Thread: [GD-Linux] ANN: Candy Cruncher for Linux shipped
Brought to you by:
vexxed72
Menu
▾
▴
gamedevlists-linux
|
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2002-02-26 02:26:25
|
Consider this part-hype and part "Is this list still alive?" =) CC for Linux shipped, and we also posted a Developer Diary about porting software in general, in case anyone here is interested: http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycruncher/cc_linux.php Brian Hook, President Pyrogon, Inc. |
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2002-02-26 07:11:09
|
Brian Hook wrote: > > Consider this part-hype and part "Is this list still alive?" =) > > CC for Linux shipped, and we also posted a Developer Diary about porting > software in general, in case anyone here is interested: > > http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycruncher/cc_linux.php Cute. Not something I'd pay actual money for though. You should put an entry into http://www.happypenguin.org - that's probably the best place to announce new Linux games - and they don't mind promoting commercial products. ----------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------------- Mail : <sjb...@ai...> WorkMail: <sj...@li...> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net |
|
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2002-02-26 07:22:14
|
At 03:48 PM 2/27/2002 -0600, Steve Baker wrote: >Cute. Not something I'd pay actual money for though. We don't expect most Linux user to pay money for it, actually, but we're hoping that we can engender enough good will that hardcore Linux types will actually tell their friends and relatives that use one of the other operating systems we support (OS X, Windows, MacOS) to check it out. We've even got a BeOS version coming out =) Thanks for the pointer to happypenguin.org, going there right now! Brian |
|
From: Timothee B. <tt...@id...> - 2002-03-11 18:15:11
|
Agreed We are making games, and games have to look sexy. They need good looking installers, because that's part of the package. I am happy that the average Linux gamer usually has a bit more knowledge about his system than the average win32 gamer. It makes bug tracking a bit easier (except for the fact that Linux is so heterogeneous that it has way more tricky issues than win32). But overall what we see on Q3 and mostly RTCW over the past few months, is that there are more and more 'newbie' Linux users/gamers, which really rely on very easy-to-setup installers. And they use RH 7.2 or Mandrake 8 obviously ... and this is GOOD. TTimo -- Linux technology contractor - Id software inc. On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:21:51 -0800 Brian Hook <bri...@py...> wrote: > At 03:48 PM 2/27/2002 -0600, Steve Baker wrote: > >Cute. Not something I'd pay actual money for though. > > We don't expect most Linux user to pay money for it, actually, but we're > hoping that we can engender enough good will that hardcore Linux types will > actually tell their friends and relatives that use one of the other > operating systems we support (OS X, Windows, MacOS) to check it out. > > We've even got a BeOS version coming out =) > > Thanks for the pointer to happypenguin.org, going there right now! > > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-linux mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-linux > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=554 > |
|
From: Mark C. <me...@th...> - 2002-02-26 14:04:34
|
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 2:26 am, Brian Hook wrote: > Consider this part-hype and part "Is this list still alive?" =) > > CC for Linux shipped, and we also posted a Developer Diary about porting > software in general, in case anyone here is interested: > > http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycruncher/cc_linux.php > Quite entertaining, but... The total download size is 3.6MB, and the tota installation is less than that. Maybe you should consider using a slightly more compact install system? Nice work. === Mark 'Nurgle' Collins Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press) Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare) Email: me...@th... Phone: +44 7761 774 152 Email: nu...@is... Spam: sp...@th... |
|
From: Timothee B. <tt...@id...> - 2002-02-26 15:07:07
|
The installer used is loki_setup (http://icculus.org/loki_setup/). The graphical installer binaries are statically linked against the Gtk libraries. That's where the size bump comes from. Around 1Mb can be saved by doing dynamic linking against Gtk on the host system, but it is less safe to do (read: ABI compatibility problems) TTimo On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:10:59 +0000 Mark Collins <me...@th...> wrote: > On Tuesday 26 February 2002 2:26 am, Brian Hook wrote: > > Consider this part-hype and part "Is this list still alive?" =) > > > > CC for Linux shipped, and we also posted a Developer Diary about porting > > software in general, in case anyone here is interested: > > > > http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycruncher/cc_linux.php > > > > Quite entertaining, but... > > The total download size is 3.6MB, and the tota installation is less than > that. Maybe you should consider using a slightly more compact install system? > > Nice work. > > === > Mark 'Nurgle' Collins > Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press) > Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare) > Email: me...@th... Phone: +44 7761 774 152 > Email: nu...@is... Spam: sp...@th... > > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-linux mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-linux > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=554 > |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2002-02-26 21:22:05
|
> Quite entertaining, but... > > The total download size is 3.6MB, and the tota installation is less than > that. Maybe you should consider using a slightly more compact install system? Astonishing. "a slightly more compact install system" is to stick it in a tarball, in which case the complaint will be, "nice download size, but what do I do with this tar.bz2 file?" If I take the graphical installer out, I'll get bitching that there's only a text-based installer. If I take the text-based installer out, I'll get bitching that the graphical one doesn't work with the version of GTK+ on their system. Why don't people complain that there isn't a unified way to do ANYTHING in Linux instead? That would solve the problem much better...we could remove half of SDL's code, and 75% of the installer system. --ryan. |
|
From: Mark C. <me...@th...> - 2002-02-26 23:50:40
|
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 9:22 pm, Ryan C. Gordon wrote: > Astonishing. > > "a slightly more compact install system" is to stick it in a tarball, in > which case the complaint will be, "nice download size, but what do I do > with this tar.bz2 file?" > > If I take the graphical installer out, I'll get bitching that there's only > a text-based installer. If I take the text-based installer out, I'll get > bitching that the graphical one doesn't work with the version of GTK+ on > their system. > > Why don't people complain that there isn't a unified way to do ANYTHING in > Linux instead? That would solve the problem much better...we could remove > half of SDL's code, and 75% of the installer system. If it was a 10MB downoad, and only 1MB of the total download was used by the installer, then it wouldn't be a problem, but that's not the case. A third of the total downoad isn't required to run the game, that's the problem. Better options for distrobution of such a small package would be RPMs (and debs). Some people are still on a system that limits the total amount of data they can download (many Universities, for example, have IP quotas)... === Mark 'Nurgle' Collins Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press) Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare) Email: me...@th... Phone: +44 7761 774 152 Email: nu...@is... Spam: sp...@th... |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2002-02-26 23:55:14
|
> Better options for distrobution of such a small package would be RPMs (and > debs). RPMs make the game unaccessible (without annoyance) to Slackware, BSD, and Debian users. An RPM for RedHat may cause problems for Mandrake and SuSE users. DEBs make it unaccessable everywhere but Debian. This solution works everywhere. > Some people are still on a system that limits the total amount of data they > can download (many Universities, for example, have IP quotas)... ...but if it was a ten meg game with a one meg installer, it would be alright, apparently. In a world plagued with porn sites, spam, and Morpheus, are Universities REALLY busting people's balls over a 3.8 megabyte download? --ryan. |
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2002-02-27 01:30:04
|
"Ryan C. Gordon" wrote: > > > Better options for distrobution of such a small package would be RPMs (and > > debs). > > RPMs make the game unaccessible (without annoyance) to Slackware, BSD, > and Debian users. An RPM for RedHat may cause problems for Mandrake and > SuSE users. DEBs make it unaccessable everywhere but Debian. > > This solution works everywhere. Well - so would a simple tarball. > > Some people are still on a system that limits the total amount of data they > > can download (many Universities, for example, have IP quotas)... > > ...but if it was a ten meg game with a one meg installer, it would be > alright, apparently. > > In a world plagued with porn sites, spam, and Morpheus, are Universities > REALLY busting people's balls over a 3.8 megabyte download? I doubt it - but if you have a 56Kb modem that actually runs at 19.2Kb (as mine did before I got DSL) - and especially if you live somewhere where you pay per byte downloaded (eg Germany - UK (no free local calls) - etc) - then an extra 1Mb adds about 10 minutes to the download time and actually costs who-knows-what money. ----------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------------- Mail : <sjb...@ai...> WorkMail: <sj...@li...> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2002-02-27 10:09:21
|
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>...but if it was a ten meg game with a one meg installer, it would be
>alright, apparently.
:)
When our game some day will be released I don't look forward to the
religious flames that will start. Right now we're close to a 20Mb
download, with a lot of graphics and audio still missing. Same people that
just downloaded a 400Mb Windows demo will most certainly whine about our
20Mb download... :)
--
And it came to pass that in time the Great God Om spake unto Brutha,
the Chosen One: "Psst!"
-- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
|
|
From: J C L. <cl...@ka...> - 2002-03-11 17:38:59
|
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:22:50 -0500 (EST) Ryan C Gordon <ic...@cl...> wrote: > Why don't people complain that there isn't a unified way to do > ANYTHING in Linux instead? That would solve the problem much > better...we could remove half of SDL's code, and 75% of the > installer system. Evolutionary systems don't norm towards such standards until the respective areas have become so entrenched as to no longer be (significantly) subject to evolutionary forces. Or more simply: norming happens when the potential value of norming to the individual exceeds the perceived value of differentiation. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. cl...@ka... He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. |
|
From: Jan E. <ch...@in...> - 2002-02-27 10:06:23
|
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Mark Collins wrote:
>On Tuesday 26 February 2002 9:22 pm, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
>> Astonishing.
>>
>> "a slightly more compact install system" is to stick it in a tarball, in
>> which case the complaint will be, "nice download size, but what do I do
>> with this tar.bz2 file?"
>>
>> If I take the graphical installer out, I'll get bitching that there's only
>> a text-based installer. If I take the text-based installer out, I'll get
>> bitching that the graphical one doesn't work with the version of GTK+ on
>> their system.
>>
>> Why don't people complain that there isn't a unified way to do ANYTHING in
>> Linux instead? That would solve the problem much better...we could remove
>> half of SDL's code, and 75% of the installer system.
>
>If it was a 10MB downoad, and only 1MB of the total download was used by the
>installer, then it wouldn't be a problem, but that's not the case. A third of
>the total downoad isn't required to run the game, that's the problem.
Quit whining. Is it such a big deal? I assume you downloaded the package
in 30 seconds anyway? What does a few seconds/minutes more matter?
Nobody whines about downloading some 150Mb test version of Wolfenstein or
similar Windows games...
>Better options for distrobution of such a small package would be RPMs (and
>debs).
Debs are horrible to create.
>Some people are still on a system that limits the total amount of data they
>can download (many Universities, for example, have IP quotas)...
I assume that if you can't download 1 extra Mb on your university, you
shouldn't be downloading a game at all, but instead save the precious
bandwidth for study-related stuff...
--
And it came to pass that in time the Great God Om spake unto Brutha,
the Chosen One: "Psst!"
-- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
|
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2002-02-27 03:27:58
|
"Ryan C. Gordon" wrote: > "a slightly more compact install system" is to stick it in a tarball, in > which case the complaint will be, "nice download size, but what do I do > with this tar.bz2 file?" Well, if you made it a bz2 file *perhaps* - but I doubt there are many Linux users who couldn't cope with a '.tgz' file. > Why don't people complain that there isn't a unified way to do ANYTHING in > Linux instead? That would solve the problem much better...we could remove > half of SDL's code, and 75% of the installer system. I think there is a unified way: "tar xzf whatever.tgz ; ./configure ; make install" That works OK for binaries too. ----------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------------- Mail : <sjb...@ai...> WorkMail: <sj...@li...> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2002-02-27 03:46:59
|
> Well, if you made it a bz2 file *perhaps* - but I doubt there are many > Linux users who couldn't cope with a '.tgz' file. That's not the point, or at least, it's not very forward-thinking. If we aren't interested in making Linux "user friendly", then we might as well scrap KDE, Gnome, and video game development for the platform. Having an InstallShield style program is VERY important for the general public. Because we know that you need to type "tar -xzvvf archivename.tgz" is because we know better, and likely, we looked it up years ago. Do not assume that everyone else has that experience. Sure, we could pray that the user's GUI allows them to click on the tarball and unpack it, but then we're back at square one; what the hell do I do with this new folder that appeared on my desktop? For something like candy cruncher, we could probably have just made a symlink in the archive's root that points to the binary (indeed, this is what we're doing for BeOS, because we honestly don't know any better), but there are games and programs that need more complex installation than that. > > Why don't people complain that there isn't a unified way to do ANYTHING in > > Linux instead? That would solve the problem much better...we could remove > > half of SDL's code, and 75% of the installer system. > > I think there is a unified way: "tar xzf whatever.tgz ; ./configure ; make install" If you believe that autoconf work universally and unconditionally, then you are sadly mistaken. Plus, I was referring to the various places different distributions place files, the broken ABIs between versions of glibc, the fact that there isn't a guaranteed user interface, and that every user has a "my way" that is completely incompatible with everyone else's. Still, it comes to the same point: should we be porting games for people (like myself) that like command lines and manpages and READMEs, or should we be trying to make this as easy as possible at the cost of a slightly bigger download? --ryan. |
|
From: Mark C. <me...@th...> - 2002-02-26 15:37:14
|
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 3:04 pm, Timothee Besset wrote: > The installer used is loki_setup (http://icculus.org/loki_setup/). The > graphical installer binaries are statically linked against the Gtk > libraries. That's where the size bump comes from. Around 1Mb can be saved > by doing dynamic linking against Gtk on the host system, but it is less > safe to do (read: ABI compatibility problems) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a violation of the LGPL (statically linking the libs, that is)? Having a quick look at the stuff I downloaded, there is no mention of Loki Setup or the GTK libs.... I'm pretty sure a quick link added somewhere would rememdy the situation though.... > TTimo === Mark 'Nurgle' Collins Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press) Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare) Email: me...@th... Phone: +44 7761 774 152 Email: nu...@is... Spam: sp...@th... |
|
From: Timothee B. <tt...@id...> - 2002-02-26 16:28:32
|
Loki setup is GPL software TTimo On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:43:51 +0000 Mark Collins <me...@th...> wrote: > On Tuesday 26 February 2002 3:04 pm, Timothee Besset wrote: > > The installer used is loki_setup (http://icculus.org/loki_setup/). The > > graphical installer binaries are statically linked against the Gtk > > libraries. That's where the size bump comes from. Around 1Mb can be saved > > by doing dynamic linking against Gtk on the host system, but it is less > > safe to do (read: ABI compatibility problems) > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a violation of the LGPL (statically > linking the libs, that is)? Having a quick look at the stuff I downloaded, > there is no mention of Loki Setup or the GTK libs.... > > I'm pretty sure a quick link added somewhere would rememdy the situation > though.... > > > TTimo > === > Mark 'Nurgle' Collins > Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press) > Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare) > Email: me...@th... Phone: +44 7761 774 152 > Email: nu...@is... Spam: sp...@th... > > _______________________________________________ > Gamedevlists-linux mailing list > Gam...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-linux > Archives: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=554 > |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2002-02-26 21:25:38
|
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a violation of the LGPL (statically > linking the libs, that is)? Having a quick look at the stuff I downloaded, > there is no mention of Loki Setup or the GTK libs.... It would be a violation if the installer wasn't open source in the first place. > I'm pretty sure a quick link added somewhere would rememdy the situation > though.... There is no situation. There's the other problem with Linux development, while I'm ranting; everyone is always looking to pick a fight over something. No wonder I find myself begging companies to allow Linux ports of their games...I think we probably scare them off. --ryan. |
|
From: J. V. <jva...@li...> - 2002-02-26 22:00:21
|
Ryan C. Gordon writes: > There's the other problem with Linux development, while I'm ranting; > everyone is always looking to pick a fight over something. No wonder I > find myself begging companies to allow Linux ports of their games...I > think we probably scare them off. Well, I can't help but think that 99% of people are whiney, Linux users or not. It's just that there's a financial incentive to deal with Windows or Console users. -- jv |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2002-02-26 22:06:33
|
> Well, I can't help but think that 99% of people are whiney, Linux > users or not. It's just that there's a financial incentive to deal > with Windows or Console users. Yeah, but the difference is the complaints are usually less about "Why doesn't your game work on my Voodoo 1 card?!" and more along the lines of "You have violated my holy license! Now I will demand you release your source code!" Which, you have to admit, is pretty scary for the unwitting gameshop. --ryan. |
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2002-02-27 03:28:03
|
"Ryan C. Gordon" wrote: > > > Well, I can't help but think that 99% of people are whiney, Linux > > users or not. It's just that there's a financial incentive to deal > > with Windows or Console users. > > Yeah, but the difference is the complaints are usually less about "Why > doesn't your game work on my Voodoo 1 card?!" and more along the lines of > "You have violated my holy license! Now I will demand you release your > source code!" > > Which, you have to admit, is pretty scary for the unwitting gameshop. Oh come *on*. You read the two page GPL - with it's easy-to-understand pre-amble - you make sure you don't violate it - and you're done. The "Why doesn't your game work on my Voodoo-1" questions are *much* scarier because each one has to be answered slowly and painfully and no two are ever quite the same - the annoying idiots have *MUCH* more time on their hands than you do! ----------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------------- Mail : <sjb...@ai...> WorkMail: <sj...@li...> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net |
|
From: Ryan C. G. <ic...@cl...> - 2002-02-27 03:53:01
|
> Oh come *on*. Why do you sound frustrated? > You read the two page GPL - with it's easy-to-understand pre-amble - > you make sure you don't violate it - and you're done. I did that very thing. And yet, someone who HAS read it and misinterpreted came in and told me how to "remedy" my "LGPL violation". Mark is a smart guy. I've seen his book about programming Linux games. And yet, as a Linux advocate and programmer, he still wasn't sure if Setup (a GPL program) was in violation of the LGPL that GTK+ uses. Perhaps the preamble, and the rest of the license, isn't quite so simple? > The annoying idiots have *MUCH* more time on their hands than you do! I couldn't agree more. --ryan. |
|
From: Steve B. <sjb...@ai...> - 2002-02-27 04:54:24
|
"Ryan C. Gordon" wrote: > > > Oh come *on*. > > Why do you sound frustrated? Well, your suggestion that Linux people complaining about licensing issues is more of a problem (for a small software company) than users in general complaining about being unable to run the game on ancient hardware. I have been supporting LOTS of games and other commercial and non-commercial Linux packages for *years* now and whilst I get plenty of email from whining users, the number of them that are concerned about licensing is *NEGLIGABLE* and easily dealt with. I just don't see this as a consideration. > > You read the two page GPL - with it's easy-to-understand pre-amble - > > you make sure you don't violate it - and you're done. > > I did that very thing. And yet, someone who HAS read it and misinterpreted > came in and told me how to "remedy" my "LGPL violation". I think the issue is/was whether the game itself was statically linked to GTK. That would presumably be contary to the LGPL rules. I dunno - he just asked you a perfectly reasonable question - it wasn't an accusation. I just don't think that's a reason to get into the whole "Why the heck should we support Linux when people just complain" thing. ----------------------------- Steve Baker ------------------------------- Mail : <sjb...@ai...> WorkMail: <sj...@li...> URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net http://toobular.sf.net http://lodestone.sf.net |
|
From: Thatcher U. <tu...@tu...> - 2002-02-27 05:19:59
|
On Feb 28, 2002 at 03:23 -0600, Steve Baker wrote: > > I have been supporting LOTS of games and other commercial and non-commercial > Linux packages for *years* now and whilst I get plenty of email from whining > users, the number of them that are concerned about licensing is *NEGLIGABLE* > and easily dealt with. As opposed to traffic on mailing lists :) FWIW, I tried the candycruncher installer and it worked perfectly. I was at a little bit at a loss at first as to what to do with it (I was expecting a tarball) but the instructions on the web page were clear enough once I read them. The game works pretty well on my machine also, although the graphics on this box are slow. But certainly playable, and it looks good. -- Thatcher Ulrich <tu...@tu...> http://tulrich.com |
|
From: Brian H. <bri...@py...> - 2002-02-27 05:40:47
|
Jeez, I didn't expect this to turn into such an argument. But I'll toss in my $0.02. The Linux distribution situation is a complete disaster right now. If Ryan hadn't handled the Linux port for us, it wouldn't have gotten done period, irrespective of the actual porting process. Just seeing the system requirements alone freaked me out (kernel version, XFree86 version, sound access, glibc version, etc.) -- I thought it was bad enough under Windows. The multiple distros + emu layers that exist are problematic for many reasons -- kernel versions, XFree86 versions, default locations of "stuff", how sound is handled, etc. It's complete anarchy, and this is going to be one of the things that holds back Linux from more desktop penetration. I'm not a Linux user (last time I used it on a daily basis was 1994 when it was like 0.995 and we were bitching that Diamond wasn't releasing dot clock information for their SpeedStar video cards), but the few times I've tried to use it and get help from my friends it's been disastrous. Not because Linux itself was a mess, but because I'd have one friend that knew RH cold, but couldn't navigate my Mandrake install. And then there's Debian (and FreeBSD) thrown into the mix. So someone that "knows Linux" may not actually know how to admin some distro they haven't dealt with before. At least our Windows users can download CandyCruncherDemo.exe and just double click and go (the MacOS X distribution was a bit of disaster, but nothing as complicated as the Linux stuff). That's just not possible in the Linux world (if it were, I assume someone would have done it). Our BeOS version is going to probably end up in the same limbo as Linux commercial games -- you can get it and play it, and you can get a registration code for _another_ version (Windows, OS X, MacOS), so technically you're not buying the BeOS version of Candy Cruncher. That way we don't have to support it because, frankly, we're not a position to. If I was developing a serious, large budget commercial game for Linux, I'd probably have to do something similar -- either make it officially unsupported (on-line games can get away with this -- you pay for the account, not the client, and you can choose which client works for you), or make the officially supported subset so limited that A.) you have a good chance of compatibility and B.) it will still work, but people using a game "For RH 7.x ONLY" on a Slackware install are on their own. Anyway, I'm incredibly happy with the job that Ryan did. If given the choice between ease of use and minimal size; or "standard" (read: obtuse to the uninitiated) and a bit smaller, well, I'll take the former. Brian |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X