Stephan Rose

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:26:05 -0400, Robert Martin wrote:

> Ever try running AUTOCAD in Ubuntu?

Windows software.

> Ever try to play 3d games in ubuntu?

Yes, *linux* games run great on *linux*, even in 3D. There actually
already is, or is coming out, a linux version of X3: Reunion. I am
contemplating on purchasing it...if the game wasn't so damn newbie
unfriendly. Have the windows version of it right now.

Linux game support would be much better if manufacturers would use OpenGL
more. It's relatively easy to write OpenGL software to run on Linux,
Windows and Mac.

> Not to mention ever try to get a 3d Video Card functioning Properly.
> Have a system with 2 TV tuners and run Snapstream?

My nVidia 8800 GTX works flawlessly. I don't use TV tuners so I can't
comment on that.

>
> Surf the Web? No Problem
> Email? No problem
> Open Office? Great App!!
> The 1st 3 are good reasons not to use Ubuntu.
> If Unbuntu could easily do the 3 thing I HAVE to HAVE!!!
> I might just switch.
> But the last time I tried it (3 weeks ago) it didn't.

And it likely never will. It's not impossible that WINE will evolve
enough allow you to run AutoCAD one day...but ultimately, AutoCAD is
windows software. Same goes for games, most games are Windows games.

Try running Mac software on your Windows machine sometime and report back
with your successes. =)

The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that terribly
hard to write cross-platform software.

>
> I will admit it is pretty good.
> I've been using Linux on my servers for the last 10 years.
> Linux servers are very STABLE!

So is my linux desktop. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

dennis@home

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...

> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that terribly
> hard to write cross-platform software.

But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written for
Linux.
It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the technical
problems.
While users think software should be free where is the incentive to spend
money writing software?

Alias

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
>> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
>> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that terribly
>> hard to write cross-platform software.
>
> But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written for
> Linux.
> It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the
> technical problems.
> While users think software should be free where is the incentive to
> spend money writing software?

Do you always hold stereotypical views of people? For example, I would
pay for games that run on Ubuntu, no problem.

The idea that Linux is only for geeks that have no money and would never
pay for software is soooo nineties and only reveals your prejudiced and
closed mind.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

Stephan Rose

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:40:42 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
>> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
>> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that terribly
>> hard to write cross-platform software.
>
> But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written for
> Linux.
> It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the technical
> problems.
> While users think software should be free where is the incentive to spend
> money writing software?

Far more people in the linux world are willing to pay for software than
you can imagine. Most people have no problem spending money on software if
said software is worth spending the money on.

Now true, I can see how there linux market is smaller than the windows
market (disregarding user base), because many of the 3rd party utilities
that are required to get windows usable just aren't needed under linux.

Example, Windows I need the following:

- Alochol 120% to mount DVD or CD images on a virtual drive

- DVD Region Free & CSS Free to turn my DVD player into a region-free
player.

- A decent defragmentation utility such as Diskeeper.

- Decent E-mail Software, Outlook express surely isn't it.

- Decent C/C++ Development environment. Under windows, I'd only use MS
Visual Studio.

- Decent DVD Player software that unlike Windows Media Player is actually
useful.

- Decent Newsgroup software. Outlook express again doesn't fit the bill.

- Basic office needs, word, spreadsheets, etc.

- CD/DVD Burning software (no version of windows can burn an ISO image)

Just adding up all the licensing costs there I'd easily exceed 2 grand.
Visual Studio alone runs 1,500 for the professional version.

That just roughly scratches the surface of all the commercial software I
need under windows and that I need to cough up a license for under windows
for every computer I own.

Linux on the other hand, it isn't that I wouldn't be willing to pay for
the software. I simply just don't need to so I don't.

- Out of the box support for mounting any drive or ISO image to anywhere I
want. Alcohol 120% not needed.

- Out of the box support for DVD playback and CSS support is installable
in less than a minute. I have no need for the DVD Region/CSS software I
would need under windows.

- Ext3 does not need defragmentation so I have no need for a
defragmentation utility. No need for Diskeeper.

- Out of the box very good e-mail software with all the features I need.
I'd have no need to pay for MS Outlook or other third party.

- Eclipse 3.3/CDT4.0 perfectly fits my needs for C/C++ Development far
better than MS Visual Studio. No need to buy anything.

- There are plenty of Media players available for DVD and other media
playback. I have absolutely no need to buy something like PowerDVD as I
used to use under windows.

- Plenty of very good Newsgroup clients available at no cost. Again, no
need to pay for something like Agent which I would need under Windows.

- Open Office meets all *my* basic word & spreadsheet needs. So I
personally have no need to pay for something like MS Office.

- Burning CDs & DVDs is trivial, ISO images included. No need to buy
something like Nero or the like.

Total Licensing cost? 0 and all my needs are perfectly met.

See what I am trying to get at? It's not that users like me are unwilling
to pay for software. For most software, there is no need to and therefore
it'd be very difficult for a software developer to compete in that market
segment. They'd need to be significantly better than the open source
alternatives before I or anyone else would be willing to cough up any
money for it.

So when it comes to the software, it is exceedingly difficult to compete
in the everyday needs for commercial software because generally speaking,
everyday needs are already met at no cost to the user. It's all already
there and available.

The areas for Linux where there is a commercial software market, and
there'd easily be more than enough people willing to pay for this is
software that addresses special needs that go outside the everyday
spectrum.

Accounting, photo editing, video editing, audio editing / recording,
CAD/CAM, EDA, custom business / commercial management software, and so on.

Basically, anyone that wants to make money with Linux software needs to
target the professional market...you aren't likely to make much money with
the mass market like in windows because the needs are already met for
those who don't expect everything to work 100% identically to windows and
are willing to learn. Ultimately this is a good thing for the User as it
reduces the Users costs. I can see though that Corporations might not like
it. =)

The only mass market I see for Linux are games. Games are probably the
only major category for Linux that I see viable commercially on a mass
market scale since a Game is about the specific title. And you know what?
Plenty people wish and would definitely pay for games if more of them were
available for Linux. I know I would in a heartbeat. Matter of fact, if you
offered me the identical game at 20 bucks for windows and 40 bucks for
Linux, I'd buy the Linux version.

The willingness to pay for software is there in the Linux Community.
Companies simply need to offer the right software.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

dennis@home

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb3om0$ja2$2@aioe.org...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>
>>> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
>>> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that terribly
>>> hard to write cross-platform software.
>>
>> But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written for
>> Linux.
>> It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the
>> technical problems.
>> While users think software should be free where is the incentive to spend
>> money writing software?
>
> Do you always hold stereotypical views of people? For example, I would pay
> for games that run on Ubuntu, no problem.

People that are prepared to pay for games have bought a PS3, xbox, windows
PC, etc.
They want to play modern games not wait for some freebie copy to arrive.

>
> The idea that Linux is only for geeks that have no money and would never
> pay for software is soooo nineties and only reveals your prejudiced and
> closed mind.

It is not I that has the closed mind here.
>
> --
> Alias
> To email me, remove shoes

dennis@home

"Stephan Rose" <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
news:HeednXDkfeMb4UjbnZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@giganews.com ...

> Far more people in the linux world are willing to pay for software than
> you can imagine. Most people have no problem spending money on software if
> said software is worth spending the money on.

You claim that you believe that but then tell people that Vista is a waste
despite the millions who have paid for it.

>
> Now true, I can see how there linux market is smaller than the windows
> market (disregarding user base), because many of the 3rd party utilities
> that are required to get windows usable just aren't needed under linux.
>
> Example, Windows I need the following:
>
> - Alochol 120% to mount DVD or CD images on a virtual drive

Use deamon tools then.. its free.

>
> - DVD Region Free & CSS Free to turn my DVD player into a region-free
> player.

dvd43.. free.

>
> - A decent defragmentation utility such as Diskeeper.

Doesn't need anymore than the one its got.. free.
Linux doesn't have one even though its file systems are no better than NTFS.

>
> - Decent E-mail Software, Outlook express surely isn't it.

Use anything you like they are all on windows and linux.

>
> - Decent C/C++ Development environment. Under windows, I'd only use MS
> Visual Studio.

That's free too.

>
> - Decent DVD Player software that unlike Windows Media Player is actually
> useful.

It plays DVDs.. whats the problem?

>
> - Decent Newsgroup software. Outlook express again doesn't fit the bill.

It works OK for millions.
You can always download pan for windows.
..
>
> - Basic office needs, word, spreadsheets, etc.

Use openoffice.

>
> - CD/DVD Burning software (no version of windows can burn an ISO image)

>
> Just adding up all the licensing costs there I'd easily exceed 2 grand.
> Visual Studio alone runs 1,500 for the professional version.

Mine was free.. but there are free versions that will do for 99.9% of
people.
I doubt if you need the features of the proffesional version if you can
manage with what you get on linux.

>
> That just roughly scratches the surface of all the commercial software I
> need under windows and that I need to cough up a license for under windows
> for every computer I own.

Funny that I can get free software to do everything you need to pay for.
Do you want to buy a bridge? I have this nice swing bridge in London that i
can sell you.


>
> Linux on the other hand, it isn't that I wouldn't be willing to pay for
> the software. I simply just don't need to so I don't.
>
> - Out of the box support for mounting any drive or ISO image to anywhere I
> want. Alcohol 120% not needed.

Nor for windows.

>
> - Out of the box support for DVD playback and CSS support is installable
> in less than a minute. I have no need for the DVD Region/CSS software I
> would need under windows.

nor for windows

>
> - Ext3 does not need defragmentation so I have no need for a
> defragmentation utility. No need for Diskeeper.

nor for windows

>
> - Out of the box very good e-mail software with all the features I need.
> I'd have no need to pay for MS Outlook or other third party.

nor for windows

>
> - Eclipse 3.3/CDT4.0 perfectly fits my needs for C/C++ Development far
> better than MS Visual Studio. No need to buy anything.

nor for windows

>
> - There are plenty of Media players available for DVD and other media
> playback. I have absolutely no need to buy something like PowerDVD as I
> used to use under windows.

nor for windows

>
> - Plenty of very good Newsgroup clients available at no cost. Again, no
> need to pay for something like Agent which I would need under Windows.

nor for windows

>
> - Open Office meets all *my* basic word & spreadsheet needs. So I
> personally have no need to pay for something like MS Office.

nor for windows

>
> - Burning CDs & DVDs is trivial, ISO images included. No need to buy
> something like Nero or the like.

nor for windows.

>
> Total Licensing cost? 0 and all my needs are perfectly met.

Sounds like windows does everything you want at no extra cost.. if you
bother to think about it.



>
> See what I am trying to get at? It's not that users like me are unwilling
> to pay for software. For most software, there is no need to and therefore
> it'd be very difficult for a software developer to compete in that market
> segment. They'd need to be significantly better than the open source
> alternatives before I or anyone else would be willing to cough up any
> money for it.
>
> So when it comes to the software, it is exceedingly difficult to compete
> in the everyday needs for commercial software because generally speaking,
> everyday needs are already met at no cost to the user. It's all already
> there and available.
>
> The areas for Linux where there is a commercial software market, and
> there'd easily be more than enough people willing to pay for this is
> software that addresses special needs that go outside the everyday
> spectrum.
>
> Accounting, photo editing, video editing, audio editing / recording,
> CAD/CAM, EDA, custom business / commercial management software, and so on.

You can get most of them free for windows too BTW.

>
> Basically, anyone that wants to make money with Linux software needs to
> target the professional market...you aren't likely to make much money with
> the mass market like in windows because the needs are already met for
> those who don't expect everything to work 100% identically to windows and
> are willing to learn. Ultimately this is a good thing for the User as it
> reduces the Users costs. I can see though that Corporations might not like
> it. =)

You need to offer service guarantees and SLAs to make money.. something
people appear to find difficult with linux and easier with windows.

>
> The only mass market I see for Linux are games. Games are probably the
> only major category for Linux that I see viable commercially on a mass
> market scale since a Game is about the specific title. And you know what?
> Plenty people wish and would definitely pay for games if more of them were
> available for Linux. I know I would in a heartbeat. Matter of fact, if you
> offered me the identical game at 20 bucks for windows and 40 bucks for
> Linux, I'd buy the Linux version.

I bet you would.
I bet you wouldn't be here posting about how you were being ripped off for
being a linux user either.

>
> The willingness to pay for software is there in the Linux Community.
> Companies simply need to offer the right software.

That would be why so may linux companies are struggling to make money then?
Linux not being the right software.

Stephan Rose

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:06:40 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam.noway@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
> news:HeednXDkfeMb4UjbnZ2dnUVZ8qLinZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
>> Far more people in the linux world are willing to pay for software than
>> you can imagine. Most people have no problem spending money on software if
>> said software is worth spending the money on.
>
> You claim that you believe that but then tell people that Vista is a waste
> despite the millions who have paid for it.

Where do I tell people that Vista is a waste? I may consider it a waste of
*my* time but then again, I think I have the right to do so don't I? Where
though do I tell others it's a time?

>
>>
>> Now true, I can see how there linux market is smaller than the windows
>> market (disregarding user base), because many of the 3rd party utilities
>> that are required to get windows usable just aren't needed under linux.
>>
>> Example, Windows I need the following:
>>
>> - Alochol 120% to mount DVD or CD images on a virtual drive
>
> Use deamon tools then.. its free.

No it isn't. It requires advertising software. Quoting from their own
site "(includes Advertising software from www.WhenU.com)"

The LAST thing I want is advertising software on my computer.


>
>
>> - DVD Region Free & CSS Free to turn my DVD player into a region-free
>> player.
>
> dvd43.. free.

Nowhere does it state that it handles region codes. Will it allow me to
play DVDs from the US, Japan and Europe on the same DVD drive regardless
of region coding?

>
>
>> - A decent defragmentation utility such as Diskeeper.
>
> Doesn't need anymore than the one its got.. free. Linux doesn't have one
> even though its file systems are no better than NTFS.

Please, the built in defragmenter is pathetic. If you want to use it,
fine. But I personally prefer more useful tools.

And seeing how Ext3 does not suffer from fragmentation problems like NTFS
does, I already see one area where it is better. I don't need to waste
time defragmenting it with *any* tool.

>
>
>> - Decent E-mail Software, Outlook express surely isn't it.
>
> Use anything you like they are all on windows and linux.

I do.

>
>
>> - Decent C/C++ Development environment. Under windows, I'd only use MS
>> Visual Studio.
>
> That's free too.

MS Visual Studio FREE??? What are you smoking?

Btw, I am not referring to their Express versions...give me a break. I
need tools I can actually work with.

>
>>
>> - Decent DVD Player software that unlike Windows Media Player is actually
>> useful.
>
> It plays DVDs.. whats the problem?

Shitty UI compared to players like PowerDVD. PowerDVD also has better
deinterlacing algorithms.

>
>>
>> - Decent Newsgroup software. Outlook express again doesn't fit the bill.
>
> It works OK for millions.

So? The millions are sheep. Just because it works OK for them does not
mean I don't want something better than some top-posting piece of crap.

> You can always download pan for windows.

True though IIRC, it's availability is reasonably recent which didn't do
me much good back when I purchased my Agent license and pan was not
available for windows.

> .
>>
>> - Basic office needs, word, spreadsheets, etc.
>
> Use openoffice.

Since I use MS Outlook (the office version) for e-mail under windows, well
used to anyway, it's just more efficient to stick to one overall office
package rather than mixing and matching.

>
>>
>> - CD/DVD Burning software (no version of windows can burn an ISO image)
>
>>
>> Just adding up all the licensing costs there I'd easily exceed 2 grand.
>> Visual Studio alone runs 1,500 for the professional version.
>
> Mine was free.. but there are free versions that will do for 99.9% of
> people.
> I doubt if you need the features of the proffesional version if you can
> manage with what you get on linux.

Well then you obviously have no idea with what I get on linux because my
latest tools are extremely well done and do a very excellent job and can
do things I could only wish for under Visual Studio.

>
>>
>> That just roughly scratches the surface of all the commercial software I
>> need under windows and that I need to cough up a license for under windows
>> for every computer I own.
>
> Funny that I can get free software to do everything you need to pay for.
> Do you want to buy a bridge? I have this nice swing bridge in London that i
> can sell you.
>
>
>>
>> Linux on the other hand, it isn't that I wouldn't be willing to pay for
>> the software. I simply just don't need to so I don't.
>>
>> - Out of the box support for mounting any drive or ISO image to anywhere I
>> want. Alcohol 120% not needed.
>
> Nor for windows.

Only if I want my machine ad-infested apparently which I don't.

>
>>
>> - Out of the box support for DVD playback and CSS support is installable
>> in less than a minute. I have no need for the DVD Region/CSS software I
>> would need under windows.
>
> nor for windows

Windows will not play DVDs that are region coded for regions on a
different player without additional 3rd party software. And your little
decryption tool there, which undoubtely takes care of CSS (which is the
least worry seeing how I have licensed DVD player software), does not take
care of region coding (which is my primary concern).

>
>>
>> - Ext3 does not need defragmentation so I have no need for a
>> defragmentation utility. No need for Diskeeper.
>
> nor for windows

If I want a decent defragmentation tool then yes I do. If I want crappy
defragmentation, then no I don't. Matter of standards here.

>
>>
>> - Out of the box very good e-mail software with all the features I need.
>> I'd have no need to pay for MS Outlook or other third party.
>
> nor for windows

If you consider outlook express *good*...nothing will help you.

>
>>
>> - Eclipse 3.3/CDT4.0 perfectly fits my needs for C/C++ Development far
>> better than MS Visual Studio. No need to buy anything.
>
> nor for windows

My needs go beyond Visual Studio Express. So yes for windows.

>
>>
>> - There are plenty of Media players available for DVD and other media
>> playback. I have absolutely no need to buy something like PowerDVD as I
>> used to use under windows.
>
> nor for windows

As I said above, I want better quality than what Microsofts latest DRM
riddled windows media player has to offer. Also I don't think it can
directly play ISO images which is something I have a need for.

>
>>
>> - Plenty of very good Newsgroup clients available at no cost. Again, no
>> need to pay for something like Agent which I would need under Windows.
>
> nor for windows

What? Outlook express?? Give me a break....

>
>>
>> - Open Office meets all *my* basic word & spreadsheet needs. So I
>> personally have no need to pay for something like MS Office.
>
> nor for windows

True, I could use Open Office these days. But I'd probably want MS Office
just to have a decent e-mail client.

>
>>
>> - Burning CDs & DVDs is trivial, ISO images included. No need to buy
>> something like Nero or the like.
>
> nor for windows.

Really? So how do you burn an ISO image under XP for instance? Without 3rd
party support...

>
>>
>> Total Licensing cost? 0 and all my needs are perfectly met.
>
> Sounds like windows does everything you want at no extra cost.. if you
> bother to think about it.

At sub-standard quality compared to my linux equivalents...sure! I mean
windows can do anything if I lower my standards enough...

<snip>

>
>>
>> The only mass market I see for Linux are games. Games are probably the
>> only major category for Linux that I see viable commercially on a mass
>> market scale since a Game is about the specific title. And you know what?
>> Plenty people wish and would definitely pay for games if more of them were
>> available for Linux. I know I would in a heartbeat. Matter of fact, if you
>> offered me the identical game at 20 bucks for windows and 40 bucks for
>> Linux, I'd buy the Linux version.
>
> I bet you would.
> I bet you wouldn't be here posting about how you were being ripped off for
> being a linux user either.

Where have I ever said anything about being ripped off for being a linux
user?

>
>>
>> The willingness to pay for software is there in the Linux Community.
>> Companies simply need to offer the right software.
>
> That would be why so may linux companies are struggling to make money then?
> Linux not being the right software.

Plenty companies in both worlds both doing well and both struggling.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Alias

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fb3om0$ja2$2@aioe.org...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>
>>>> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
>>>> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that terribly
>>>> hard to write cross-platform software.
>>>
>>> But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written
>>> for Linux.
>>> It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the
>>> technical problems.
>>> While users think software should be free where is the incentive to
>>> spend money writing software?
>>
>> Do you always hold stereotypical views of people? For example, I would
>> pay for games that run on Ubuntu, no problem.
>
> People that are prepared to pay for games have bought a PS3, xbox,
> windows PC, etc.

Consoles suck big time. I have a Play Station gathering dust in the
store room. Maybe you didn't hear me: I WOULD PAY FOR A GOOD GAME TO USE
ON UBUNTU!.

> They want to play modern games not wait for some freebie copy to arrive.

I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR GOOD GAMES.

>
>>
>> The idea that Linux is only for geeks that have no money and would
>> never pay for software is soooo nineties and only reveals your
>> prejudiced and closed mind.
>
> It is not I that has the closed mind here.

Yes, it is. You just don't realize it.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

dennis@home

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb50b8$ogh$2@aioe.org...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fb3om0$ja2$2@aioe.org...
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>>
>>>>> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
>>>>> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that
>>>>> terribly
>>>>> hard to write cross-platform software.
>>>>
>>>> But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written for
>>>> Linux.
>>>> It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the
>>>> technical problems.
>>>> While users think software should be free where is the incentive to
>>>> spend money writing software?
>>>
>>> Do you always hold stereotypical views of people? For example, I would
>>> pay for games that run on Ubuntu, no problem.
>>
>> People that are prepared to pay for games have bought a PS3, xbox,
>> windows PC, etc.
>
> Consoles suck big time. I have a Play Station gathering dust in the store
> room. Maybe you didn't hear me: I WOULD PAY FOR A GOOD GAME TO USE ON
> UBUNTU!.
>
>> They want to play modern games not wait for some freebie copy to arrive.
>
> I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR GOOD GAMES.

No you are not.
You can have good games if you pay.
The fact that you moan about not having good games shows that you are not
prepared to pay what it takes to get them.

Alias

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fb50b8$ogh$2@aioe.org...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fb3om0$ja2$2@aioe.org...
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gNadnfJMFob2tUjbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> The solution ultimately is not running windows software on Linux, but
>>>>>> developers to write software that runs on Linux. It's not that
>>>>>> terribly
>>>>>> hard to write cross-platform software.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not many Linux users that are going to pay for software written
>>>>> for Linux.
>>>>> It is the "free" bit on Linux that makes software limited not the
>>>>> technical problems.
>>>>> While users think software should be free where is the incentive to
>>>>> spend money writing software?
>>>>
>>>> Do you always hold stereotypical views of people? For example, I
>>>> would pay for games that run on Ubuntu, no problem.
>>>
>>> People that are prepared to pay for games have bought a PS3, xbox,
>>> windows PC, etc.
>>
>> Consoles suck big time. I have a Play Station gathering dust in the
>> store room. Maybe you didn't hear me: I WOULD PAY FOR A GOOD GAME TO
>> USE ON UBUNTU!.
>>
>>> They want to play modern games not wait for some freebie copy to arrive.
>>
>> I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR GOOD GAMES.
>
> No you are not.
> You can have good games if you pay.
> The fact that you moan about not having good games shows that you are
> not prepared to pay what it takes to get them.
>
>

Huh? What "good" games are available for Ubuntu?

I am currently playing Devil May Cry3 and, yes, I paid for it, but it
only runs on Windows.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes