Linux

[Lorizael]

Asking for a friend. Is there a way to get civ to play on a linux box?

[petermarkab]

yes, it is possible, although having a dual boot machine, i just flip from Linux to Windows when i want to play.

Anyway, try http://www.transgaming.com for their Windows and DirectX emulator "Cedega" formerly WineX

Costs £3 or $5 per month, minimum 3 month term.

See http://www.transgaming.com/gamefaq.php?specialid=1 for their FAQ

Good luck (actually, I might try it myself )

[Lorizael]

What! Money?!

And thanks.

[Last Conformist]

Clearly, Linux is evil. Otherwise the great Sid would have made a Linux version of Civ.

[Lorizael]

I thought Microsoft was evil. They can't both be evil... my whole world is collapsing...

[Last Conformist]

The supply of evil is practically infinite. There's plenty to go round for Linux, Microsoft, Apple, and Hello Kitty.

[Commy]

No no no, you got it all wrong. Linux is evil, Microsoft is just plain stupid...

Stupidity is in infinite supply as well...

[Lorizael]

And Sid? Is he stupid or evil?

[nbarclay]

Sid is just doing business within the constraints that forces beyond his control impose on him. That's certainly not stupid, and only someone who thinks businesses ought to act like charitable institutions could rationalize calling the choice not to develop a Linux version of Civ 3 evil.

Unfortunately, Microsoft is in such a dominant posiition right now that we're caught in a vicious cycle: we can't run all of the software we want to use if we don't buy Windows, and if we have Windows, we can buy a Windows version of a program we want even if we'd really rather run it under Linux. That makes it extremely difficult to break Microsoft's power. (And in my opinion, that is a force that current antitrust law doesn't address adequately. It's great if Microsoft can come up with superior software that people consider worth paying extra for, but it's horrible when people are forced to pay Microsoft whether we want to or not just to be compatible. The purpose of copyright and patent laws is supposed to be to benefit the public, not to support roadblocks to compatibility and interoperability even when one technical solution is no better than another.)

The Linux community is working hard to break Microsoft's grip on the market. Low-cost computers that run Linux but not Windows promise an added market for developers that make their software compatible with Linux, and middleware and Windows compatibility tools can make it easier for developers to write software that runs on both Windows and Linux. When and assuming those two forces develop enough synergy, we can expect Microsoft's hold on the market to break.

Unfortunately, when Civ 3 was released, the situation hadn't developed to a point where Firaxis and/or Atari (wherever the decision was made) considered a Linux version worthwhile. We can only hope that the situation is changing quickly enough to make a Linux version of Civ 4 worthwhile - if only in anticipation of future growth in Linux during the product's life cycle.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The Linux community is working hard to break Microsoft's grip on the market. Low-cost computers that run Linux but not Windows promise an added market for developers that make their software compatible with Linux...

¿Qué?

[nbarclay]

To clarify, I'm not aware of any technical obstacles against running Windows on the computers I'm referring to, but they're sold without Windows and are aimed at a low-cost market segment that would be relatively unlikely to add Windows later.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Unfortunately, Microsoft is in such a dominant posiition right now that we're caught in a vicious cycle: we can't run all of the software we want to use if we don't buy Windows, and if we have Windows, we can buy a Windows version of a program we want even if we'd really rather run it under Linux. That makes it extremely difficult to break Microsoft's power. (And in my opinion, that is a force that current antitrust law doesn't address adequately. It's great if Microsoft can come up with superior software that people consider worth paying extra for, but it's horrible when people are forced to pay Microsoft whether we want to or not just to be compatible. The purpose of copyright and patent laws is supposed to be to benefit the public, not to support roadblocks to compatibility and interoperability even when one technical solution is no better than another.)

I agree with your general sentiment, but take issue that you seem to look to the law to resolve this predicatment. My point is that anyone should be able to lead a good, fulfilling life without any need to operate progams on a PC, so we are all best served not resorting to politics for an answer. Within the scope of humanity, micro-management of social problems through legislation has been the downfall of many recent generations and hopefully serves us all as a warning.

So, are all these Linux 'something to think about' messages authentically tounge-in-cheek, or is the platform doomed to be just another bucket of crabs?

[bongo]

They are both crap.


My favourite computer qoute goes something like this...(I have used it so much I've forgot where I found it)

'Computers are today where cars were in the 20s, if you want to go on a longer trip you need to bring a mechanic.'


I have spent the last 2 decades using computers. I've done stuff ranging from building/modifying hardware using a soldering iron, or program in hex code, to installing and maintaining corporate networks. I work as a network admin now, and even though I should have all the qualifications needed to solve all problems that may show up on my home computer, I find myself using more time finding out how to do stuff than actually doing it.


I think that whoever manage to build a computer that 'just works' deserve all the money that exist.

As of today, windows is closer to that goal than linux, but none of them are even close yet.



Oh, if you claim to have a computer that 'just works' you are either:
a) Extremely lucky (go buy a lottery ticket)
b) Lying
c) Taking too much drugs
d) Not using it at all
e) Mistaking your 'etch a sketch' for a computer
f) Have so low demands for what a computer shuld be able to do that you could do without one.
g) Someones watching over you all the time, protecting you from 'bad stuff'.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Rommel2D


I agree with your general sentiment, but take issue that you seem to look to the law to resolve this predicatment. My point is that anyone should be able to lead a good, fulfilling life without any need to operate progams on a PC, so we are all best served not resorting to politics for an answer. Within the scope of humanity, micro-management of social problems through legislation has been the downfall of many recent generations and hopefully serves us all as a warning.

The legitimate goal of copyright law is, according to the Constitution of the United States, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” But the power we give Microsoft under current copyright law goes far beyond that purpose. Microsoft is in a position not just to expect profit from its own writings and discoveries, but to leverage its own work as a means of demanding profit from the work of others – such as Firaxis. Microsoft’s power is not just to say, “You can’t use Windows unless you pay us,” but rather to say, “You can’t use programs designed for Windows, even programs written by third parties, unless you pay us.” That kind of power to demand profit from the work of others represents a serious breakdown in the copyright mechanism.

And when laws suffer from such a breakdown, why not turn to law to address the issue? I’m not after having government micromanage corporations. I’d just like to see some serious limitations on the power to use a combination of copyright laws and closed, proprietary standards for the purpose of holding other people’s work hostage.

[Rommel2D]

I generally view the framers of the constitution as a reliable source of wisdom, but have been growing more skeptical recently in regard to patent laws. Ironically, the same day you posted your last message Nate, there was a program on NPR that featured the former President of MIT discussing how contemporary interpretation of patent laws are resulting in a stagnation of innovation.

A discussion of the details in this situation would quickly carry this topic OT. I simply see a broad, sweeping generalization of anti-trust politics of a century ago that were a direct contribution to placing the fire-keg out there that exploded into two world wars.

I don't know many details on patent law or on platform construction, but I hope we are able to build something that proves to be of more utility than Windows, rather than building laws that will make the utility of the Windows system illegal.