Quake4 for Linux

[Papa6]

I found Quake 4 for linux at http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/linux/quake4/ and you can install the demo for trial basis and purchase the full version From ID Software. Cool. atleast one good dev is developing to linux

[firefly2442]

Yeah, I've played Doom III, Enemy Territory, and True Combat all under Linux with the Nvidia drivers and it works flawlessly. Haven't tried Quake 4 yet though. Unreal Tournament 2004 works too apparently.

[Papa6]

I just wish more devs would develop games for Linux. ID software has th emost control there. we need competition!

But I'm bit torrenting the demo from ID softwares site. we'll see what happens

[Nutlink]

From what I've seen id Software and Epic are the two main supporters of Linux for gaming.

Here's a list of some Linux supported games and how to get them

http://icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php

[CrowmanUK]

Hang on a sec, you said you didnt want to play games! You're not going all gamey on us now are you? Learning to program applications and actually use your computer you said, tut tut mate, that didnt last long did it, 3 weeks and counting

[Papa6]

No, I'm pointing out there are FPS shooters out there made for Linux. So if some want to put up a Linux partition, which some folks do, there's some great software out there.

[CrowmanUK]

Course you are mate and if I dont see you beforehand, have yourself a great xmas, best wishes to you and the family from our mob

[Papa6]

Thanks CrowmanUK, thought you were a microsoft mafia hitman and getting short tempered with me and my linux fetish.

[Sup]

Flaw: It's quake 4, man. It's, like, two years old, and it sucked when it first came out.

[Papa6]

it's funny how people fall for the Microsoft FUD. Microsoft feels threatened by the open source community. that's why Microsoft made the deal with Novell. Microsoft is trying to slow down the open source communities ascent.

The open source community is up in arms at Novell. one the other hand, Microsoft immediately tried to declare that novell was in breach of Microsoft patents and/or copyrights.

But Linux offers the free open source OPENGL, it too has pixel shader support and some of the same technologies that DirectX has. I'm kinda beside myself as to why all these development companies develop for windows. hell, i hear around here at GR.net that many companies, ubisoft included, are developing games and gearing up for the console game market. So , since they want to go console, why not jump off the Microsoft train and do linux where you're free to develop as you please for less cost?

I think these are some very legitimate questions or comments. too bad none can answer these questions at all or honestly.

[Dannik]

I think these are some very legitimate questions or comments. too bad none can answer these questions at all or honestly.

I wanted to start with this. Not to comment on it, but to let you comment on it yourself:

it's funny how people fall for the Microsoft FUD.

Pot, meet kettle.

Microsoft feels threatened by the open source community. that's why Microsoft made the deal with Novell. Microsoft is trying to slow down the open source communities ascent.

The Novell deal was because Microsoft knows that Linux's server market is lucrative, and they wanted to get a slice. Just like any publically held business entity, making money for those who own stock is not just desirable, it's required by law.

The open source community is up in arms at Novell. one the other hand, Microsoft immediately tried to declare that novell was in breach of Microsoft patents and/or copyrights.

This is a failing in patent law, not Microsoft. The open source community also knows this, but it's not bandied as part of the issue much, because the anti-MS crowd doesn't like having their argument thinned by the open source FUD. See above. Pot, kettle.

But Linux offers the free open source OPENGL, it too has pixel shader support and some of the same technologies that DirectX has.

So does Microsoft. Sure, they push their internal developed DirectX hard, but Windows has full OpenGL support.

I'm kinda beside myself as to why all these development companies develop for windows. hell, i hear around here at GR.net that many companies, ubisoft included, are developing games and gearing up for the console game market. So , since they want to go console, why not jump off the Microsoft train and do linux where you're free to develop as you please for less cost?

Because you create products for your customers, which in gaming terms means install base. Game developers push console titles because there are a lot more gaming consoles than there are gaming PC's. I don't mean computers that are technically capable of playing games, but computers that are specifically used to play games. Also, console games have two other advantages, to develop for. The tools needed may be pricey (just like PC games), but you don't have to write them yourself. You get handed them, as part of the process. Second, consoles are closed systems. If the game runs on one customer's system, it runs on every customer's system.

Developers pick consoles because that's where the vast number of customers are. They pick Windows for computer games because that's where the vast number of customers are. They don't pick Linux not because of anything more than the miniscule market it represents.

Now, certainly, if Linux became more widespread, games for it would too. Vicious circle, really. Oh, and one more thing: If I write a game for Linux, I'm writing it for a kernel, not an operating system. Adds at least a hint of complexity to the development cycle. Writing a game for XP, you only need to test it under XP Home, Pro, and Media Centre Edition. For Linux? Kernel revisions, desktop managers, installation systems, managers, can vary literally a million times over. Slackware with KDE, Gnome or Xfc? Or one of the even lesser known variants?

Going back to this:

I think these are some very legitimate questions or comments. too bad none can answer these questions at all or honestly.

How did I do, mate?

Edit: And thank you, Papa6: I've been having a very bad night, and this put a real smile on my face. Not a smug one, but a sincere one. This was a very fun post to construct, and with all respect to you for it.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Very good post Dannik... not much to add to that one.

Serious Sam was an opengl windows game if anyone wants an example.

Oh and has anyone ever seen a linux game on the shelf? Just curious. I know you can get quake 4 and such online but i have yet to see any software on a shelf at any computer store.

I never really looked but i'll check our distribution after Christmas.

If MS was threatened by opensource then why does Virtual PC have allow for loading linux?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1378274,00.asp

They even have a MAC version.

And btw Virtual PC 2004 and the new 2007 beta is free.

Download it here... http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx

It would be better to load linux to it and keep your XP for gaming while you play with linux.

[Dannik]

Very good post Dannik... not much to add to that one.

Thanks, but I have to respond to your post in the same way I did for Papa6, to be honest in my reasoning.

Serious Sam was an opengl windows game if anyone wants an example.

So was Doom3. It has a Linux port too. Serious Sam has it's own Linux version.

Oh and has anyone ever seen a linux game on the shelf? Just curious. I know you can get quake 4 and such online but i have yet to see any software on a shelf at any computer store.

I have. It's rare, but happens. Usually, you purchase a Windows or MacOS version first, then download the Linux binaries.

If MS was threatened by opensource then why does Virtual PC have allow for loading linux?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1378274,00.asp

They even have a MAC version.

The Mac version is based in Unix, which Linux is a cousin of. That said, the reason VirtualPC supports Linux is dual; Their deal with Novell is the answer to the first, and the second is to sell more copies of Windows. If you can emulate it, why should you switch?

And btw Virtual PC 2004 and the new 2007 beta is free.

Download it here... http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx

It would be better to load linux to it and keep your XP for gaming while you play with linux.

I agree, but, we're gamers. Not everyone is.

I just got of Microsoft's Messenger with a friend of mine. Haven't physically seen him in ten years. I told him it's time to dual boot. XP for the games he knows and loves, Linux for everything else. Personal computer.

[Papa6]

good post dannik. sorry to hear you had a bad night it being Christmas and all. As for the FUD, perhaps there is some from both sides. But i think the FUD is more about Microsofts short commings. things like slow patch development, lack of true openness from MS about making windows more see through so everyone gets treated fairly, 3rd party vendors, open source community and others. But since MS owns windows and the like, I hardly think that's going to happen.

I think the FUD from my standpoint would be, why does MS use filesystems(currently NTFS) that waste so much of your harddrive space? if you have a 500GB harddrive and the clusters are say 128 or 256KB or more, then you make a word document at 5KB, then with 256KB clusters you waste 251KB every cluster that isn't used since every cluster can't hold only one file. so you ca see after a time that you lose your harddrive investment 251KB X 1,000 clusters = 251,000 KB of wasted harddrive space. so if NTFS is a business filesystem by MS, then you or I have to ask why businesses use MS products?

That and how badly NTFS fragments the harddrive. windows picks up a file off the drive then, when done, it just throws that file(s) where ever there's free open space, kinda like a college bachelor does with his clothes on the floor.

I have no heat issues with Linux guys. I know alot of you stand by Windows and that's why this makes a free market what it is. but I've come to realize that to me, Linux runs VERY cool, uses 1KB clusters(inodes), and maybe gets around to 10-20% fragmentation from the way i understand it.

But I'm going to continue to advocate Linux as it gives you guys BACK your PC's. I heard a few years ago that some firms approached the open source groups wanting to put DRM features into Linux. Last I heard that wasn't going to happen. But I see MS Windows becoming a VERY closed and controlled OS with DRM and the like. but history shows us time and again that none stays at the top forever and it is my opinion(stresses this) with Vista's release, it won't be adopted as quickly or as openly as MS thinks. Plus i think alot of folks will look else where for an alternative OS

ok, my final day of work before Christmas so, Merry Christmas guys and we will be seeing you all around. remember the reason for the season.

I hope that rocky will respond to my PM about opening a forum here for Linux.

From Papa6 and his family

From pat's graphics 1997-2001

[ROCO*AFZ*]

good post dannik. sorry to hear you had a bad night it being Christmas and all. As for the FUD, perhaps there is some from both sides. But i think the FUD is more about Microsofts short commings. things like slow patch development, lack of true openness from MS about making windows more see through so everyone gets treated fairly, 3rd party vendors, open source community and others. But since MS owns windows and the like, I hardly think that's going to happen.

I think the FUD from my standpoint would be, why does MS use filesystems(currently NTFS) that waste so much of your harddrive space? if you have a 500GB harddrive and the clusters are say 128 or 256KB or more, then you make a word document at 5KB, then with 256KB clusters you waste 251KB every cluster that isn't used since every cluster can't hold only one file. so you ca see after a time that you lose your harddrive investment 251KB X 1,000 clusters = 251,000 KB of wasted harddrive space. so if NTFS is a business filesystem by MS, then you or I have to ask why businesses use MS products?

That and how badly NTFS fragments the harddrive. windows picks up a file off the drive then, when done, it just throws that file(s) where ever there's free open space, kinda like a college bachelor does with his clothes on the floor.

I have no heat issues with Linux guys. I know alot of you stand by Windows and that's why this makes a free market what it is. but I've come to realize that to me, Linux runs VERY cool, uses 1KB clusters(inodes), and maybe gets around to 10-20% fragmentation from the way i understand it.

But I'm going to continue to advocate Linux as it gives you guys BACK your PC's. I heard a few years ago that some firms approached the open source groups wanting to put DRM features into Linux. Last I heard that wasn't going to happen. But I see MS Windows becoming a VERY closed and controlled OS with DRM and the like. but history shows us time and again that none stays at the top forever and it is my opinion(stresses this) with Vista's release, it won't be adopted as quickly or as openly as MS thinks. Plus i think alot of folks will look else where for an alternative OS

ok, my final day of work before Christmas so, Merry Christmas guys and we will be seeing you all around. remember the reason for the season.

I hope that rocky will respond to my PM about opening a forum here for Linux.

From Papa6 and his family

From pat's graphics 1997-2001

Your thinking old NTFS (Back in the nt days.)

Here is a direct quote from a linux fansite.

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?...amp;tbovrmode=1

Windows Server 2003 delivered significantly better File server throughput compared to Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 on the configurations we tested.

"Windows Server 2003 delivered between 66 and 95 percent better File server throughput in our tests on an HP DL760 server using up to eight processors compared to Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1.

"Windows Server 2003 delivered 100 percent better File server throughput in our tests on an HP DL380 server using two processors compared to Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1.

"Windows Server 2003 delivered 86 percent better File server throughput in our tests on an HP DL380 server using two processors compared to Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional..."

also you are VERY wrong on the clusters size. I have had this discussion before with your source. YOU are stating the fat cluster sizes and old WINT NT 3.51 sizes and not Current NTFS.

For xp read this

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314878

4K is the largest cluster size XP will use

512 MB or less 512 bytes 1

513 MB - 1,024 MB (1 GB) 1,024 bytes (1 KB) 2

1,025 MB - 2,048 MB (2 GB) 2,048 bytes (2 KB) 4

2,049 MB and larger 4,096 bytes (4 KB) 8

Even Windows 2000 had a maximum cluster size of 4k

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365/EN-US/

Also note you can force it to less then 4kb with NTFS ... even 1... but you can't do compression if you do.

As for linux, i never really cared about the size but to cure my curiosity link me as i could not find the info you stated anywhere.

[Sup]

Serious Sam was an opengl windows game if anyone wants an example.

So was Doom3.

As was quake3, and everything else on the q3 engine. That means Call of duty, Jedi Knight2/academy, Return to castle wolfenstien, and Soldier of fortune 2, just to name a few big titles.