locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1716573:date=Jul 9 2009, 03:17 PM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Jul 9 2009, 03:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716573"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"In June 2008, Michael Walbridge, writing for Gamasutra, stated that DotA "is likely the most popular and most-discussed free, non-supported game mod in the world"."
There is at least 1 other RTS that has had a recent release (Aussie dev I think) that was a 'spiritual successor' to Dota that I know of. It has a huge hardcore following.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Y'know DotA reminds me of Second Life in a way. It has a dedicated following that's convinced it's the next big thing, but I haven't seen any numbers to back up the claims yet.
Maybe it will be the next CS or SC. *shrugs* Regardless, I haven't seen tons of article on slashdot about DotA and I don't think the fact that it was DotA had much with it being chosen.
Hmm looks like there are many people around who try to make money out of Dota ... Demigod, League of Legends (which feels like a exact copy :) ) and now this thing ... let's hope they do it right and include anti leaver stuff and so on ...
+1 for linux, but I don't care if it will be on windows only
Mr. EpicJoin Date: 2003-08-01Member: 18660Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1716585:date=Jul 9 2009, 03:52 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 9 2009, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Y'know DotA reminds me of Second Life in a way. It has a dedicated following that's convinced it's the next big thing, but I haven't seen any numbers to back up the claims yet.
Maybe it will be the next CS or SC. *shrugs* Regardless, I haven't seen tons of article on slashdot about DotA and I don't think the fact that it was DotA had much with it being chosen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> dota has been big for 5 years, it has probably trailed off a little as the original players no longer player it as much. Second life is a giant self promoting attention ###### of a "game".
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Harimau+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->^ Hence the front page.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you are forgetting what site we are talking about. Having a linux beta client is much more likely reason for front page on slashdot. Sure, DotA is big, but Linux is bigger and linux gaming is more awaited among slashdot readers than another DotA game
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1716684:date=Jul 10 2009, 04:33 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 10 2009, 04:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, but the keyword was 'alone'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And it remains so. Until DotA is as popular as WoW, CS, SC, or HL it will probably not get any special consideration on SlashDot.
I'm playing NS1 with Wine under Gentoo Linux without real issues (8800GTX => high FPS 90-100).
I agree to have a native linux client but not mandatory at the first launch because we need a working and balanced game first which we'll be probably on Windows. However the Linux server is a must because the gaming servers in general are working on it to have low latency, better performance, better administration etc...
So a big Yes for Linux but at first we need a finished and working game with GOOD servers to play on it. That's really great to see that some developers like UW care about independent platform code and software. I think it is the best way to take, the team won't be upset ! Thank you !
devicenullJoin Date: 2003-04-30Member: 15967Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1716753:date=Jul 10 2009, 02:37 PM:name=jamesbch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jamesbch @ Jul 10 2009, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716753"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree to have a native linux client but not mandatory at the first launch because we need a working and balanced game first which we'll be probably on Windows. However the Linux server is a must because the gaming servers in general are working on it to have low latency, better performance, better administration etc...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You obviously aren't talking about the Source engine here. A 24 player TF2 server will max out a CPU on linux, yet at the same time use around 10% of it on windows.
<!--quoteo(post=1716772:date=Jul 10 2009, 10:00 PM:name=devicenull)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (devicenull @ Jul 10 2009, 10:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You obviously aren't talking about the Source engine here. A 24 player TF2 server will max out a CPU on linux, yet at the same time use around 10% of it on windows.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You obviously aren't talking about anything relevant to NS2. It's not based on Source engine. Source's quirks don't apply.
<!--quoteo(post=1716772:date=Jul 10 2009, 11:00 PM:name=devicenull)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (devicenull @ Jul 10 2009, 11:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You obviously aren't talking about the Source engine here. A 24 player TF2 server will max out a CPU on linux, yet at the same time use around 10% of it on windows.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not an expert in dedicated servers but this difference of performance is strange ! This could probably be the cause of no/bad optimision under Linux. Anyway Linux is lighter than Windows so I don't see why source dedicated server cannot be faster or as fast as Windows on Linux. I'm sure UW will do a great dedicated server which work fine on both OS (And yes NS2 isn't source based ! So we cannot judge now whether Linux or Windows is the best to host a NS2 server)
<!--quoteo(post=1716729:date=Jul 10 2009, 10:03 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jul 10 2009, 10:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And it remains so. Until DotA is as popular as WoW, CS, SC, or HL it will probably not get any special consideration on SlashDot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet, the facts contradict you. It's a combination of various things: native Linux support, a game based on DotA, a game by S2 games (famous for Savage 2), and free beta keys (probably the biggest thing). It's not 'Linux alone', so there's nothing for you to not understand.
I think that because DotA appears obscure to you, you think that it's obscure to everyone else. Here's a little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_ancients#Reception_and_legacy" target="_blank">reading material</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1716787:date=Jul 11 2009, 12:03 AM:name=devicenull)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (devicenull @ Jul 11 2009, 12:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716787"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Indeed, but it's an example that "linux = better performance" is not always right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why he used the phrase "in general" in his post. Still no contradiction. -----------
For people preaching "dedicated server only":
You're forgetting something as basic as grattitude. A person who can play Natural Selection 2 on Linux is more likely to set up a dedicated server than one who can't. Most people don't set up dedicated servers for games they can't play. And amazingly, some people don't want a redundant operating system like Windows. Not only that, but because computers mostly don't come with Linux preinstalled, people who use Linux do it as a conscious choice. They probably like it better.
I wouldn't buy the linux client version of NS2 since I don't run a linux desktop, but I used to run it, and I reckon native Linux NS2 client would get some publicity around linux groups (slashdot?). When I used to have linux desktop, one of my grievances was lack of good games, so I wouldn't be surprised to see increase in sales, but then its just a guess.
Anyway puzl made a good point about the linux gamers who wouldn't buy the Windows version, but if the porting isn't a big job, then the linux version could be a seperate product to cover the development costs. Owners of the game of another OS version could pay a partial of the full price to get the other OS version too. For example, $20 for full version of either OS and with extra $5 you get both OS versions. In case the demand is a problem, a similar to this presale campaign could work. Just make it "we need X amount of linux versions pre-purchased, in order to meet the development costs. Pre-order now, and money will be returned if the linux version is not released."
In any case, I hope to see the dedicated server version released. Linux is just a lot more feasible (not to mention cheaper) for multi-purpose servers. Most NS servers I have hosted have been on Linux.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1716824:date=Jul 11 2009, 01:46 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 11 2009, 01:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716824"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yet, the facts contradict you. It's a combination of various things: native Linux support, a game based on DotA, a game by S2 games (famous for Savage 2), and free beta keys (probably the biggest thing). It's not 'Linux alone', so there's nothing for you to not understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I read that all ready. I just saw the same quotes from random people with no numbers. There are plenty of games that have Open Betas, and only the big ones(think SC2 and WoW) get posted to slashdot. DotA isn't that big. Maybe it will be some day. But none of the other stuff you mentioned seemed special either. Maybe it was a slashvertisement, but as it stands I was just surprised a native Linux client would be all it takes to get a front page.
<!--quoteo(post=1716967:date=Jul 12 2009, 02:44 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jul 12 2009, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716967"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Owners of the game of another OS version could pay a partial of the full price to get the other OS version too. For example, $20 for full version of either OS and with extra $5 you get both OS versions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You find games that are dual or multiple OS like WoW for example and a few other EA games titles are not sold at an increased price for their ability to be played on one or more OS. To me that's a little steep charging the consumer extra just because of their preference OS.
KassingerShades of greyJoin Date: 2002-02-20Member: 229Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1716974:date=Jul 12 2009, 09:00 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jul 12 2009, 09:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716974"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You find games that are dual or multiple OS like WoW for example and a few other EA games titles are not sold at an increased price for their ability to be played on one or more OS. To me that's a little steep charging the consumer extra just because of their preference OS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, most likely a linux port would result in increased earnings from more sales (how much is the question) anyway. IMO UWE should do the linux port before they do X-box.
<!--quoteo(post=1683143:date=Jul 11 2008, 11:10 PM:name=Prefix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prefix @ Jul 11 2008, 11:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683143"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally, when I say I'd buy a Linux copy, I don't expect support, because I know the developers will have to make an effort to put it on the linux market.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, as long as they provide the binaries it's fine.
<!--quoteo(post=1683153:date=Jul 12 2008, 02:39 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Jul 12 2008, 02:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our tools are actually platform independent. We use the fantastic <a href="http://www.wxwidgets.org/" target="_blank">wxWidgets</a> library for all of our user interface work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One more reason to port it all to Linux. You know that you want to do it.
<!--quoteo(post=1683111:date=Jul 11 2008, 07:39 PM:name=ChromeAngel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChromeAngel @ Jul 11 2008, 07:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683111"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@Prefix & locallyunscene I heard Blizzard have an OS X version of WoW, so their eyes are obviously open to non-windows based gaming. I get the impression that it's not a massive jump from running on BSD (which OS X is based on) to running on GNU/Linux.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AFAIK Blizzard had a Linux version of WoW during the Beta, don't ask me why they dropped it though. Well, i don't care about WoW anyways. :P
<!--quoteo(post=1716836:date=Jul 11 2009, 09:00 AM:name=borsuk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (borsuk @ Jul 11 2009, 09:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1716836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And amazingly, some people don't want a redundant operating system like Windows.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a sweeping statement. What makes it redundant? That it's proprietary? I still can't understand OS zealotry, and it's becoming too much like console fanboyism for my liking. I frequently use both Windows and Linux (and dabble with Macs about once a week) and find that all operating systems have their benefits and drawbacks, and <b>I like all of them</b>. What exactly makes Linux perfect and Windows terrible? Their marketing department?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1718436:date=Jul 21 2009, 11:02 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 21 2009, 11:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a sweeping statement. What makes it redundant? That it's proprietary? I still can't understand OS zealotry, and it's becoming too much like console fanboyism for my liking. I frequently use both Windows and Linux (and dabble with Macs about once a week) and find that all operating systems have their benefits and drawbacks, and <b>I like all of them</b>. What exactly makes Linux perfect and Windows terrible? Their marketing department?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a reasonable statement. Linux is not perfect and Windows(the operating system) is not terrible. The main beef people have with them(usually, not always) are the philosophies behind them. Microsoft, for varying degrees of truthiness, is the epitome of using monopolistic advantages to stifle competition while building difficult software. Linux, for varying degrees of truthiness, is the epitome of using collaborative cooperation, damn the profit, to build difficult software.
<!--quoteo(post=1718436:date=Jul 21 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 21 2009, 10:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a sweeping statement. What makes it redundant? That it's proprietary? I still can't understand OS zealotry, and it's becoming too much like console fanboyism for my liking. I frequently use both Windows and Linux (and dabble with Macs about once a week) and find that all operating systems have their benefits and drawbacks, and <b>I like all of them</b>. What exactly makes Linux perfect and Windows terrible? Their marketing department?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. After trying out Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE, and even DSL, I'm left dissapointed... no more then with Vista or 7 though. I keep running back to XP 64bit :P
<!--quoteo(post=1718436:date=Jul 21 2009, 04:02 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 21 2009, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a sweeping statement. What makes it redundant? That it's proprietary? I still can't understand OS zealotry, and it's becoming too much like console fanboyism for my liking. I frequently use both Windows and Linux (and dabble with Macs about once a week) and find that all operating systems have their benefits and drawbacks, and <b>I like all of them</b>. What exactly makes Linux perfect and Windows terrible? Their marketing department?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reduntant operating system is redundant.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2 redundancy, redundance the attribute of being superfluous and unneeded; "the use of industrial robots created redundancy among workers"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(wordreference.com)
What's so hard to understand ? Why would I install and manage two operating systems to do the same thing ? I use the one I like better. ------------------------------------- OFFTOPIC -------------
Microsoft consistently and repeatedly plays very dirty, and their business tactics stifle competition and innovation. It doesn't compete by making better products (it does not), but often by interfering with competitors' ability to do business.
Wikipedia: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass as the basis of Internet Explorer 1.0, which was released as an add-on to Windows 95 in the Microsoft Plus! software package. The deal stipulated that Spyglass would receive a base quarterly fee for the Mosaic license <b>plus a royalty from Microsoft's Internet Explorer revenue</b>.
Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (<b>making no direct revenues on IE</b>) paid only the minimum quarterly fee.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (emphasis mine)
This report from ECIS (European Commision for Interoperable Systems) is very enlightening, too. You don't have to read it (it's very long), but just take a quick look at the table of contents to get the idea. European Union is not all rosy, but in this I fully support their experts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Microsoft’s conduct over the last two decades has demonstrated Microsoft’s willingness and ability to engage in unlawful conduct to protect and extend its core monopolies. This conduct has caused real harm to consumers, who continue to pay high prices and use lower quality products than would have prevailed in a competitive market. By understanding Microsoft’s history of anticompetitive conduct, developers, consumer groups, and government authorities will be better equipped to recognize current and future Microsoft misconduct at an early stage and intervene to prevent Microsoft from using tactics other than competition on the merits. ECIS remains hopeful that the European Commission’s latest Statement of Objections addressing Microsoft’s misconduct will finally mark the beginning of the end of Microsoft’s two decades of anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm <a href="http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_...choicepaper.pdf</a>
And lastly, some quick quotes from Microsoft's own "Evangelism Is War" internal document. I couldn't put it into words better myself. Of course, you can brush it off as "business as usual" - that depends on your sense of ethics. I think it is in my best interest not to support this company, and I advise everyone to do the same.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the end of the day, if you don't optimize properly you get poor performance.
In general, a proper Linux install by an experienced person will be lighter and better setup for that user than a Windows build. That being said, sometimes that freedom comes at a price since now your Linux build has to take into account all the different permutations of user choices made while building the OS. So, the Linux build might have a poorly optimized property for YOUR particular build and settings, costing you in the performance race.
However, in an ideally optimized world, a Linux build will most likely run faster since you can more easily dedicate more of the hardware into running the program. Windows the OS ties up a decent chunk of baseline memory to keep itself going and to handle stuff behind the scenes, and it protects the user from doing stupid things by not letting you control much or anything, thus a Windows app will have less access to the low-level hardware except through things like DirectX and such.
So, neither is superior in terms of performance. It's up to preference and how well the designers make use of what is available.
It's also not a question of more sales. It's a question of if it is worth it to build a Linux version. By default by having a larger potential audience you will sell more. It's a question of work and reward, is it rewarding enough to make a Linux/Mac/Xbox version? Will it sell enough to recoop the time and energy spent on it? Thus, this topic, to show interest and let them gauge if it's worth it. There are always dedicated server Linux boxes hanging around, so I doubt that will be the problem. It's a question of if it's worth making a client version.
At the end of the day, if you don't optimize properly you get poor performance.
In general, a proper Linux install by an experienced person will be lighter and better setup for that user than a Windows build. That being said, sometimes that freedom comes at a price since now your Linux build has to take into account all the different permutations of user choices made while building the OS. So, the Linux build might have a poorly optimized property for YOUR particular build and settings, costing you in the performance race.
However, in an ideally optimized world, a Linux build will most likely run faster since you can more easily dedicate more of the hardware into running the program. Windows the OS ties up a decent chunk of baseline memory to keep itself going and to handle stuff behind the scenes, and it protects the user from doing stupid things by not letting you control much or anything, thus a Windows app will have less access to the low-level hardware except through things like DirectX and such.
So, neither is superior in terms of performance. It's up to preference and how well the designers make use of what is available.
It's also not a question of more sales. It's a question of if it is worth it to build a Linux version. By default by having a larger potential audience you will sell more. It's a question of work and reward, is it rewarding enough to make a Linux/Mac/Xbox version? Will it sell enough to recoop the time and energy spent on it? Thus, this topic, to show interest and let them gauge if it's worth it. There are always dedicated server Linux boxes hanging around, so I doubt that will be the problem. It's a question of if it's worth making a client version.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you're looking at it from a purely "which OS works better on a desktop" standpoint(which is valid). There are other angles to consider though depending on your usage/requirements/philosophy.
<!--quoteo(post=1718482:date=Jul 21 2009, 02:09 PM:name=borsuk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (borsuk @ Jul 21 2009, 02:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1718482"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Reduntant operating system is redundant.
(wordreference.com)
What's so hard to understand ? Why would I install and manage two operating systems to do the same thing ? I use the one I like better. ------------------------------------- OFFTOPIC -------------
Microsoft consistently and repeatedly plays very dirty, and their business tactics stifle competition and innovation. It doesn't compete by making better products (it does not), but often by interfering with competitors' ability to do business.
This report from ECIS (European Commision for Interoperable Systems) is very enlightening, too. You don't have to read it (it's very long), but just take a quick look at the table of contents to get the idea. European Union is not all rosy, but in this I fully support their experts.
Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm <a href="http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_...choicepaper.pdf</a>
And lastly, some quick quotes from Microsoft's own "Evangelism Is War" internal document. I couldn't put it into words better myself. Of course, you can brush it off as "business as usual" - that depends on your sense of ethics. I think it is in my best interest not to support this company, and I advise everyone to do the same.
See, it's not about zealotry. It's not even just ethics anymore. It's economy and common sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't believe you quoted wikipedia :D Interesting read though.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
No os is perfect. But if there is one thing to be sais about linux then it's driver and software installation. If you have ever seen how to do this under linux you will have the way it works under windows. really. Under windows you need to find the right website, download, click 10 times ok etc. Under linux open the package manager, search the software, click install. great. same for drivers.
But a properly set up windows and linux are probably about equal (but i prefer my kde and it's apps :-) )
And even if i already said it, i REALLY hope a linux version is comming (and so is the whole linux world i think). There are special porters, little firms that do just that, port a game from linux to windows. I recently read a article at phoronix from one of them. He even stated he works for free in exchange for a certain percentage of the linux revenue in the end. edit: found the article <a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_gaming_frank&num=1" target="_blank">http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti...frank&num=1</a>
He basically said that "Windows is bad because the Microsoft Marketing Department are aggressive."
I'm not going to argue that they do certain things not-entirely-by-the-book but if you're going to quote one of their Technical Evangelists to make them look bad then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A Technology Evangelist is someone who campaigns to get the software they like better known. In this case he is also paid to do it, and he wouldn't do it if he didn't genuinely believe in it. Open Source / free software-advocating Technology Evangelists include Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and your Liarpedia owner Jimbo Wales. So if you're going to say that technology evangelists are bad that reflects badly one the free software movement. <b>Something I also support</b>. You have no point whatsoever in quoting him except to say "omg Microsoft are evil this guy is PROMOTING THEIR SOFTWARE." You can't judge the whole Church on your local preacher, kid.
And yes, they bought out Spyglass and paid them the fair share even though it wasn't fair on the technicality that they didn't earn profits from IE. That's more Spyglass's inability to read the fine print <i>and then think about it</i>. They still sued Microsoft and won, though, so they must've hired a lawyer in the meantime. Once again this is their aggressive marketing tactics and not their actual technical side of the company at work. Also I don't hold much truck with IE. I'm not going to defend that. I use it for Microsoft websites and the like but otherwise stick with Google Chrome or, primarily, Opera (made by, you know, that company that sued Microsoft in Europe and caused the whole antitrust debacle).
(^TL;DR^)
Frankly you have yet to tell me why the technical side of Microsoft's software is bad. DirectX? The Windows API? .NET? Come on, I'm open to your debates here but don't just go "lol M$ r teh evul." You can be evil and a genius, you know. PROVE to me that their software is bad. I'm asking you to. Don't just whine that they're mean. <b>Talk about their actual products</b>.
im running ubuntu id love to see NS2 working either natively or in wine.
personaly i dont like windows for a few reasons.. mainly viruses and the fact that they force u to buy their software.. it comes "included in the price" of many laptops with no option to get it w/o windows.
its alo really generic .. and if u want to customise the look u hav to buy software. linux dose that out of the box, dosnt get viruses and offers everything for free.. and dosnt give u "get genuine ubuntu u theif" pop ups
Comments
There is at least 1 other RTS that has had a recent release (Aussie dev I think) that was a 'spiritual successor' to Dota that I know of. It has a huge hardcore following.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Y'know DotA reminds me of Second Life in a way. It has a dedicated following that's convinced it's the next big thing, but I haven't seen any numbers to back up the claims yet.
Maybe it will be the next CS or SC. *shrugs* Regardless, I haven't seen tons of article on slashdot about DotA and I don't think the fact that it was DotA had much with it being chosen.
+1 for linux, but I don't care if it will be on windows only
Maybe it will be the next CS or SC. *shrugs* Regardless, I haven't seen tons of article on slashdot about DotA and I don't think the fact that it was DotA had much with it being chosen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
dota has been big for 5 years, it has probably trailed off a little as the original players no longer player it as much. Second life is a giant self promoting attention ###### of a "game".
I think you are forgetting what site we are talking about. Having a linux beta client is much more likely reason for front page on slashdot. Sure, DotA is big, but Linux is bigger and linux gaming is more awaited among slashdot readers than another DotA game
And it remains so. Until DotA is as popular as WoW, CS, SC, or HL it will probably not get any special consideration on SlashDot.
I agree to have a native linux client but not mandatory at the first launch because we need a working and balanced game first which we'll be probably on Windows. However the Linux server is a must because the gaming servers in general are working on it to have low latency, better performance, better administration etc...
So a big Yes for Linux but at first we need a finished and working game with GOOD servers to play on it. That's really great to see that some developers like UW care about independent platform code and software. I think it is the best way to take, the team won't be upset !
Thank you !
You obviously aren't talking about the Source engine here. A 24 player TF2 server will max out a CPU on linux, yet at the same time use around 10% of it on windows.
You obviously aren't talking about anything relevant to NS2. It's not based on Source engine. Source's quirks don't apply.
I'm not an expert in dedicated servers but this difference of performance is strange ! This could probably be the cause of no/bad optimision under Linux. Anyway Linux is lighter than Windows so I don't see why source dedicated server cannot be faster or as fast as Windows on Linux. I'm sure UW will do a great dedicated server which work fine on both OS (And yes NS2 isn't source based ! So we cannot judge now whether Linux or Windows is the best to host a NS2 server)
Indeed, but it's an example that "linux = better performance" is not always right.
And yet, the facts contradict you. It's a combination of various things: native Linux support, a game based on DotA, a game by S2 games (famous for Savage 2), and free beta keys (probably the biggest thing). It's not 'Linux alone', so there's nothing for you to not understand.
I think that because DotA appears obscure to you, you think that it's obscure to everyone else.
Here's a little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_the_ancients#Reception_and_legacy" target="_blank">reading material</a>.
That's why he used the phrase "in general" in his post. Still no contradiction.
-----------
For people preaching "dedicated server only":
You're forgetting something as basic as grattitude. A person who can play Natural Selection 2 on Linux is more likely to set up a dedicated server than one who can't. Most people don't set up dedicated servers for games they can't play. And amazingly, some people don't want a redundant operating system like Windows. Not only that, but because computers mostly don't come with Linux preinstalled, people who use Linux do it as a conscious choice. They probably like it better.
Anyway puzl made a good point about the linux gamers who wouldn't buy the Windows version, but if the porting isn't a big job, then the linux version could be a seperate product to cover the development costs. Owners of the game of another OS version could pay a partial of the full price to get the other OS version too. For example, $20 for full version of either OS and with extra $5 you get both OS versions. In case the demand is a problem, a similar to this presale campaign could work. Just make it "we need X amount of linux versions pre-purchased, in order to meet the development costs. Pre-order now, and money will be returned if the linux version is not released."
In any case, I hope to see the dedicated server version released. Linux is just a lot more feasible (not to mention cheaper) for multi-purpose servers. Most NS servers I have hosted have been on Linux.
I read that all ready. I just saw the same quotes from random people with no numbers. There are plenty of games that have Open Betas, and only the big ones(think SC2 and WoW) get posted to slashdot. DotA isn't that big. Maybe it will be some day. But none of the other stuff you mentioned seemed special either. Maybe it was a slashvertisement, but as it stands I was just surprised a native Linux client would be all it takes to get a front page.
You find games that are dual or multiple OS like WoW for example and a few other EA games titles are not sold at an increased price for their ability to be played on one or more OS. To me that's a little steep charging the consumer extra just because of their preference OS.
Yes, most likely a linux port would result in increased earnings from more sales (how much is the question) anyway. IMO UWE should do the linux port before they do X-box.
Yeah, as long as they provide the binaries it's fine.
<!--quoteo(post=1683153:date=Jul 12 2008, 02:39 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Jul 12 2008, 02:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our tools are actually platform independent. We use the fantastic <a href="http://www.wxwidgets.org/" target="_blank">wxWidgets</a> library for all of our user interface work.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One more reason to port it all to Linux. You know that you want to do it.
<!--quoteo(post=1683111:date=Jul 11 2008, 07:39 PM:name=ChromeAngel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChromeAngel @ Jul 11 2008, 07:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1683111"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@Prefix & locallyunscene
I heard Blizzard have an OS X version of WoW, so their eyes are obviously open to non-windows based gaming. I get the impression that it's not a massive jump from running on BSD (which OS X is based on) to running on GNU/Linux.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AFAIK Blizzard had a Linux version of WoW during the Beta, don't ask me why they dropped it though.
Well, i don't care about WoW anyways. :P
That's a sweeping statement. What makes it redundant? That it's proprietary? I still can't understand OS zealotry, and it's becoming too much like console fanboyism for my liking. I frequently use both Windows and Linux (and dabble with Macs about once a week) and find that all operating systems have their benefits and drawbacks, and <b>I like all of them</b>. What exactly makes Linux perfect and Windows terrible? Their marketing department?
That's a reasonable statement. Linux is not perfect and Windows(the operating system) is not terrible. The main beef people have with them(usually, not always) are the philosophies behind them. Microsoft, for varying degrees of truthiness, is the epitome of using monopolistic advantages to stifle competition while building difficult software. Linux, for varying degrees of truthiness, is the epitome of using collaborative cooperation, damn the profit, to build difficult software.
I agree. After trying out Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE, and even DSL, I'm left dissapointed... no more then with Vista or 7 though. I keep running back to XP 64bit :P
Reduntant operating system is redundant.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2 redundancy, redundance
the attribute of being superfluous and unneeded; "the use of industrial robots created redundancy among workers"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(wordreference.com)
What's so hard to understand ? Why would I install and manage two operating systems to do the same thing ? I use the one I like better.
-------------------------------------
OFFTOPIC
-------------
Microsoft consistently and repeatedly plays very dirty, and their business tactics stifle competition and innovation. It doesn't compete by making better products (it does not), but often by interfering with competitors' ability to do business.
Wikipedia:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Microsoft licensed Mosaic from Spyglass as the basis of Internet Explorer 1.0, which was released as an add-on to Windows 95 in the Microsoft Plus! software package. The deal stipulated that Spyglass would receive a base quarterly fee for the Mosaic license <b>plus a royalty from Microsoft's Internet Explorer revenue</b>.
Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (<b>making no direct revenues on IE</b>) paid only the minimum quarterly fee.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(emphasis mine)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.#The_end_of_Spyglass" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc...end_of_Spyglass</a>
This report from ECIS (European Commision for Interoperable Systems) is very enlightening, too. You don't have to read it (it's very long), but just take a quick look at the table of contents to get the idea. European Union is not all rosy, but in this I fully support their experts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Microsoft’s conduct over the last two decades has demonstrated Microsoft’s willingness and ability to engage in unlawful conduct to protect and extend its core monopolies. This conduct has caused real harm to consumers, who continue to pay high prices and use lower quality products than would have prevailed in a competitive market. By understanding Microsoft’s history of anticompetitive conduct, developers, consumer groups, and government authorities will be better equipped to recognize current and future Microsoft misconduct at an early stage and intervene to prevent Microsoft from using tactics other than competition on the merits. ECIS remains hopeful that the European Commission’s latest Statement of Objections addressing Microsoft’s misconduct will finally mark the beginning of the end of Microsoft’s two decades of anticompetitive behavior and consumer harm.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm
<a href="http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_...choicepaper.pdf</a>
And lastly, some quick quotes from Microsoft's own "Evangelism Is War" internal document. I couldn't put it into words better myself. Of course, you can brush it off as "business as usual" - that depends on your sense of ethics. I think it is in my best interest not to support this company, and I advise everyone to do the same.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.
Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are:
-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.
-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958" target="_blank">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958</a>
See, it's not about zealotry. It's not even just ethics anymore. It's economy and common sense.
At the end of the day, if you don't optimize properly you get poor performance.
In general, a proper Linux install by an experienced person will be lighter and better setup for that user than a Windows build. That being said, sometimes that freedom comes at a price since now your Linux build has to take into account all the different permutations of user choices made while building the OS. So, the Linux build might have a poorly optimized property for YOUR particular build and settings, costing you in the performance race.
However, in an ideally optimized world, a Linux build will most likely run faster since you can more easily dedicate more of the hardware into running the program. Windows the OS ties up a decent chunk of baseline memory to keep itself going and to handle stuff behind the scenes, and it protects the user from doing stupid things by not letting you control much or anything, thus a Windows app will have less access to the low-level hardware except through things like DirectX and such.
So, neither is superior in terms of performance. It's up to preference and how well the designers make use of what is available.
It's also not a question of more sales. It's a question of if it is worth it to build a Linux version. By default by having a larger potential audience you will sell more. It's a question of work and reward, is it rewarding enough to make a Linux/Mac/Xbox version? Will it sell enough to recoop the time and energy spent on it? Thus, this topic, to show interest and let them gauge if it's worth it. There are always dedicated server Linux boxes hanging around, so I doubt that will be the problem. It's a question of if it's worth making a client version.
At the end of the day, if you don't optimize properly you get poor performance.
In general, a proper Linux install by an experienced person will be lighter and better setup for that user than a Windows build. That being said, sometimes that freedom comes at a price since now your Linux build has to take into account all the different permutations of user choices made while building the OS. So, the Linux build might have a poorly optimized property for YOUR particular build and settings, costing you in the performance race.
However, in an ideally optimized world, a Linux build will most likely run faster since you can more easily dedicate more of the hardware into running the program. Windows the OS ties up a decent chunk of baseline memory to keep itself going and to handle stuff behind the scenes, and it protects the user from doing stupid things by not letting you control much or anything, thus a Windows app will have less access to the low-level hardware except through things like DirectX and such.
So, neither is superior in terms of performance. It's up to preference and how well the designers make use of what is available.
It's also not a question of more sales. It's a question of if it is worth it to build a Linux version. By default by having a larger potential audience you will sell more. It's a question of work and reward, is it rewarding enough to make a Linux/Mac/Xbox version? Will it sell enough to recoop the time and energy spent on it? Thus, this topic, to show interest and let them gauge if it's worth it. There are always dedicated server Linux boxes hanging around, so I doubt that will be the problem. It's a question of if it's worth making a client version.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're looking at it from a purely "which OS works better on a desktop" standpoint(which is valid). There are other angles to consider though depending on your usage/requirements/philosophy.
(wordreference.com)
What's so hard to understand ? Why would I install and manage two operating systems to do the same thing ? I use the one I like better.
-------------------------------------
OFFTOPIC
-------------
Microsoft consistently and repeatedly plays very dirty, and their business tactics stifle competition and innovation. It doesn't compete by making better products (it does not), but often by interfering with competitors' ability to do business.
Wikipedia:
(emphasis mine)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.#The_end_of_Spyglass" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc...end_of_Spyglass</a>
This report from ECIS (European Commision for Interoperable Systems) is very enlightening, too. You don't have to read it (it's very long), but just take a quick look at the table of contents to get the idea. European Union is not all rosy, but in this I fully support their experts.
Microsoft - A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm
<a href="http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_...choicepaper.pdf</a>
And lastly, some quick quotes from Microsoft's own "Evangelism Is War" internal document. I couldn't put it into words better myself. Of course, you can brush it off as "business as usual" - that depends on your sense of ethics. I think it is in my best interest not to support this company, and I advise everyone to do the same.
<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958" target="_blank">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958</a>
See, it's not about zealotry. It's not even just ethics anymore. It's economy and common sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't believe you quoted wikipedia :D Interesting read though.
But a properly set up windows and linux are probably about equal (but i prefer my kde and it's apps :-) )
And even if i already said it, i REALLY hope a linux version is comming (and so is the whole linux world i think). There are special porters, little firms that do just that, port a game from linux to windows. I recently read a article at phoronix from one of them. He even stated he works for free in exchange for a certain percentage of the linux revenue in the end.
edit: found the article
<a href="http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_gaming_frank&num=1" target="_blank">http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=arti...frank&num=1</a>
He basically said that "Windows is bad because the Microsoft Marketing Department are aggressive."
I'm not going to argue that they do certain things not-entirely-by-the-book but if you're going to quote one of their Technical Evangelists to make them look bad then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A Technology Evangelist is someone who campaigns to get the software they like better known. In this case he is also paid to do it, and he wouldn't do it if he didn't genuinely believe in it. Open Source / free software-advocating Technology Evangelists include Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman and your Liarpedia owner Jimbo Wales. So if you're going to say that technology evangelists are bad that reflects badly one the free software movement. <b>Something I also support</b>. You have no point whatsoever in quoting him except to say "omg Microsoft are evil this guy is PROMOTING THEIR SOFTWARE." You can't judge the whole Church on your local preacher, kid.
And yes, they bought out Spyglass and paid them the fair share even though it wasn't fair on the technicality that they didn't earn profits from IE. That's more Spyglass's inability to read the fine print <i>and then think about it</i>. They still sued Microsoft and won, though, so they must've hired a lawyer in the meantime. Once again this is their aggressive marketing tactics and not their actual technical side of the company at work. Also I don't hold much truck with IE. I'm not going to defend that. I use it for Microsoft websites and the like but otherwise stick with Google Chrome or, primarily, Opera (made by, you know, that company that sued Microsoft in Europe and caused the whole antitrust debacle).
(^TL;DR^)
Frankly you have yet to tell me why the technical side of Microsoft's software is bad. DirectX? The Windows API? .NET? Come on, I'm open to your debates here but don't just go "lol M$ r teh evul." You can be evil and a genius, you know. PROVE to me that their software is bad. I'm asking you to. Don't just whine that they're mean. <b>Talk about their actual products</b>.
personaly i dont like windows for a few reasons.. mainly viruses and the fact that they force u to buy their software.. it comes "included in the price" of many laptops with no option to get it w/o windows.
its alo really generic .. and if u want to customise the look u hav to buy software.
linux dose that out of the box, dosnt get viruses and offers everything for free.. and dosnt give u "get genuine ubuntu u theif" pop ups