Quoting: DerpFoxI think that is because Mumble have the same big problem that Gimp have. Compared to any of there Closed Source counter parts they have a very very very very slow development pace. And the gap between the two are getting bigger each year that pass.

Is that actually true of Gimp? There's a gap and there's always been a gap, but it's unclear to me that it's widening.
What I've noticed about closed vs open development is that closed development tends to be a series of sprints where open development is a bit closer to a marathon (albeit definitely with fast and slow phases). With closed, there tends to be a big effort to make a deadline, and then some bugfixes, and then nothing much for a while until they start planning the next release, and then another big effort. With open, it's more like an ongoing slower effort punctuated by rushes of enthusiasm or arrivals of big new revitalizing individuals or groups. People sometimes look at the average pace of open and compare with the sprint phase of closed, but that's misleading.
Total speed depends on market share either way--closed because big market share means big funding, open because big market share tends to be reflected in widespread interest and so more contributors. But it's clear that open is capable of matching or nearly matching the speed of closed based on a much smaller market share. Contrariwise, in areas where open gains a market share lead, closed tends to gradually shrivel up and die; new competitors to dominant open source software tend to themselves be open. So, per unit usage share, I think it could be argued that over time open source development is probably faster, even if closed development is faster in the sprints.
Gimp of course has a much smaller share than certain closed competitors, so it suffers. But even so, I'm not clear that the gap between is widening.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoBorderlands: Game of the Year Edition Enhanced worked "out of the box" for me, but I had to do some things before ran the game for the first time:

---snip---

It's a good thing you put scary quotes around your out of the box, since the instructions you gave could fill an entire article. ;)

Just drop the "out of the box" if it doesn't actually work out of the box.

Of course technically, nothing works out of the box any more because all we get is a download--ain't no boxes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So a goblin staggering into a tree knocks it over? I had no idea trees were so delicate! :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WorMzy

Quoting: Liamthe entire kit will go for £919

Yeah, no thanks. I still remain unconvinced that this VR hype is anything more than a passing fad, I'm certainly not willing to splash that sort of cash on dedicated hardware to play VR games.

Considering how long people have been fascinated with the stuff I don't think you can call it a passing fad. It's been decades now.
But I do have this feeling that eventually, when they finally get it working just how they like it, and the price comes down, and there are no more excuses . . . it will turn out to be not particularly great for most purposes. A solid and quite cool niche, but a niche nevertheless, not a takeover.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just a stab in the dark, but would this help if they ever decided to support Cairo?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I can see where Stardock might get into Stadia . . . oddly, not so much with respect to this particular game. But a lot of their stuff is strategy, where latency issues are not a big deal and so they wouldn't have the worries some companies would about lag.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KandarihuIf all of this "industry interest in Linux" is just for the sake of games-as-a-service systems like Stadia, then they've been using us all along. I have been supporting Linux gaming for the sake of increasing freedom for the consumer, not for pushing some unaccountable streaming system where the publisher has absolute control over every individual instance of the game. If we want to see gaming on our own desktops, we need to amend our cries.
We want to play games on OUR Linux desktops, not THEIR servers!

Unless a couple of the biggest desktop manufacturers decide out of charitable impulses to do a big push where they sell all their models with Linux on board for cheaper and market the hell out of this fact, people using us is the best we're going to get. I'm not going to complain as long as there's some decent prospect of us using them back.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A grizzly murder? Wait, I thought the victim was some kind of salamander.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NezchanHe's also on Mastodon [External Link], if you prefer your social media to be open source.

I prefer my social media to be nonexistent, unless you count things like GoL as social media. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Colombo

Right now on earth, with a huge population and an agricultural system that relies on artificial fertilizer, our big limit is arable land, so you want to maximize food value per unit of land and we get lots of very sound arguments about reducing meat.

You are wrong here. We got plenty of arable land. We are often building cities and factories on prime soil.

If there's a city on it, we don't "have" it for agricultural use. And just because we're doing dumb things with our land doesn't mean we have a major surplus. You can tell there's a lot of pressure on the available land because so much marginal land has been brought into cultivation and so much land that probably shouldn't be cleared for agriculture is constantly being cleared. Sure, part of the reason is there's a lot of inefficiencies, but there are always a lot of inefficiencies; saying "we would have enough X if we were 100% efficient in its use" is very different from saying "We have enough X".

Quoting: ColomboProblem with the arable land that we currently have is its management, erosion and the fact that some agricultural methods are not sustainable, both with respect to nutrients in soil and water management.

Those are certainly big problems, I have no argument there, but not the only ones.

Quoting: ColomboSo I disagree about reducing meat consumption being problem. There are huge efficiency problems that needs to be solved soon, like transporting food over vast distances or other stuff. Meat is marginal problem. And even then, the rotation of produce works on large scale as well, not just only on small farms in past. What do you think happens with low quality corn or grain that is unsuitable for human consumption? You could throw it away, or you could sell it with a discount to animal farms.

Again, I have no argument with a lot of that stuff--all those problems you're talking about, I'm totally on board with you.
But apparently one third of all croplands worldwide are dedicated to livestock feed production (and in the US, it's actually two thirds), so I wouldn't say that was marginal. Worldwide a lot of livestock graze on land that couldn't be used for farming crops anyway, so there's no point getting rid of that, but the first-world intensive feedlot operations are pretty unsustainable stuff--and they don't use the kind of leftovers you're talking about, they use purpose-grown feed. The kind of leftovers you're talking about mostly do get thrown away, which is another problem for sure.

View this comment - View article - View full comments