Jim Henderson wrote:

>>> Text mode X11 configuration apps have been around for a while, longer
>>> than sax2, in fact.
>> ...which is of no help whatsoever if you can't *find* them.
> 
> http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=x11+text+mode+configuration

...which again requires Internet access.

>> (Actually, at the time I tried out klogic, we *did* have an Internet
>> connection, but I didn't even bother to *attempt* to make it work under
>> Linux. Making the "simple" stuff work was hard enough...)
> 
> Well, then, there's really no excuse for not submitting bugs, is 
> there? ;-)

How do you figure that?

> Tux Racer has been around for dog's ages (the last *update* is 7 years 
> ago, in fact).  "Not much" isn't a good assessment unless you've bought 
> into the FUD.

I guess for a suitable definition of "not much" you could argue it 
doesn't apply. After all, 3 is greater than 4 for sufficiently large 3. :-P

>> Weirdly, almost all of Valve's games run on Linux - or rather, the GAME
>> SERVER runs on Linux. The clients are Windows-only. (In fairness, what
>> does a game server do? It sends and receives UPD datagrams. Can't be
>> *that* hard to port it. Drawing 3D graphics is another matter...)
> 
> Not if you use a crossplatform library like openGL or Mesa.  Plenty of 
> people write games that use those libraries.

Both of those only support graphics. A game also needs sound, complex 
keyboard access, realtime control, etc., all of which varies by platform.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make cross-platform games. But when 
you have a huge codebase invested in DirectX, it would be tantamount to 
a complete rewrite to move to OpenGL. (Plus Valve games make use of lots 
of advanted stuff like DirectX 10. Guess where that's supported...)

>> So you've got several GB of data, and
>> you can only pick apart a few dozen bytes of it per day. Sure, shouldn't
>> take long.
> 
> It's not about the complexity, it's about the concept.  And the tools.

Of course, why would complexity be any obsticle to comprehending something?

> Reverse-engineering is not generally illegal.

Sure. The fact that the EULA says "you may not reverse engineer this" 
doesn't make it illegal at all. No sir.

> In that, you have one team that determines the specs.  You compile a 
> specification for those functions.
> 
> Then you turn the specifications over to a second team that has not 
> looked at the code for the original and have them reimplement it.

Given how painfully difficult it is just working out how to *use* the 
Win32 API, the chances of somebody correctly implementing a clone of it 
seem vanishingly small. (Especially given the vast sea of software that 
intimately depends on undocumented functionallity, glitches and the 
like.) Also, I hear that various M$ products depend on entire APIs which 
are kept "secret".

> That's how we ended up with clone PCs - clean room reverse engineering of 
> IBM's BIOS.

Because the BIOS *totally* has the same complexity level as an entire OS 
with 20 years of backwards compatibility.

> Have a look at WINE's FAQ about Windows patents and whatnot.  You'll 
> learn a lot.

I don't see anything in the FAQ about legallity.

Post a reply to this message