• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tutorial Doctor

A Collaborative Free and Open-Source OS?

116 posts in this topic

 


Apple 'hit it big' because they are NOT a computer company. They are NOT a consumer electronics company. They are a fashion company.
It just so happens that the 'fashions' they sell involve electronic gadgets and gizmos.

 

I bet you really believe that, don't you? 

Ah well, we were all young and stupid once.

 

 

Huh, was that Apple??  I thought if was Beats who came with that statement...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Huh, was that Apple??  I thought if was Beats who came with that statement...

 

It was.

 

Apple are very much a computer company. You don't have to like their stuff, but to claim they're "a fashion company" is just ignorant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Huh, was that Apple??  I thought if was Beats who came with that statement...

 

It was.

 

Apple are very much a computer company. You don't have to like their stuff, but to claim they're "a fashion company" is just ignorant.

 

To claim they're not is just as ignorant.

 

That's why their stock moves the way it does - not always in step with the rest of the tech industry. There's nothing wrong with being a fashion company - it doesn't make them any less successful (and in fact, has made them more successful than they otherwise would have been). It doesn't mean their technology is any more or less superior - it just means that when people buy Apple, they're buying it (generally - not always) because of the Apple on the box/product, not the tech that's inside it (although if the tech wasn't good, they wouldn't buy it at all).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To claim they're not is just as ignorant.
 
That's why their stock moves the way it does - not always in step with the rest of the tech industry. There's nothing wrong with being a fashion company - it doesn't make them any less successful (and in fact, has made them more successful than they otherwise would have been). It doesn't mean their technology is any more or less superior - it just means that when people buy Apple, they're buying it (generally - not always) because of the Apple on the box/product, not the tech that's inside it (although if the tech wasn't good, they wouldn't buy it at all).


I'll admit I should have said

to claim they're just "a fashion company" is just ignorant.

I'd argue that Apple are more about design than fashion, but that's splitting hairs.

But you're basically admitting that your previous statement

Apple 'hit it big' because they are NOT a computer company. They are NOT a consumer electronics company.

is patently bollocks.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For years i've been dreaming that someone would design a very cool looking OS, but it never came. Why can't we have something that look nice like we always see in sci-fi flicks, why dont ms engage some very talented artist to desing their UI??? I just dont get it... I would like an operating system designed for power user, not something that constantly get harder to use... Windows XP imo was on the right track, until vista/win7/win8 came along. Guess ill die before seeing this happening.

 

It's just like games, take fallout for example, the game is somewhat nice out of the box, but add some addons to it and it can get incredibly better. For example, some mods i have add tons of hairs to choose for the character, not just the 10 boring default ones, another one make the faces of the characters much more beautiful, some allow other visual component to be enhanced way better than what the original creators did. I mean, why don't they make the game free for modders for a year, gather the most popular addons, THEN lauch the game? Sorry, i got off topic for a while, but you get the idea...

 

I would really like an OS designed for people with good knowledge of computers, i guess we had that a while with linux, but now it look just like another os to me.

Edited by Vortez
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Why can't we have something that look nice like we always see in sci-fi flicks

 

Probably because 99% of sci-fi UI:s have horrible usability and only adress small subsets of the problem :)

There are a lot of cool looking ui demos around (the jarvis os one being among them), but there is a long way between demo and anything usable. Sometimes it's not even possible to bridge the gap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like an OS designed for people with good knowledge of computers, i guess we had that a while with linux, but now it look just like another os to me.

 

That's probably because most of the major distributions try to look like the other OS:es as much as possible, to attract users...

Linux could easily change its looks dramatically though, if anyone would find it worth their time to do it. (since linux itself doesn't have a "look" at all)

Edited by Olof Hedman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, why don't they make the game free for modders for a year, gather the most popular addons, THEN lauch the game?

If they did that, what's the purpose of putting anything in a game? They should just put a name and give it to the "modders". I believe that's what game engines are for.

For years i've been dreaming that someone would design a very cool looking OS, but it never came.

Me too. But it's better to do something about it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For years i've been dreaming that someone would design a very cool looking OS, but it never came. Why can't we have something that look nice like we always see in sci-fi flicks, why dont ms engage some very talented artist to desing their UI??? I just dont get it... I would like an operating system designed for power user, not something that constantly get harder to use... Windows XP imo was on the right track, until vista/win7/win8 came along. Guess ill die before seeing this happening.

 

 

This is pretty ignorant.

 

First of all, have you looked for some window manager themes?

 

Here's Win7 transformed to JARVIS:

http://ultimatedesktops.deviantart.com/art/Jarvis-Windows-7-Transformation-Pack-397222303

jarvis___windows_7_transformation_pack_b

 

A simple google search yields a lot of cool results.

 

Secondly, do you really think the majority of Microsoft's customers want their OS to look like some kind of sci-fi abomination? Of course not! They want a clean, user-friendly looking environment. Anything else would just scare away potential customers.

 

Thirdly, blaming the OS functionality for its appearance is stupid, because those are two entirely different things.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Windows XP imo was on the right track, until vista/win7/win8 came along.

 

And this is why there are tens of thousands of users collectively telling MS, "You can pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, what's more, is that there is voice recognition and there's natural language comprehension. And they're not the same thing. You can easily see that by the state of automatic translators, which don't even need to fully comprehend a text to do the translation, but even as is, they're pretty primitive at best. Talking to Siri and saying "what's the weather in san franscisco", then have it display to you a page with the weather in that area *seems* like a step towards "JARVIS", but it only seems that way because of voice recognition, that is, translating the sound into word tokens. What it does with them, however, is actually not that impressive at all: Google "what's the weather in san franscisco" and you'll get the exact same result. It just does a search based on a few keywords. That is, you trigger the commands by speaking and not by typing, but the commands themselves are the same as ever. The goal of actually having a conversation with an AI is as far away as always, and it doesn't matter if that conversation is made by typing, or speaking to a microphone, those problems are almost orthogonal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what I've gathered from this thread is people are looking at an OS and saying I don't like how it looks or It doesn't support voice recognition, and are using these reasons to justify the creation of an entirely new operating system from scratch.

 

That's retarded.

 

That's like looking at a car and going I don't like the look of the steering wheel, better replace the entire engine!

 

People, every operating system us customisable! You want voice recognition? Software already exists. You don't like the look of the UI? Get a window manager and theme. Don't like the way your terminal works? Have you considered a different shell?

 

Re-writing the kernel doesn't contribute anything towards these problems. Writing your own speech recognition software from scratch is also most likely counterproductive. Instead, you should be teaming up with existing projects and contribute towards them; you aren't the first to have this idea, and these existing projects are lightyears ahead of whatever your 7-day-old knowledge of speech recognition can possibly spew out into incomprehensible code.

 

Oh darn, I don't like the look of my doormat. Better design and build an entirely new house, right?!

 


That jarvis thing look amazing biggrin.png

 

I might actually give it a spin, it does look awesome!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Oh darn, I don't like the look of my doormat. Better design and build an entirely new house, right?!

 

:D

perfect analogy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


To me, the perfect operating system is one that is fast, user friendly, customizable/tweakable, and FREE!

Now, as it happens I work for an organization that churns out an OS that is fast, user friendly, customizable, tweakable, and will always be free.  We welcome contributions from anyone (although we don't accept all contributions: they need to meet our standards), and because the software is Free, if you don't like it you can replace it or fork it as your whim takes you.  Many people find it suits their needs admirably out of the box.

 

We have literally dozens of designers on staff developing and testing UI alternatives.  We have kernel engineers keeping up with new hardware, and security experts keeping you safe.  We develop (almost) everything in public and we try to keep the public updated on the status of our efforts.

 

Our OS is on almost every desktop at Google and is used to develop Android.  That should tell you something.

 

It seems to me this already satisfies most of your stated requirements, and it's only one choice among many solid alternatives.  I am not one to dissuade you from starting a new project and doing it all yourself, in fact more power to you.  I think, however, the scale of what you propose is much greater than you realize and we would all benefit more if you choose a narrower goal and focus your considerable efforts into that.

 

And good luck with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the "Perfect" OS would also have the free part attached (assuming quality is also included) but I would sacrifice the Free aspect for "Cheap." 

But I always have a feeling that once you tack any price to something, even if it is a penny, you then have competition

 

The reason I say this is because if you offer a program for a penny, your competition can match your penny and make a better program. Or perhaps they will charge 3 pennies claiming their program is 3 times better than yours. 

 

But many people don't like to work for free (evidence is all around you, and from my experience I can vouch for it). So you wouldn't have as much competition if it were free, unless your rival made their program a penny claiming that your program is obsolete and cheap (using the stereotype that open-sourced objects are inherently less quality than commercial alternatives.)

 

I have a business model that would crush any competition around, but the premise of it would either be ludicrous or brilliant depending on a slight change in the intent of the business.

 

Can you guess what that model is?

Edited by Tutorial Doctor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0