Well I'll still continue from this end to get it working, I submitted the proper bug reports, now all we have to do is wait on the WINE Development team.
See, the whole problem I see about BYOND is, when Dan first programmed it, it was meant for MUDs (while it can do RPGs and Action games, that's not what it was designed for), I doubt Dan's original code ever intended to cater to this kind of community, it's beginning to outgrow it's original specifications, which is really limiting us on what we can do. Every time someone requests an actual useful feature, you guys can never implement it.
Flame Sage wrote:
See, the whole problem I see about BYOND is, when Dan first programmed it, it was meant for MUDs (while it can do RPGs and Action games, that's not what it was designed for), I doubt Dan's original code ever intended to cater to this kind of community, it's beginning to outgrow it's original specifications, which is really limiting us on what we can do. Every time someone requests an actual useful feature, you guys can never implement it. You really need to stop posting about BYOND, its history, and its future, because you don't know a damn thing. | |
Tom wrote:
Flame Sage wrote:I'm just saying, thats my take on it. I'm not trying to offend you or BYOND, I think it's an awesome system, I want it to succeed just as much as the next guy, otherwise I wouldn't be spending my time trying to get it working with wine and winelibs. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
I'm just saying, thats my take on it. OK, for future reference: 1) Although BYOND/Dung was originally Dan's vision, and ultimately he's the guy behind it all, I too put a hell of a lot of work into designing and programming a good part of it and it's pretty insulting to discredit that part of the "original" BYOND. 2) Insinuating that we never implement "actual useful features" is even more insulting, considering that's all we've been doing for you guys for the past two years. So like I said, please refrain from commenting on BYOND's history or direction when you obviously are pretty naive about it. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
Tom wrote: WTF? Apparently thousands of people missed that memo... BYOND obviously has become a very powerful tool to create such games. | |
Tom wrote:
2) Insinuating that we never implement "actual useful features" is even more insulting, considering that's all we've been doing for you guys for the past two years. That's a pretty naive thought there, Tom. Seriously, who would want a customizable interface for their game, proper sound controls or the ability to make your own DLL plugins? You guys should take your head out of the clouds get back to working on what really matters. BYOND 3.0 with a native Linux/Mac client that only a handful of members from a community of thousands will use! | |
There should be free will to talk about the history of BYOND and if we, however, are naive about it why don't you try enlightening us instead of getting upset. I haven't really heard the full story of BYOND myself so it wouuld kinda be nice to know also ;).
| |
Tekken wrote:
I haven't really heard the full story of BYOND myself so it wouuld kinda be nice to know also ;). An (old) interview with Dan and Tom - http://www.byond.com/members/ DreamMakers?command=view_post&post=34756 A history of added features. - http://www.byond.com/docs/notes/ A little history by Tom - [link] Waaayback - http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.byond.com | |
From my experience with WINE, I found that if you have a low end machine(which a lot more people have than you think), it's very unpleasant to run BYOND games.
Everything worked exactly how WINE is working with BYOND right now, however it was all massively delayed. It's like running that favorite first person shooter of yours, only at half the frames per second. WINE would probably be the easiest route, but alas... us with low end specs wouldn't benefit from it at all. However, anything right now would benefit the Linux community as a means to use BYOND with the operating system. There was something else I was planning on saying about the subject, but I started writing this about an hour ago and got sidetracked with something else. I'll post it when I remember it. | |
Maybe there's a couple of ways to interpret Flame Sages post, but when I read it it looked like Dan programmed BYOND and Tom was... I don't know, PR guy. Also, no "actual useful features" were ever implemented into BYOND.
Feel free to talk about most subjects BYOND on these forums, but if you're wrong someone may correct you, and if you're insulting someone may be upset. I personally think this thread got very insulting, and even being a non-confrontational person I'm surprised that this is the only backlash. | |
YMIHere wrote:
Maybe there's a couple of ways to interpret Flame Sages post, but when I read it it looked like Dan programmed BYOND and Tom was... I don't know, PR guy. Also, no "actual useful features" were ever implemented into BYOND.That isn't how I meant to come across, and if it sounded like that, sorry Tom. There have been some threads that features cannot be implimented due to limitations in BYOND, yes. I realize both Dan and Tom programed it, but Dan did program most of the internals. I really don't care much about a Linux client now, because it's running decent enough in WINE, and we can simply make a Linux version with winelibs. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
digitalmouse wrote: i didn't write that, and I didn't say anything about 'Tom and Co' doing any specific work in that direction. *my* point was that if everyone involved worked together, then getting BYOND to work under Wine should happen faster than a dedicated *nix port of BYOND. | |
Flame Sage wrote:
...I completely agree with your digitalmouse. that's nice! i agree with my digitalmouse too! *squeak* | |
I'm sorry if I came across arrogant, I realize you put so much time and energy into BYOND to make it what it is today. I completely agree that at this stage, it wouldn't be efficient, or even wise to "reprogram" BYOND to make it cross-platform. It would be much better use of time to get it working with WINE. I now see that. I'm sorry for the small flame-war that started here, and hope you can accept my apology :(
| |
Flick wrote:
A little history by Tom - [link] What the hell? Did anyone notice how that post was made in 2000, yet the join date of the original poster says 2007? | |
Well, that's sort of the point of the memberships. They are basically a donation to keep this project going, in return for a few little perks (that we're working on improving). Perhaps we should advertise that fact more.
Just to be clear, I have nothing against the linux or the linux community, and would prefer to use linux all the time if I could (I have it installed on three of my four machines). Linux users are, unfortunately, a small percentage of the market, though, so we have to consider that when trying to divide our limited time and resources.
That said, I think that a working WINE version is the way to go, since porting the UI involved in 4.0 would be a lot of work and difficult to maintain (even if someone else did it!) I have explored WINE a little bit but unfortunately ran into some configuration issues even on programs that were supposed to work with it. Once 421 is stable here, I'll try to give it another go seeing as there is some demand.