Yeah I should have clarified that my dislike of procedural generation does not extend to strategy games like Civ. And it definitely makes sense in survival games and roguelikes, and anything else where permadeath is a thing. You can probably think of other examples as well.

But enough of that. The game looks like it might be fun despite the generated world.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Once again, I'm very interested until I see the words "procedurally generated". I know replayability is important to many gamers, but I'd rather just thoroughly explore and enjoy a well-designed game world once and move on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: GuestI think it was a change that can potentially impact everyone, made without due consideration, all because a youtuber wanted more page views. If distros are going to start doing such things then it can't be a good road to go down, no matter what change is made.

And yes, the more I think on it, the worse the change is. As I wrote - anyone forcing things through by putting in a configuration override (which is almost certainly going to start to be recommended on random internet comments) now won't be warned of potential breakage.

Note that I'm not saying nothing should have been done, I'm instead saying that (in my view) the change wasn't an improvement and doesn't fix anything.

But no warnings were removed. The wishy-washy "You are about to do something potentially harmful." was changed into "Removing essential system-critical packages is not permitted. This might break the system." and the silly prompt was removed in favour of a flag. You'll still see the list of relevant packages and unmet dependencies.

You can easily check the relevant changes in their Gitlab [External Link]. You're arguing against a strawman.

Am I though? Tell me you think internet comments aren't going to start recommending that flag be applied. So how does changing apt help here?

Are you really trying to tell me that I shouldn't be in favour of better changes, things that might actually improve the situation?

You said "anyone forcing things through [...] now won't be warned of potential breakage." which is clearly a misunderstanding on your part. You invented a problem and argued against it. That's a strawman.

And of course I'm not telling you what you should do or think. Personally I think this change does improve the situation, though admittedly not by much. Then again, there's not much of a problem to fix.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: NociferWell, this change is actually all about completely preventing the package manager from uninstalling essential packages when told to do so, either explicitly or implicitly. What produced the error Linus faced was trying to install a misconfigured package combined with his/the system's failure to first update the package listings before he tried to install it; it's just that this misconfigured package ended up firing apt's "remove essential package" routine and from thereon there was nothing to prevent apt from doing exactly as ordered, beyond that one silly "fail-safe" (which shouldn't ever have been implemented in the first place).

I am aware of the scenario. Apt still retains the ability to uninstall essential packages and that counts as having the ability to explicitly order such a removal for me. The only difference is that now the fail-safe mechanism is stronger and will better dissuade users who don't actually know what they are doing.

I still disagree that the apt change was useful. The KDE Discover change, absolutely, but for apt people are still just going to follow something they found online to force modifications without fully understanding it. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and doesn't actually fix anything in my view.

So is your only argument against the tiny apt change that it happened too fast? You say it doesn't fix anything, but does it break anything either? Do you actually think the UX is worse now, instead of better?

People making a mountain out of a molehill, as is tradition.

I think it was a change that can potentially impact everyone, made without due consideration, all because a youtuber wanted more page views. If distros are going to start doing such things then it can't be a good road to go down, no matter what change is made.

And yes, the more I think on it, the worse the change is. As I wrote - anyone forcing things through by putting in a configuration override (which is almost certainly going to start to be recommended on random internet comments) now won't be warned of potential breakage.

Note that I'm not saying nothing should have been done, I'm instead saying that (in my view) the change wasn't an improvement and doesn't fix anything.

But no warnings were removed. The wishy-washy "You are about to do something potentially harmful." was changed into "Removing essential system-critical packages is not permitted. This might break the system." and the silly prompt was removed in favour of a flag. You'll still see the list of relevant packages and unmet dependencies.

You can easily check the relevant changes in their Gitlab [External Link]. You're arguing against a strawman.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: NociferWell, this change is actually all about completely preventing the package manager from uninstalling essential packages when told to do so, either explicitly or implicitly. What produced the error Linus faced was trying to install a misconfigured package combined with his/the system's failure to first update the package listings before he tried to install it; it's just that this misconfigured package ended up firing apt's "remove essential package" routine and from thereon there was nothing to prevent apt from doing exactly as ordered, beyond that one silly "fail-safe" (which shouldn't ever have been implemented in the first place).

I am aware of the scenario. Apt still retains the ability to uninstall essential packages and that counts as having the ability to explicitly order such a removal for me. The only difference is that now the fail-safe mechanism is stronger and will better dissuade users who don't actually know what they are doing.

I still disagree that the apt change was useful. The KDE Discover change, absolutely, but for apt people are still just going to follow something they found online to force modifications without fully understanding it. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and doesn't actually fix anything in my view.

So is your only argument against the tiny apt change that it happened too fast? You say it doesn't fix anything, but does it break anything either? Do you actually think the UX is worse now, instead of better?

People making a mountain out of a molehill, as is tradition.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI think the whole thing has been a knee-jerk reaction, and that alone I'm not a fan of. There's not been enough thought on what things should be like, or if much of this is even an improvement, but at least for KDE they seem to have considered it a bit more.

I'd say it's pretty much the opposite. That small change to apt looks reasonable, and the response has mostly been a veritable knee-jerky conga line of people who haven't even bothered finding out what has actually been done. Hot takes galore. I bet most of them didn't even know about the warning before this.

In the end, our ability to break our systems hasn't been meaningfully impaired, and no (useful) learning opportunities have been taken away. Apt is supposed to be a nice and usable package manager on top of lower level stuff like dpkg. It's actually a good thing if it doesn't make it too easy to do something stupid. I know the previous warning should have been enough, but in the end it turned out to be a bit useless.

This whole discussion has been a giant waste of time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: tuubiI don't know how they keep doing this. I've backed all three Chaosmonger games thus far, and I don't even like Kickstarter.

Quoting: Guest

Their plan is to have a same-day launch for Linux, macOS and Windows

I feel like I've heard that one before...

I wouldn't let Nicola hear the end of it if he bailed on Linux after all the hours I've spent beta-testing his previous games. :P

Fair in this case, I've been burned enough that I'll believe it when I see it/throw money when it exists. Sadly Linux Kickstarter/preorder promises are dead to me.

Understandable. I've only backed like five projects, and each time I made peace with the fact that I might not get anything for my money. And I've never seen the point of pre-ordering a game. In fact, I rarely buy a game until it has been out for a good while.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't know how they keep doing this. I've backed all three Chaosmonger games thus far, and I don't even like Kickstarter.

Quoting: Guest

Their plan is to have a same-day launch for Linux, macOS and Windows

I feel like I've heard that one before...

I wouldn't let Nicola hear the end of it if he bailed on Linux after all the hours I've spent beta-testing his previous games. :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The trailer seems a bit... spoilery?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy this, but I wonder how awkward and fiddly the throwing mechanic gets.

Quoting: MohandevirLooks like CGA to me. :grin:

I see how the pinks and cyans in the palette might remind you of it, but it really doesn't look at all like CGA otherwise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments