One detail I noticed from the trailer is it seemed like there was some kind of river travel.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dziadulewicz

Quoting: kaimanCanonical seems to be quite infected by the "not invented here" syndrome.

This has been proven a false claim so many times but still ppl try to use it against Ubuntu or whatever.

I think there is a real beef to be made about the way Canonical operates with respect to the open source ecosystem, although "not invented here" isn't exactly, or mostly, it. People reach for that because it's kind of close and there isn't really a term for what Canonical does.
The thing is that Canonical typically seems to control their open source projects very tightly, making it difficult for anyone else to get involved, contribute, have influence or in some cases even use the stuff they're making. There's nothing about them that's not technically open source, but if you want to add a feature that isn't part of Canonical's road map, you're gonna have to fork it, and I seem to recall they insist on contributors handing over copyright and stuff. So then nobody outside Canonical contributes and it makes the projects not as good and reduces mindshare.

And it tends to make people forget that the Canonical project was first (in cases where it was), because it didn't have a community so nobody noticed it much before they actually released it for general use or got into some kind of difficulty with whatever other project was doing the same stuff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kaimanHonestly, after having spent at least the last 10 years on Ubuntu, I'm actually contemplating switching to something else instead of upgrading to 24.04.1. And the main reason is Snap.

Can't resist a plug for Mint then. Like Ubuntu, but better, and doesn't use Snap. Unless you're a KDE person because Mint doesn't really do KDE.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe Soviet system is an odd sidebar

Of course, let us not confuse things here. Capitalism is an economic system whereas Communism is a political system. Communism is more realistically compared to Fascism, which is another political system. The primary difference is who owns the resources -- private interests (Fascism) or the State (Communism). Obviously, the goals of Capitalism are very compatible with those of Fascism.

All political systems are also in the end economic systems and vice versa. In some ways the defining characteristic of capitalism as opposed to other systems like say feudalism is not industrialism or even markets so much as the drive to separate power from responsibility (not that those other things aren't important, I'm just making an additional point). And that is a significant difference from Soviet Communism. That is, under capitalism, most power is exercised by "private" individuals, who have a great deal of control over the government but are not formally part of it and take no responsiblity for the results, and who directly control the lives of masses of people, but define their relationship with those people (employer/employee) as involving no responsiblities by the employer and no continuing ties with the employee. This avoidance of responsibility is rarely absolute, but you can see capitalists consistently trying to push it further--consider Uber.

By contrast, feudal relations between lords and people like men at arms or even peasants involved continuing ties and some responsibility--as a feudal lord those are your peasants, that is your land but it comes with those particular peasants and you have a duty to treat them in particular ways . . . often fairly crappy ways, and some lords broke the deal to greater or lesser extents, but still, fealty was a bi-directional relationship which gave the feudal lord responsibility along with their power. Employment does not, you pay them money and then they're supposed to piss off. And fascism, which is very explicitly connected with capitalism, definitely rocks the power without responsibility angle--note the way it tends to be explicitly opposed to responsibility-oriented restrictions like the rule of law. But the Soviet system was quite the opposite--the people in control took total responsibility, at least in theory. They had control and they were supposed to be turning the Soviet world into a paradise for the workers. That was the deal--they failed and to some extent reneged on the deal, but that was the job they claimed to be doing and they acknowledged, even embraced, the responsibility for doing it. And the people of the Soviet Union ultimately judged the Soviet bosses for their failure to live up to that responsibility . . . to this day, life in much of the post-Soviet Union involves a lot more poverty and precarity than it did under the Soviets, but nobody has much to say about it because those in charge take no responsibility for it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: TheRiddick

Quoting: ArtenSo when you are in woods collect mushrooms for your consumption

In the game you literally are converting the entire biome of the planet to a giant factory for production. Since when does profit exclusively mean currency?

But converting biome into giant factory is not exclusive for capitalism (just look what communists did). And also, there are capitalistic incentives not converting everything.

Converting biome of planet into factory is what humanity do. Regardles of system.

That last is not strictly true. If you look at the history of humanity, we've been doing that for under 300 years, out of at least tens of thousands.

That is just because we did not have technology which enables real factories. But if you look what humanity did before that, you see lot of farming which replaced original nature, with food "factory" known as fields... Changing world for producing goods is what humanity do. Now, we have more coplex stuff we want to make, so we make real factories. But change is proportional to population and technology level.

No. This is an oversimplification so vast as to do major violence to the truth. There are differences between different ways of organizing society; they create different motivations and incentives. Consider that through all of prehistory and recorded history, the world population grew very, very slowly, almost flat. We always had the potential to explode in population (well, briefly, until the crash), but never did.

The industrial revolution was not produced by technology, not really. There was a shift towards employment of people in "factories" in England before the steam engine; it was related to all the cheap raw materials they were getting from slave plantations in the New World. Adam Smith's famous example in Wealth of Nations about a pin factory involved no machinery, just division of labour. And it was only then, when you had (people in charge making profits) + (wage workers), that there was a reason to go looking for ways to pump up production. Before that, you had craft guilds, and they believed in keeping production relatively low and wages and craftsmanship standards high. Craft guilds would never have invented steam engines, and even if they did they wouldn't have used them to drive factories.

There have been a number of cases of independent invention of agriculture, and in some of them the hunter/gatherers involved abandoned the idea . . . probably because with agriculture, you have to bloody work for a living. Although at that, "gatherers" were never purely distinct from agriculture--they would plant useful things around the forest to make sure there were good things to grab later, but they left it at that, just tried for a mostly-natural environment that made things easier for people but didn't need upkeep. But the hunter/gatherer approach meant that if you screwed the place up, you'd be in trouble. There was no point in maximizing production, it would just mean you'd have to move somewhere else. Even most preindustrial agricultural societies tried to keep a balance; peasants still foraged, people needed firewood, pigs were often half-wild rooting in the woods.

The Soviet system is an odd sidebar--but the thing about it is it retained most of the basic characteristics of capitalism: You had employees working for a wage, someone else in charge, and an overarching goal of increasing production. That last bit was for somewhat different reasons, but it was the same goal, and not the only goal that human production has ever had.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: TheRiddick

Quoting: ArtenSo when you are in woods collect mushrooms for your consumption

In the game you literally are converting the entire biome of the planet to a giant factory for production. Since when does profit exclusively mean currency?

But converting biome into giant factory is not exclusive for capitalism (just look what communists did). And also, there are capitalistic incentives not converting everything.

Converting biome of planet into factory is what humanity do. Regardles of system.

That last is not strictly true. If you look at the history of humanity, we've been doing that for under 300 years, out of at least tens of thousands.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Phlebiac

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Asterix & Obelix XXL: Romastered

As kind of an Asterix fan, now I'm wondering what the heck this is.

All the games:
https://www.fanatical.com/en/franchises/asterix-obelix [External Link]

Despite the price shown there, they do have XXL2 for $1
https://www.fanatical.com/en/pick-and-mix/build-your-own-summer-bundle [External Link]

Hmmm . . . from the looks of it, they're kind of platformers with combat. Pity. I'm not into platformers, for one thing. But also, seems a bad fit for Asterix and Obelix. I mean, sure, they fight Romans, but fights in Asterix are comedy or denouement, not plot--there is no chance that they will actually lose a fight. Asterix would be better as a point-and-click, with maybe little skippable combat interludes where you can't really lose but you can do picturesque stuff like clobbering with menhirs, picking up legionaries to hit the others with and so forth.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: whizse

Quoting: Purple Library GuySo is "Thrustmaster", like, a dildonics company that just diversified into steering wheels, or what?

I actually tried using a steering wheel in that manner, but it was a bad idea, it was drivin' me nuts.

Oh my god. It took me a moment to appreciate the full horror of that reply. :grin::grin::grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tfk

Quoting: dziadulewicz

Quoting: tfk

Quoting: dziadulewicz

Quoting: nwildner

Quoting: dziadulewicz

If you install it via the new Flatpak package from Flathub, you still need to set up some udev rules from the GitHub.

Now this is not good again for normal users; why are these "udev rules" (whatever they are) not just included with the Flatpak?

The fact here is that Oversteer do have udev rules - https://github.com/berarma/oversteer/tree/master/data/udev [External Link] - but Flatpaks do not distribute/install udev rules and that is by design - https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/961 [External Link] .As @tfk pointed out on the previous comment, udev access requires operating system admin and there is no API/ABI for the user to manipulate it.

Flatpaks use a different philosophy and they don't install stuff around normal configuration directories like `/etc`.

Also, it is hard to track `udev` rules for every existing device and software on earth in a centralized fashion, and some of them fall into more generic rules like "USB Input device" and you have to make customization that would apply to your specific device. That's why there is no curated list of udev rules for every device that exists, and it is up to the Linux Distribution providers to create a packages with specific udev rules if you think those oversteer udev rules should be bundle on every distribution

Some distros provide a really good amount of Udev rulesets for different devices. Examples:

- retroarch-autoconfig-udev-git - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/retroarch-autoconfig-udev-git [External Link] - Rules to autoconfig usb and bluetooth gamepads for retroarch.
- nintendo-udev - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/nintendo-udev [External Link] - Rules for joycons (and to fix controller ownership for steam). I can confirm this also works for Datafrog and 8BitDo controllers as well.

Udev rules can also be pretty destructive as well because it also depends on systemd changes. I had a 100% CPU usage experience in the past with OpenRGB keyboard backlight rules but the developer fixed it really quickly - https://gitlab.com/CalcProgrammer1/OpenRGB/-/issues/4166 [External Link] - I think this is a good reason to not bundle "by default" millions of udev rules that target specific devices.

So it will forever be an issue and manual tinkering is required? What about Snap? Udev workaround in Snaps [External Link]

That's the thing. I don't see this as a problem. The only external entity I trust with this is my distribution packaging team.

The rest I want to inspect and define myself.

An example I can give is my Wooting keyboard. Wooting provides an appimage for their management tool. But the udev rules are listed on their website. They don't try to force these rules on my system via an installer.

And that is good because ultimately I'm the one who is responsible for my system.

What do you mean you don't see this as a problem? This is not about you and me (seasoned Linux users). This means difficulty to install software with required (basic) functionality. So at least Flatpak does not suit this application.

Normal people will NEVER tinker if the installation package does not suffice installing it.

I think we have a MAJOR problem here once more if this same issue touches many more apps. Steering Wheel Manager is the only truly recommended Linux app on what it does as alternative to Windows equivalents (where normal people click and install and start to use it with all functionality).

And yet, 'normal' people, who install Windows, open a command window during installation to avoid having to register a online Windows account.

No they don't. For one thing, normal people don't install Windows. The computer they get at Best Buy or off the internet has Windows preinstalled. If anything goes wrong with it, they get help.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So is "Thrustmaster", like, a dildonics company that just diversified into steering wheels, or what?

View this comment - View article - View full comments