159 réponses à ce sujet

[Tietovallu]

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Last time you replied that way was when you got owned.

I take that "lol" as "I have been owned".

Dude, go troll elsewhere, ride your bike or whatever. 

This proves further my point that mac users are disabled socially and mentally as they cannot make up a decent conversation.

[The Masked Rog]

Tietovallu wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Last time you replied that way was when you got owned.

I take that "lol" as "I have been owned".

Dude, go troll elsewhere, ride your bike or whatever. 

This proves further my point that mac users are disabled socially and mentally as they cannot make up a decent conversation.

Yeah, because the OS a people uses is obviously related to their social and mental abilities. Return to under your bridge. foul creature!

Modifié par The Masked Rog, 24 août 2010 - 04:26 .

[Lyssistr]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Tietovallu wrote...

Last time you replied that way was when you got owned.

I take that "lol" as "I have been owned".

Dude, go troll elsewhere, ride your bike or whatever. 

This proves further my point that mac users are disabled socially and mentally as they cannot make up a decent conversation.

Yeah, because the OS a people uses is obviously related to their social and mental abilities. Return to under your bridge. foul creature!

gotta say, (s)he's a terribad troll, (s)he must develop some skills real quick, if (s)he plans to stand up to DA2 forum trolling standards.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 24 août 2010 - 04:36 .

[gnomon7]

I just assume it's a transexual; I'm always a little right, and it explains their overall confusion.



Seriously though, I'm sure Bioware/EA can think of many reasons not to do something without everyone's valiant assistance.



This thread is probably a good place to tell them why they should.

[Lyssistr]

gnomon7 wrote...

I just assume it's a transexual; I'm always a little right, and it explains their overall confusion.

Seriously though, I'm sure Bioware/EA can think of many reasons not to do something without everyone's valiant assistance.

This thread is probably a good place to tell them why they should.

I digged one of the links I had in mind when I created this thread,

http://www.kotaku.co...d-linux-gaming/

some quotes,

 the Mac version was released a year after the Windows version, as customer interest and awareness was reaching an all-time low. I realised that the Mac percentages are so low not because the Mac versions sell poorly, but because the Windows sales are artificially inflated by the marketing campaign

Some of the big developers are starting to realise that there are a lot of Mac gamers, and that porting to Mac is not very hard. If you can put in an extra 1 per cent cost and get 22 per cent more revenue – why not make a Mac version? It would be worth it even if it were only an extra 2 per cent revenue! 

I'll post more links when I find the time to dig them, 22% more revenue is probably a little overoptimistic but Blizz & Valve obviously have a % good enough to keep their grip tight on the mac market.

[Seifz]

[quote]Lyssistr wrote...

[quote]Seifz wrote...

My point was that Power Shell is not in any way a "Unix shell".  I don't know why you're talking about writing Bash for DOS.
[/quote]

It has basic compatibility with unix commands, it may not be a full blown shell but that doesn't say much. Bash for dos is for the sake of example -that a *nix shell doesn't need a *nix kernel-.[/quote]

No, it doesn't.  Have you ever used Power Shell?  It isn't going to run a single command that you would normally use in a *nix environment.  There's no ls, cd, rm, man, grep, etc.  Power Shell implements an entirely new set of commands and an entirely new programming language.  This isn't just some kind of command substitution, either.  You can't just replace "rm" with "dir" in your sh scripts and expect them to work in Power Shell.  No, Power Shell is fundamentally different from any other *nix shell that I'm aware of.  Obviously, you haven't used it.  Please stop making false claims about it.

EDIT:  I should clarify a bit.  Power Shell will indeed run "rm" as a command.  However, it's not the rm that you're used to from *nix shells.  While it can indeed remove files, it's just an alias for the Remove-Item cmdlet.  Cmdlets are actually .NET classes.  Power Shell is entirely object-oriented and indeed even the pipeline passes objects instead of character streams.  This is all nothing like *nix shells.

[quote][quote]
You're so ridiculously wrong!  http://upload.wikime...tory-simple.svg

Linux has absolutely nothing to do with Unix.  BSD is Unix.  End.
[/quote]

In terms of source code derivation no, and indeed the link you gave shows that early BSD versions seemed to share code with the original unix OS. However, even in that page (Unix OSes), Linux is listed.

Tracking modern code back to 1969 isn't the best way to look at things when deciding what's unix and whatnot, today there's probably nothing left from 1969 code anyhow. Linux is a *nix operating system, shown even in that link you provided, it just doesn't derivate code.[/quote]

Right.  So BSD, which evolved directly from Unix and still calls itself a Unix is not Unix?  But Linux, which has absolutely nothing to do with Unix somehow is?  What?

Linux was started in the early 90s by a guy who just wanted a free operating system to run on his new i386 processor.  He conformed to the standards of the time (POSIX), but the operating system was entirely new and had nothing to do with Unix, Minix, or anything else available.  They're not related.  End.

[quote][quote]
I wasn't talking about Cygwin.  You can also run Bash natively.  Here's a port based on an older version:  http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/, but you could also use the MinGW environment to run a more recent version.  It's not nearly as complicated and annoying as Cygwin.
[/quote]

Fair enough, so we agree a *nix shell doesn't need a *nix kernel to run.[/quote]

Nobody ever claimed that a *nix shell needs a *nix kernel to run.

[quote][quote]
It's very much anecdotal evidence.  I could say, "I worked at Red Hat and there, we never used VS!"  So what?
[/quote]

Since there aren't any statistics that I'm aware of for the popularity of Visual Studio, I posted my personal experience. You can argue it's anecdotal, but my experience still is that people prefer to work with VS than free tools and usually free tools are used to cut down costs. In my current work however, while there are absolutely no budget issues we do use allot OSS, so choice for OSS is not only to cut costs. But the firm I work in now has its own, proprietary, programming language, which we use for all internal coding, so VS's advantages evaporate. I'd say this is a singular case however, since my current job is *not* in a software development company.[/quote]

So basically, you have no evidence to support your claim that VS is used more then GCC by professionals.  Got it.

[quote][quote]
Indeed.  Unfortunately, all that we usually get is "that's up to EA, so go bother them."  And, well, that never works out either.  If EA is going to seriously start supporting a second platform (and I highly recommend Linux over MacOS X!), they're going to do it because it'll be profitable for them.  They probably don't much care (as a company) if we want a port.
[/quote]

Well, I don't expect anything in the near future either but Valve at the end did their market research and did the unthinkable, you never know. I'm not saying this thread will make Bioware/EA make native games, however it can contribute a tiny bit in that direction.[/quote][/quote]

I'd still rather see them spend zots on making the Windows game better instead of spending those zots on a MacOS X port.

Modifié par Seifz, 24 août 2010 - 05:32 .

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

Right.  So BSD, which evolved directly from Unix and still calls itself a Unix is not Unix?  But Linux, which has absolutely nothing to do with Unix somehow is?  What?

Linux was started in the early 90s by a guy who just wanted a free operating system to run on his new i386 processor.  He conformed to the standards of the time (POSIX), but the operating system was entirely new and had nothing to do with Unix, Minix, or anything else available.  They're not related.  End.

BSD is *nix, who said the opposite?, as is Linux.

Even the link you provided listed Linux with Unixes. He didn't copy code, nor evolve a previous *nix kernel, he just made a new one. It copied all standarization (not code) from Unix and re-implemented it, it's like saying freedos (which didn't copy any code as well) is not a dos clone and say it's compliant with all DOS's standards but its new code blah blah, fine you say it's not unix, I'll say it is.

I'm not going to argue more about this, some people in the OSS community feel they need to overstress they didn't copy any code. No-one said the code is copied, Linux is still is *nix.

EDIT:  I should clarify a bit.  Power Shell will indeed run "rm" as a command.  However, it's not the rm that you're used to from *nix shells.  While it can indeed remove files, it's just an alias for the Remove-Item cmdlet.  Cmdlets are actually .NET classes.  Power Shell is entirely object-oriented and indeed even the pipeline passes objects instead of character streams.  This is all nothing like *nix shells. 

Still this doesn't say anything, from the user perspective it's a unix shell, the internal software technology (oo or not) doesn't really matter much, as long as basic compatibility is preserved from the end-user perspective.

So basically, you have no evidence to support your claim that VS is used more then GCC by professionals.  Got it.

I have no evidence that people would rather drive a Porsche either. I haven't seen any statistics on compiler usage, I said what my experience was.

Anyhow, I've PMed you all this, yesterday, I don't know why you reply here while in the PM I asked to move the conversation about shells, kernels and Visual Studio there.

 You may feel the need to defend OSS but tbh people will still prefer Visual Studio and call Linux a Unix, so as long as this is not relevant to Bioware porting their games on a mac, I'd like to put a full stop here and continue with PMs. This is not about OSS, and if Linux should be called unix or apricot, especially when it is called as such in the links you provide.

I'd still rather see them spend zots on making the Windows game better instead of spending those zots on a MacOS X port.

Well, I'd rather see the opposite, hence this thread. Following this logic, everyone should ask for game X to exist only on his/her platform, as everything else is a waste of resources.

[Seifz]

I tire of talking about Power Shell, Unix, etc. as you're obviously never going to admit that you're obviously just picking my words apart and twisting them into statements that I never made.  So, I'll just respond to the on-topic part.

Lyssistr wrote...

I'd still rather see them spend zots on making the Windows game better instead of spending those zots on a MacOS X port.

Well, I'd rather see the opposite, hence this thread. Following this logic, everyone should ask for game X to exist only on his/her platform, as everything else is a waste of resources.

Yes.  That's precisely what I'm saying.  Why would I want 5-10% of their resources devoted to a MacOS X port when I'm never going to use MacOS X to play DA2?  Obviously I'd rather those resources go into making the Windows version of the game better.  Please, do follow this logic!  That's exactly what I was saying!

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

I tire of talking about Power Shell, Unix, etc. as you're obviously never going to admit that you're obviously just picking my words apart and twisting them into statements that I never made.  So, I'll just respond to the on-topic part.

all your phrases were quoted, never altered, never quoted less than a full paragraph & phrase. So picking & twisting happened only in your brain, there was not any discussion anyhow, if linux should be called banana or unix, if powershell should be called a *nix shell or not and if professionals prefer Visual Studio or not. All totally irrelevant to topic. Now, if you want to continue this, I'm fine with pms.

Yes.  That's precisely what I'm saying.  Why would I want 5-10% of their resources devoted to a MacOS X port when I'm never going to use MacOS X to play DA2?  Obviously I'd rather those resources go into making the Windows version of the game better.  Please, do follow this logic!  That's exactly what I was saying!

 Well if your point is that you don't want a mac port to happen, fair enough but this is not what this thread is about, it's not a "don't make da2 for macs" thread. Valve & Blizzard sometimes get this sort of odd request from, albeit rarely, but thank god reason prevails and nobody listens to these people.

[Seifz]

Lyssistr wrote...

Yes.  That's precisely what I'm saying.  Why would I want 5-10% of their resources devoted to a MacOS X port when I'm never going to use MacOS X to play DA2?  Obviously I'd rather those resources go into making the Windows version of the game better.  Please, do follow this logic!  That's exactly what I was saying!

 Well if your point is that you don't want a mac port to happen, fair enough but this is not what this thread is about, it's not a "don't make da2 for macs" thread. Valve & Blizzard sometimes get this sort of odd request from, albeit rarely, but thank god reason prevails and nobody listens to these people.

What?  It's a thread about making DA2 for MacOS.  I'm posted my opposition to that idea.  I don't have to agree with you just to post in your thread.

[Lyssistr]

Seifz wrote...

What?  It's a thread about making DA2 for MacOS.  I'm posted my opposition to that idea.  I don't have to agree with you just to post in your thread.

ok, pretty much explains the powershell & banana or unix spam. Thanks for the clarification.

[ProudNegro]

why this dead thread

mac no dragon age

[erikvduyn]

Lyssistr wrote...

Native ports
1) Come out the same day as Windows versions
2) have rock solid performance
3) are supported - DLC, expansions etc

1) You're saying that as if it's some sort of law. There's no guarantee it will have 'rock solid performance'.
2) See number 1.
3) Uhuh, that's why all the DLC for DAO is also available for mac?

Modifié par erikvduyn, 24 août 2010 - 07:49 .

[Lyssistr]

erikvduyn wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Native ports
1) Come out the same day as Windows versions
2) have rock solid performance
3) are supported - DLC, expansions etc

1) You're saying that as if it's some sort of law. There's no guarantee it will have 'rock solid performance'.
2) See number 1.
3) Uhuh, that's why all the DLC for DAO is also available for mac?

DAO for mac is not an in-house port, it's a cider port (as good as poo), doesn't meet 1,2,3.

I'm saying games that meet 1,2,3 are desirable & sell.

[ProudNegro]

Stop Bawing Be glad you have ports or get a REAL COMPUTER

[Lyssistr]

ProudNegro wrote...

Stop Bawing Be glad you have ports or get a REAL COMPUTER

Same blah blah that was on the valve forums before they released their games for mac & mac steam client. Then came a coupe of whiners saying they don't want valve to spend time on mac. Result?  mac users are happy and valve profits.

[ProudNegro]

10 profits minus porting costs



tiny tiny tiny profit Dawg

[Lyssistr]

ProudNegro wrote...

10 profits minus porting costs

tiny tiny tiny profit Dawg

Valve thinks otherwise

[ProudNegro]

Go play valve games then

[Lyssistr]

ProudNegro wrote...

Go play valve games then

I love mac threads, they're full of trolls

[obnoxiousgas]

I have to say, it's amazing how vehement some people are about not Macs not getting a decent port. If it'd work out profitable for Bioware, why not? And if it wouldn't, well, it'd understandably not happen but that's not exactly something to take some kind of perverse delight in.

[Lyssistr]

obnoxiousgas wrote...

I have to say, it's amazing how vehement some people are about not Macs not getting a decent port. If it'd work out profitable for Bioware, why not? And if it wouldn't, well, it'd understandably not happen but that's not exactly something to take some kind of perverse delight in.

Yes, all mac threads get trolled from people who having nothing better to do with their lives. I don't think they really care, they may want to say to their irl acquaintances "look you can't play this" or be OSS people who hate macs because their "guru", R. Stallman, says so but overall I think it's just the usual trolls.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 24 août 2010 - 08:31 .

[casadechrisso]

I can't believe how this starts again... sheesh! A majority of Bioware games were ported to the Mac, it's only legitimate to ask if there's something planned for DA2 too. Hate Macs? Don't reply. 

I'm not holding my breath though, I'm not sure about how DA:O sold. That's EA's fault though, there was as good as no advertising for it at all, I think most Mac users weren't aware a Mac port existed. Bad marketing really, I only hope it might become a Steam:Play game someday so the resources (not many for a Cider port) weren't totally wasted.

Modifié par casadechrisso, 24 août 2010 - 08:37 .

[ProudNegro]

I love mac threads they are full of...erm



Mac users

[Seifz]

casadechrisso wrote...

I can't believe how this starts again... sheesh! A majority of Bioware games were ported to the Mac, it's only legitimate to ask if there's something planned for DA2 too. Hate Macs? Don't reply.

The OP didn't ask if DA2 was being ported to MacOS.  He asked BioWare to do a native, in-house port of DA2 to MacOS.  This takes valuable zots.   I would prefer to see those zots used on the Windows version of the game.  Thus, it's entirely logical that I reply to this thread.  I have no idea why anyone thinks that only supporters should reply!