contribute to a standard and adopt it.

 

34 minutes ago, board_user said:

However something like an anti cheat protection will probably always be very platform dependent.

And if you have developers which are so used to Windows that they hardcode Windows specific things in their software like expecting a "C:" drive or a "registry" no amount of standards can help to fix this problem.

 

Sure, there will always be exceptions, But make them pay heavily for not using the standard.

Say that DU was made in this new standard. Running on any OS that followed the standard.
On their view, their game was ready for all operating systems, without extra costs. So why would they choose an anti-cheat technology that only works on Windows?

In time, anti-cheat programs would find a way to follow the standard or port their technology to low market share OSes.

 

Stuff like "c:" and "registry" would not be a part of the standard.
We already have standards where those are not a part. Browsers don't care about "C:" definitely don't care about "\" instead of "/"

 

When defining 5G, all industry manufactures had to make compromises of stuff they wanted to add to the standard. At the end, they made an agreement of what would be on and off.

If the "registry" is a good thing, maybe other OS providers will agree with them and make it part of the standard. If not, they will have to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

 

After the attempt to ridicularize and the insult, now you do the report. 

Fine.

 

 

this, coming from the person who has single handedly likely reported more people than anyone else...

classic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

Java and python could work well for low CPU apps. But you won't see C++'s performance in a java program. And python is a script.

Each instruction will translate in 10 or more machine instructions.

Those 2 languages are not capable of replacing low level programming language's speeds.

My initial idea was to give constructive feedback to give an end to the discussion. I failed.

 

A lot of "interpreted" or "byte code languages" are usually compiled at runtime into actual machine code.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation

In fact Java or C# can be faster than "native" code because native code has to work on all CPUs but JIT-Code can use features only available on the specific CPU it runs on. Yes that may be an exception, but it is possible.

This is also the reason why Java-Script is relativly fast because AFAIK all common browsers use JIT compilation. Otherwise a normal website would be unusable due to too much CPU load because of the interpretation of the code.

 

Furthermore:

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

My idea is to make it mandatory by law. Like cellphone standards.

Making MS pay heavily until they positively contribute to a standard and adopt it.

This idea is wrong on so many levels. One example is that it will prevent inventions because no one will ever try to do a new operating system because it will "violate the law" and cost money for someone who just tried to make a new OS.

 

To be honest. This discussion has derailed so much, that I will quit posting in this thread. Furthermore I think what an OS actually is, does and how it works is a little bit more complicated than you currently think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

We already have several standards. Wine uses one to run windows programs. Windows 10/win 2019 uses another to run WSL and docker.

WSL is literally a virtualized environment (it's pretty much Hyper-V) running a Linux distro, it's not a cross platform standard for binaries.

 

 

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

So its more about imposing it via regulation then actual technical challenge.

I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

 

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

But let's say we find a new language, running on a new subsystem, that can actually match c++ in performance.

As preposterous as your idea is, a "new language" has absolutely nothing to do with it. And again, the OP ask is not something Microsoft has any say or or obligation to accommodate for. But you are clearly so far down your personal rabbit hole by now you actually lost the plot in the context of OP.

 

 

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

But my idea is not about companies finding a way to do it out of their own will.

My idea is to make it mandatory by law. Like cellphone standards.

Cellphone standards are not mandatory (or set) by law. You suggesting as much pretty much shows what you understand in this context.. which really is not much. 

 

 

1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:

Making MS pay heavily until they positively contribute to a standard and adopt it.

MS has nothing to do with the issue at hand as written by OP. And neither has Ubutu. or RH..

 

Next up, you will say that car manufacturers should be forced by law to design their engines so they can run on Electricity, Gas, Diesel or Petrol equally as the car owner should be able to choose whichever fuel they want to use without having to choose an engine for that fuel specifically and the manufacturer has to accommodate that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Next up, you will say that car manufacturers should be forced by law to design their engines so they can run on Electricity, Gas, Diesel or Petrol equally as the car owner should be able to choose whichever fuel they want to use without having to choose an engine for that fuel specifically and the manufacturer has to accommodate that.

 

Nope. I just say that the choice of the operating system should not interfere with the choice of the aplication you want to use. 

 

Those are 2 distinct markets. 

 

It lowers competition and makes users have less choices. 

 

Op is suffering from this problem. 

His choice of OS reduced his choices of gaming. 

 

I proposed a possible solution. 

And it may not be the best one. 

It its better than "just accept the monopoly and serve MS share holders forever" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

Nope. I just say that the choice of the operating system should not interfere with the choice of the aplication you want to use. 

 

So you are saying Apple should be forced to allow Android apps as well?

And Android should be forced to run iOS apps?

While at it, why not enforce any desktop OS to run any iOS or Android app without the need of emulators.

 

Might as well force all OS developers to merge and all deliver the exact same OS as that is pretty much what you are suggesting.

 

All one big happy family where the choice of OS is irrelevant.. /s

 

 

Your "suggestion" is not realistic and really has no merit. Linux is not even close to being able to support the wide range of applications Windows (or MacOS) does, it's Video and Audio support is OK-ish, but far removed from what Windows or MacOS offer. For what you say to even be a consideration, you'd either need to compromise what an application can do to meet the lowest common denominator in what is possible (which in itself is a blocker here) or besides forcing applications to be written fully agnostic with regards to the OS it runs on, the OS developers will also need to be forced to provide the exact same functionality and feature sets. And that is not something that is ever going to happen.

 

So no, your idea makes no sense as it kills innovation and reduces competition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

So no, your idea makes no sense as it kills innovation and reduces competition. 

For a program to run in windows it already has to follow a standard. One that is controled by MS. 

 

Does this standard kill innovation or reduce competition? 

 

Why not make the current windows exe and dll standard as the official standard?

But at the same time prevent MS from making stealth alterations to it to break compatibility? 

 

Making every future alteration to .exe standard require a full public disclosure would already help programs like wine being able to run executables after the changes happen. 

 

In time we could have different versions of that standard but instead of having to reverse engineer how those versions work, the wine team would be legally informed about those versions before those were even implemented. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...