| Author |
linux |
shadey
Cadet
Joined: November 13, 2004
Posts: 40
|  Posted: 2005-10-30 15:06
hey umm have any of you gotten DS to work under wine/linux. even if just the lobby. IT doesnt seem to work on my system so far. thanks for any responses. and have a good game
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2005-10-30 15:25
i'm pretty sure it won't lag less on linux. 
_________________
|
shadey
Cadet
Joined: November 13, 2004
Posts: 40
| Posted: 2005-10-30 16:49
thats true, but at least with the lobby i could lobby ca,p with you fine folks
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2005-10-30 17:32
I remember backy isolated the .dll's/.exe's for the lobby..maybe you can use your leet linux skillz to haxor it and such.
_________________
|
Philky!
Joined: July 19, 2004
Posts: 90
| Posted: 2005-10-30 18:16
Why would you want to run Darkspace on that inferior operating system anyway?
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2005-10-30 18:30
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-30 18:16, Philky wrote:
Why would you want to run Darkspace on that inferior operating system anyway?
|
|
we're talking about linux, not mac.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-10-30 18:57
www.ravenwarriors.com/darkspace/gcql.7z
You need winrar or 7zip to open it (google it).
It has the basic files you need to open and run GCQL but not the game.
_________________
|
Axalon
Vice Admiral
Joined: June 15, 2003
Posts: 442
From: East Windsor, NJ, USA
| Posted: 2005-10-30 19:48
Hmm, can you give us some details? Like system specs, Linux Distro, WINE build, etc...
I suppose the evil, underhanded, politically incorrect way would be to copy the ENTIRE system32 folder into WINE's C:Windowssystem32 folder, but that will kill 2GB of your HD, and I'm not sure it will work right.
And you can get GCQL running on newer WINE builds without any need for DLLs. Alternately, use Cedega.
-----------------------------------------------
*Goes into Linux Defense Mode 6*
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-30 18:16, Philky wrote:
Why would you want to run Darkspace on that inferior operating system anyway?
|
|
Freaking Windows zealot. *gets GNU Pepper Spray*
Have you ever USED linux? Do you even know what License linux comes in? Who "makes" linux? I think not.
Ever see the Linux desktops?
The K Desktop Environment
GNOME
[kinda offtopic]My favorite distribution, by far, has to be Debian. None of that silly Red Hat/Fedora.
And the Mac 0wns j00. No insulty the Maccy. Go run off and play with your "stable" 9x kernel.
[ This Message was edited by: Axalon{Absolut} on 2005-10-30 19:56 ]
_________________
|
shadey
Cadet
Joined: November 13, 2004
Posts: 40
| Posted: 2005-10-30 21:33
suse 10 here, I tried the fedoras, they seemed ok till i gave suse a try. and to the linux basher. I pity you and your world of blue screens of death and restrictive liscence agreements 
and thanks for all the responses
_________________
|
Philky!
Joined: July 19, 2004
Posts: 90
| Posted: 2005-10-30 23:24
I have used Linux before and I found no reason to use it anymore.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-10-31 00:37
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-30 19:48, Axalon{Absolut} wrote:
POKY POKY POKY POKY
|
|
You may want to know that windows memory management is far superior than linux or mac systems. It also has a vatly, and utmost superior graphical interface and graphics system. DirectX, although 'bloated', has a lot of features that developers can use to create games, like Half-Life 2, or Doom 3, or F.E.A.R. Linux and Mac don't have those options, and we all know that games are driving the computer market in almost every corner (graphics, sound, cpu speed and architecture, HDD access speeds, etc). Linux is the stable option for servers, because it is less bloated, but only because some servers require a more barebone system, and the performance increase is minimal (1-2%), although it's known that the linux code seems to run backend systems better (again, minimaly).
Windows is pulling up to the server market though, because Opterons and the new Xeons (which are now slated for 2009 (bah!)), run better on the windows 2003 server operating system. In general, windows seems to run 64bit better than linux. Although linux supports 64bit out of the box, Windows XP 64bit, and Windows Server 2003 64bit, have both shown to outperform linux in most applications in 64bit mode, although at 32bit it does seem to even out.
If you don't believe me about memory management. Take a AMD 64 FX-57, and run windows 64bit, and linux (solaris, redhat, any build you want), and run a few benchmarks. You will find that windows has a vastly superior way of handling the way memory is writen and read from the RAM, and for pure performance, it is the best choice.
After all, if linux was vastly superior like everyone says, performance wise, then why aren't we running half life 2, doom 3, FEAR, and darkspace on linux?
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2005-10-31 00:38 ]
_________________
|
Philky!
Joined: July 19, 2004
Posts: 90
| Posted: 2005-10-31 03:42
BackSlash, you have earned my respect once again.  I love you!!!
_________________
|
DOM700 [-IMO-]
Fleet Admiral
Joined: July 26, 2001
Posts: 3175
From: Eckental, Germany, Sol-System
| Posted: 2005-10-31 07:50
let's take a look philky, my notebook is able to run 12 hours under linux with full charged battery (without being constantly charged), doing some writing
under windows I get something about 3 hours
looks much better to me
also, I have a linux server for all my data, and it works just fine, I wouldnt expect that performance under windows
and, linux is for free
_________________
If the buildings on your planets disappear, guess who was there....
Never forget what you fight for
I have earned my betatester badge for being part of the open beta
![Goto the website of DOM700 [-IMO-]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/www_icon.gif)
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-10-31 08:22
For some things, linux is better, because it isn't bloated.
For instance, Linux doesn't run games (or that many (let's be honest here)). Therefor it doesn't need to hold any DX info in memory, it also doesn't use DX for a GUI to make everything easy and simple for the user, so that goes out the window.
It also runs services, so that lots of things are supported. Have any of you actualy tried to install a wireless device in linux? Don't. It has little or no support for anything out of what it has.
It also has services to make things easier for the users. Window boots up, and you can forget about nearly everything, because windows tries to take care of itself. Like plug and play, lets the user just plug whatever in, and windows will detect it, try and install the software if it can find it, and you can play instantly, or after a reboot. Ever tried p&p in linux? It doesn't have the auto detect feature, and the few builts that do, are pretty slow.
Linux is fine and dandy for those of us who are tech savy and can muse around and deal with it's non-user-friendly interface. But windows has far more to offer to almost everyone. Which is why nearly everyone uses it. Performance wise, for a desktop machine, Linux can't compare to windows, doesn't even come close. Using it for a server is different, because it isn't so bloated, for some apps, it will run faster, for some, it will just be the same as windows 2k3 server.
I use linux at university, and it's horrible and slow and just painstaiking to use for what I need to do. All I need to do is write java and some other menial stuff, and it's just slow, and awkward to use. The amount of time it takes to load something into memory, is just painstaikingly long, compaired to running it on windows (and we have 98/2000/nt/xp/2003 server installed, and they all run faster.
Windows caters for a lot more users, and developers, which is why we all use windows, and why games all use windows, it's why everything uses windows. Because it's easier.
If linux was truely great, and "pwns" windows so hard, why are we all using windows to run GCQL and DarkSpace, and why are we using Windows to play all maner of games...
Why are we using windows atall if linux is superior in everyway?
It's not, and that's why we're using Windows.
Put simply, Windows does what it does best, and it's best used for gaming machines and general desktop activity.
Linux is best used on servers. I can't find a single reason to use it on a desktop machine other than it doesn't use as much battery power. Anything linux can do, windows can do on a desktop.
On the up-side of things. Linux is free, but compaired to the fact that we get windows, and everything it does... I mean, have you ever tried to code ONE program yourself? It's rather hard. Even a game doesn't come close to an OS. Windows is a very good OS and it caters for A LOT of people out there, and it's the only OS that games are built for (pretty much), because it's easier. Have you ever sat back and just said "Wow, Windows does quiet a lot for me, I mean, look at it managing all my stuff there in the corner, and me running a game and chatting to people on msn or whatnot. If you tried that on linux, it would slow the system down to a crawl.
For desktop, gaming, and pretty much anything. Windows.
For servers and low battery usage.... Linux.
I'm not trying to bash Linux. It does what it does well, it's just overshadowed by the performance in windows in most benchmarks. If you want to run darkspace, I'd suggest dual booting and running darkspace on that. I believe Sono/Ben got DS running on Wine, but the performance was so slow and rubbish, that he ended up going back to windows for it. I don't know WHY you are trying to run games under linux (it's not a gaming platform), and it won't ever be as good at running games as windows is. So quiet why you want to run it in linux, is beyond me.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2005-10-31 08:30 ]
_________________
|
JolesMan
Grand Admiral
Joined: June 01, 2003
Posts: 17
From: Michigan, USA
| Posted: 2005-10-31 08:44
Ah, a topic I can respect. Linux, Unix, and all those other variants of WONDERFULL opperating systems are awesome! Free, fast, and efficent. Speaking from total experience and none of those silly articles you can read (written by people that can't do so they write), I have found that linux runs high end web application servers MUCH faster and with greater reliability than Windows Server 2000.
Server 2003 stepped up a big notch, because it will actually run for longer than a week without having to reboot and does tend to run backend applications faster that Server 2000, but still backend web applications (which everything is going to now) run soo much faster on Linux/Unix. The only time our Linux/Unix servers are rebooted is when there is an extended power failure, we have to physically move them, or we are replacing the hardware. HooRaaa for linux.
HOWEVER, there is a lot of push for Linux to the desktop lately because of the recent SUSE merge/buyout with Novell. In the business non-graphic intense, no games at all, all data output green screen/ web application world linux is awesome and CHEAP. For a home user, windows is much better because for a normal user it will get rebooted every day, it does play games much better, it is more point and click friendly, terminal(command) screen? what's that? I just can't see my grandpa being very good at the command line. LOL
Windows? Linux? Depends on what your goal is.
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
