• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle




  • “in this essay” The article you’ve written is not an essay. It is at its top, an opinion article

    And as Vodulas points out, they generally serve as a game mechanic. Either you are recreating set guns from history or it’s lower level gun meant to be a bit crappier.

    What even is this articles point? Iron sights are crappy? Yeah, we know, that’s why that was improved upon and they barely exist on IRL guns today



  • “in this essay” The article you’ve written is not an essay. It is at its top, an opinion article

    And as Vodulas points out, they generally serve as a game mechanic. Either you are recreating set guns from history or it’s lower level gun meant to be a bit crappier.

    What even is this articles point? Iron sights are crappy? Yeah, we know, that’s why that was improved upon and they barely exist on IRL guns today





  • Echoing [email protected]. “Degenerates”? You mean a games series that pushed the boundaries when it was new, truly pushed what open world meant, and that it could be done with large, crowded cities technically as well. Sure if you play them nowadays the might not brush any strokes and feel flat but the GTA series has been defining a game for generations where “everybody” in that generation had played and been fond of. 1-2-3, San Andreas, and vice city and the ilks. There wasnt really any competitors to that when they were released.

    I’m going to guess you are right that it won’t be too innovative. Story wise they have never been innovative, nor pretended to be. They have pushed the boundaries of open world in both engineering and social commentary/satire.

    But calling several generations of gamers who grew up with this “degenerates”. Hard to take you seriously and your attitude can eff right off



  • But I never used a royal “We”, in fact “we” was never used in my text at all. I used us, to refer to all the other comments that you can note does not agree with your assessment of open source.

    Instead of you arguing my “cheap rhetorical skills”, how about you actually answer more than, estimated, a fifth of my statements? How about you stop with your own victimization of " what really hurts me". Because that, in essence, is actually cheap rhetorics.

    I fully agree that when companies do this, that it is disgusting. But you have to take a step back and look at the actual effect. This is not by any means new, it happened likely before I was even conceived.

    What would you say your point is. To shame grayjoy or make a point that this is a threat to open source? Both? Neither?


  • Your argument there also falls flat because you are making the argument “i made an an irrelevant argument to prove this other point”. You are by your own points arguing that this is bigger than grayjoy and using Windows illegally leaked source code as a reference to that argument? I dont really care about what grayjoy does at this point, it will prove itself over time , but you furthering some idea of of OMG through your sensationalist headline and this point that what grayjoy is doing is a threat to open source code, OSI, and the free software movement is just unnecessary fear. I’m past 40 and let me tell you. Chill. The average user does not care about OSS, the engineer does. The real threat comes when we have nowhere to distribute or host the code, or even can write code that isnt touched by rules and regulations. What a singular entity choose to brand their code as? Has happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before. And all of those instances have garnered no business based on it. The actual threat is Oracle and the likes, not whatever half measure grayjoy is so IMO you skip the sensationalist headlines. And chill. You can judge them if you want but this isn’t a threat to open source in whatever form




  • If the people selling are passing someone else’s work as their own, that’s stealing. Otherwise, it’s just Free Software working as intended.

    Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and “working as intented”?

    If someone is writing software but wants to prevent redistribution, then go ahead and make a license that forbids it. But then don’t get to call it “Open Source” or anything like that.

    There are so many licenses for this model already, I’m inclined to believe that you havent actually published any OSS yourself and your attitude in these threads are mildly said, off putting.

    I am a big fan of OSI and support their work, but you are treating them (based in what i can read in this thread) like some holy, all defining entity, of what is open source. They are not, and true open source, cannot, and should not, ever derive its power from a central agency setting rules and definitions. If that happens, that will be the end of open source.

    Please stop gatekeeping OSS, it hurts all of us

    Edit: some autocomplete stupid grammar



  • Its important to understand that:

    • JavaScript is typescript
    • Typescript is JavaScript with types

    When you are writing typescript, you are writing JavaScript but have additional syntax to help support type safety and structure. If you are creating a function that does x, it should very much be the same in JS and TS, just in TS it has extra syntax

    TS doesn't modify the way JS works, its one of the stated needs for the tooling.

    In TS, for example, I can denote an object as

    const x: Record = {}
    

    In JS it would be

    const x = {}
    

    It's still nothing but an object. TS doesn't change the functionality, it just adds typing and checks that you are using that object properly as static build step.