Honestly, even in the corporate world, there are businesses that still utilize Windows XP or Windows 98 because of a critical application that absolutely will not run in modern operating systems.

There is no such thing as a critical software application that could not be rewritten, emulated or ported. Hell, even COBOL is somehow finally on its way out.
Ending life support for old environments is exactly what forces those crusted structures to renew themselves.

Otherwise, we'll see more people with your stance of "we'll deal with it later" - and that "later" never happens, and everyone else suffers from having to carry decades-old legacy crap still around.
I've "debugged" enough ancient corporate systems to know that the problem is never "this cannot be renewed" but always "we don't want to deal with this right now, why would we, it runs doesn't it".

Ahem. Library person here. Sure, books disappear, but just disappearing because "nobody ever read them" is not "normal". So for instance, in my region all the academic libraries have a kind of catalogue-sharing thing called "last copy" to make sure that when we weed books that aren't used, we don't all accidentally dump the same one. Somebody will have one last copy of that weird old book.

And how many books were lost before your region adopted such a system? How many books are outside of your system?
No matter how effectively you try and conserve something, things get lost.
And yes, even though people try to lie to themselves regarding the temporary nature of, well, everything, things (especially of little renown) disappearing IS normal.

Doesn't mean you can't try to preserve things, but it has to happen within reason.
Maintaining 32bit hasn't been reasonable anymore since its nearly flawless emulation is a thing.
The amount of work to replace the very few 32bit dependencies still used by Valve wouldn't be that much, IIRC everything has a replacement already, it just has to be implemented and tested.
However, Valve does everything at Valve speed, which I'm sure I don't need explain further ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i recomend this presentation for anyone thinking legacy dont matter, but i dont think its your case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65crLKNQR0E [External Link]

It's not that legacy doesn't matter.
It's that we do no longer really need legacy itself to keep other legacy alive.

Some things will no longer work, no doubt.
But I'd argue that those things were no longer important to people or someone would've made an effort to modernize or preseve them - just as people did with Flash, which can still be enjoyed without having to have Flash installed (with a bit of effort).

Who knows how many books we lost because nobody ever read them. It happens, it's normal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The sooner this happens, the better.

People have to start moving on, and developers have to start preparing for allowing people to move on. We can't keep grandpa 32bit alive forever.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Someone needs therapy.

Probably those kids.
They've seen things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I definitely had a few issues last year with Wayland, but they were very minor and in one case I had to fall back to use an application (which, of course, was an old application that likely will never make the jump to Wayland).

For the most part, the experience was better - and those cases where Wayland did not work, I was thankfully able to fall back.
Complete removal of X11 just isn't an option IMO. But replacement as default very much is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's good for the medium to have a wide variety of different kinds of games.

It's never good for single player games when their devs start focusing on MP shenanigans, usually failing and burning in the process.
Make single player games.
Make multiplayer games.
Make either with the possibility of being played like the other.
But don't add weird components of one into the other, know your game's identity and stick to it.

Gaming has been severely hurt by multiplayer trend-chasing devs and publishers, and Mr. sonic here is completely correct about that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

They take place in the same universe.

Not only that (like Alan Wake does, as well), but literally the same agency, FBC. Guess what the C stands for ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, TheSHEEP's position seems to be:
1. The United States is turning into a vicious dictatorship/oligarchy
(That seems pretty likely, not gonna argue.)
2. The vicious oligarchs hate unions
(Definitely true.)

3. Therefore, unions are bad.
(What the actual fuck?)

That's definitely the weirdest anti-union argument I've ever seen.

Not gonna lie, for someone with "Library" in the name, your reading comprehension is surprisingly lacking.
You got 1. and 2. right.
Maybe, with a good night of sleep and without trying to follow the path of Twitter argumentation (railing against an argument that was never made just because you want to be fighting bad guys), you'll actually get the rest of it, too, at one point...

Or keep railing, I don't know, I'm not your mom.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's great to see the class divide here in the comments. [...] class traitor [...] Fuck xenophobia and bigotry! Solidarity with all of the immigrants! Workers of the world, unite!

You seem like a very reasonable, sane and balanced individual and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours.

I don't think it's a valid anti-union argument to say low levels of unionization will not create all the virtuous effects you get from high levels of unionization.

It is because high levels of unionization are unachievable in a country like the US where the law can A) change at a whim and B) is directly broken and ignored by its own government.
The US have left the sphere of countries with a functioning and reliable government/legal system and for the next decades will most likely be on the whim of whatever the current man in the high castle wants.
Honestly, who is to say such attempts will not just be forcefully disbanded? Does that sound illegal to you? Probably. But do you think that is more or less likely to happen than disbanding eg a ministry of education, firing its own workforce while outright ignoring courts ordering it to stop?
If you control the executive, neither judicative nor legislative can really stop you. It's an absurd place right now, but that's just how it is and the majority of people voted for it :huh: (well, at least of those who did go to vote to begin with lol)

And in that situation, low levels of unionization will only lead to the people within those small unions painting targets on their own backs as the only ones who still have reliable political power are those with the money - and they are unlikely to be very supportive of unionization.

Argumenting with theoretically ideal outcomes of unionization in a state of the world/country where such an outcome is unattainable just doesn't make sense to me.
Nor does argumenting with European standards where Europeans have no say whatsoever and are in fact heavily unwelcome (remember: we live in a post-EU-US-friendship world now).

Protecting jobs for the sole sake of protecting jobs is not reasonable.
It only makes sense in the context of an otherwise sustainable industry. And the companies we are talking about here, the ones that let go thousands of their workforce following failure upon failure upon failure, well they are hardly sustainable, are they?
Of course the people getting fired are largely blameless in any of this. But what do you want them to do? Keep people around just because? Ignore the losses they are making? What's the big idea here to justify keeping people around that never should've been hired to such an extent (during Covid) to begin with?

Money doesn't grow on trees.
Obviously, a bigger chunk (like, MUCH bigger) should be taken from overpaid execs and many of THOSE should be let go instead, and I do believe that could definitely save a few jobs.
But A) nowhere near all of them and B) unions do not have the power to enforce that so that's very besides the point I'm afraid.

tl;dr: The problem is real, but I don't see how unions can be the solution. Governments could be, but we are talking about the US here.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Even though I am extremely sceptical of unions and have to agree with Mountain Man here on most points, I did always find it curious how the games industry never really had one, especially considering all the big corporations it houses by now and how rather, uhm... "progressive", a large portion of the workforce is.

Well, maybe something good will come from it.

Or maybe this will only serve as an excuse for execs to increase prices for games without any of that additional money landing in devs' pockets.

Or something in between.

Well, if these immigrants from India are in the union, they have to get paid the same, so the incentive to import them disappears and the negative impacts of their presence in dragging down wages goes away. So unions don't really have to talk about that situation because the presence of unions kind of automatically eliminates it as a problem.

You somehow assume cheap labor automatically lands in a union. It doesn't unless some law required it to - and I think we can all agree such a law would never pass, especially not in the US.

So the real choice for the company becomes "expensive unionized workforce" vs "cheap labor".
The only real question is if enough cheap labor is available to companies to avoid having to go for unionized workers.
Oddly enough, the US current stance of "US first (and only)" might actually play somewhat into unions' hands.

But overall, my expectation is that this will go well for the higher educated, difficult-to-replace workers and really, really poorly for everyone lower on the ladder.

View this comment - View article - View full comments