Some of those that work forces…

When I’m researching something and a reddit link pops up in search results, I’ll check it. But I have abandoned my account and won’t be logging back in. Aside from that, I try to be as hardcore as possible.

I think the problem with packaging isn’t so much that there aren’t good options. Some people don’t like Flatpak. Some people don’t like snaps. Maybe AppImage would be a good option. But these are all choices that can potentially fragment the target demographic even further, which reduces the value returned for the time invested in supporting it. Just my opinion, certainly not an expert.

Wine is a great solution for windows-only things. The great thing about gaming, though, is that many of them are using languages like C++ which have full support on Linux systems natively. If you then have your graphics running through Vulkan, that also works across platforms. So, in my opinion, Wine shouldn’t be something we continue to need for gaming. Not saying Wine won’t be used or won’t continue to be useful for gaming, just that it doesn’t have to be the primary path to support Linux.

Are Linux ports of games so hard to do? Genuine question. I am not a games dev.

My personal opinion is that Windows is an easier target because all Windows machines are consistent in their underlying interface with the user’s hardware. Same idea with MacOS. You know what display manager and graphics library to target, and what packaging format to target.

Then, there’s Linux, which can be one of any number of distributions with varying software stacks, packaging formats, etc. It’s not that Linux gaming is radically difficult to support, it’s just much less standardized. This makes it a lot more work for a much smaller demographic. The Vulkan graphics API has made some of the software issues much less of a problem, but you still have to contend with things like different display managers and stuff like packaging differences between distributions.

They look the same!

It’s pretty clear to me that the original theme was that capitalism can and will ignore your basic needs. In the US capitalism is the way our economy works and the way people provide for their basic needs. Yet, at the same time, we claim to represent freedom. The original point, I think, is the juxtaposition of freedom and capitalism. We have the illusion of freedom. Our true freedom is really just a choice to participate in the machine, to be a criminal, or to die.

I see YouTube videos linked, and I remember being on this site before YouTube existed. I don’t think it has changed all that much, though.

I think you might be thinking of Cruise?

https://gizmodo.com/cruise-robotaxi-human-assistance-kyle-vogt-1850997279

I think this is true, but I also grew up without Internet or social media so maybe things were more regional as opposed to this larger shared culture those things have enabled. So that may be part of it?

Maybe the better thing to concentrate on is why you felt like that comment was necessary. You didn’t seem to have a goal behind it, other than drawing more attention. It’s really not relevant to the discussion or the post. So why post it? It felt like your intention was just to talk shit about a random person, and maybe you should think about that.

Wow, I don’t see many Ray Stevens references. My brothers and I really enjoyed “the streak” growing up.

I appreciated your rant. I don’t really know what I’m talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.

What you’re sort of describing sounds like a boycott of our capitalist system. In theory, if we all could be self-sustainable and didn’t need to participate in the current system just to survive, then I think it would collapse. How could it not? The billionaires are billionaires because we give up our time and labor for currency which we then reinvest in a system which transfers most of that currency to a select few at the top. If we all stopped participating where would the billionaires get their billions, and what would they even spend it on, if not our labor or products produced by our labor?

I can only speak for where I live but this kind of organizational boycott of the system isn’t really likely to happen anytime soon. It’s too difficult to organize that number of people into non-participation especially when there are not really any alternatives. It’s not even easy to get people to give up listening to a certain artist’s music if they’ve done a terrible thing. People are living shitty or difficult lives and need their creature comforts just to mentally get by. I don’t blame them. There would have to be a viable, functioning alternative already in place which could absorb the needs of a massive number of people. It would take cooperation and compassion, and I guess I just don’t see that in the cards.

Even if we did, how long would it last until the power hungry manipulated their way into building another version of the same system?

This would be awesome, but I just don’t see it happening this way. They have to work with the copyright holders who set those kinds of terms and who have the majority of the leverage in negotiating those terms. Unfortunately, I don’t see any reason this kind of deal would be made.

The business model is to force consumers to purchase and repurchase the same content over and over. Changing only the format, or distribution method, or platform of consumption. This kind of deal would undercut that business model.

What have you explained? That RCS is not stewarded by the IETF? That’s not the crux of the issue. My original claim was that RCS was more open than iMessage and that RCS is not owned or controlled by Google. Tell me where I’m wrong, and back it up with good sources. Or not. Whatever you’re feeling like.

https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RCC.07-v11.0.pdf

The specification exists. It’s not free as in beer. This is really beside the point. Google implemented an RCS messaging client. Your cellular carriers implement the RCS endpoints the clients use.

No. I’m sorry. You can’t just say it and make it true. Please show me how Google owns RCS or prevents other developers from implementing it within their own apps.

Google doesn’t own the RCS protocol. This is like saying they own the SMTP protocol because they provide Gmail. They are just one company that has implemented the protocol in their default text message app. They built end-to-end encryption into their implementation, which is currently closed source. I’m guessing this is what you’re referring to.

Anyone can implement RCS. It may cost you some money and some time, but it is possible. That’s the difference I was originally trying to highlight.

Are you sure about that?

In early 2020, it was estimated that RCS was available from 88 operators in 59 countries with approximately 390 million users per month.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

but doesn’t play nice with apple.

This isn’t technically wrong, but to be clear, iMessage is closed source. No one can play nice with Apple, in that regard.

RCS on the other hand is a more open standard that anyone is free to implement and use. It just doesn’t come with end-to-end encryption as a part of the standard.