/v/ - Video Games

I dunno, I'm still trying to figure out why it's apparently so difficult for 8kun's management to just use the same code as they did for 8chan for the past 5 years instead of the barely functional one.

Because project management for ""ALL"" software is fucked, Read "The Mythical Man Month"

because the people with the authority to demand radical changes in design at the last minute are the only people involved who have neither applicable skills for development nor familiarity with the product

Making video games is hard. AAA projects are too big to not be a failure if the whole thing isn't streamlined, including the final product. If a game has a never ending credits roll then it is shit by default.

>>16917803

> Can someone tell me why project management in videogames is so fucked?

The short version is that most of the people in those management positions have never actually been involved with any for of engineering.

>>16917827

>I understand this happens, but I seriously cant accept that happens every time. There has to be that one person who keeps people in check.

not many. Money men are great at chasing trends and analyzing focus testing, but they fail to realize that all that shows is what was popular 10 minutes ago

and when they have millions invested in a project, they kind of get their way

the rock star days of game design ended in the mid-2000s. There's a punk movement so to speak, but most of the games are shit (just like the punk movement come to think of it)

>>16917813

Came here to post this. It's worth mentioning that The Mythical Man-Month is from 1975 and yet still as relevant as ever. Despite all the posturing to the contrary, we don't really know how to reliably make good software (or good programming languages, or …).

>>16917803

Business people and managers don't understand shit about videogames

Videogames people don't understand shit about business and management

>>16918233

>The Mythical Man-Month

got epub/pdf? I got interested now

>>16918310

Or video games for that matter.

>>16918315

gen.lib.rus.ec

>>16918329

Aren't games simply managed by a lead game designer (who, you'd think knows how to develop software) and they're funded by the "managers" ?

I don't understand how a dumb EA CEO for example would show up in DICE's studio and tell them "Add womyn and fake guns in the game ok. Also battle royale".

>>16917803

>me think that the reason this has been the case is that people managing game dev shops have been terrible fucking business people.

you're right on the money. Most of the people in the management positions have no business qualifications. They are only there out of Neopotism.

>>16918338

>Aren't games simply managed by a lead game designer

NOPE. Projects are departmentalised. Its delegated to sub-managers. So you have a central project manager, then Design Leaders, Art Directions, Tech lead (basically programmer manager but for the entire operation, then there's sub-managers under those for each branch of programmer be it Tech-Artist, Engine Developer, Game Programmer etc), QA Manager etc. A big problem with game dev nowdays is that productions are too large and thus this whole concept of departmentalisation results in Design by Committee. An even bigger problem is when the Marketing team are brought in as consultation. NEVER EVER DO THIS. Marketing people are just conartists, leave them to the meet and greets beyond that they are useless.

The issue with modern dev is bloat. Everything is too bloated. You could easily make good games with a team of 20 as long as you're prepared to have a game that looked like something from 15 years ago but would cost a fraction of the price to make.

At this rate the games industry is gonna kill itself from all the infighting going on. There's been a huge wave after wave of old talent leaving the industry, this is why the affirmative action SJW shit is going on because they need to fill roles quickly as no one wants to fucking do it so they tell SJWs to fill the roles because they are borderline hobos anyway. Eventually though they too will get sick of the shit that goes on in the industry.

Its all gone to shit.

>>16918430

Speaking of which, he recently left Kotaku.

>>16917805

The barely functioning one has fed backdoors.

>>16918437

Go back to your thread >>16917882

Part of it is that managing a game is genuinely difficult, because of the different disciplines involved. You can't possibly know enough about all the disciplines unless you are a wizard at game dev. However, much of the time, management knows none of them. In the past, game development had less stakes and budgets were lower, so publishers and investing companies were willing to let the designers do whatever they wanted because there was less risk. While this doesn't always work, it at least ensures that the finished product is something that was designed by someone who had a complete vision of what they wanted, compromising only for the ultimate deadline and not "muh market analysis." Dev cycles were also shorter because less effort was needed to create the assets. Games as an industry simply need to scale back and give designers breathing room, but investors have smelled blood and are too focused on the big name, big budget Hollywood ideal.

>>16918233

I think we've made some good programming languages – whether or not they're popular is a different matter. However there is still the problem that almost nobody knows how to properly screen and hire software engineers. You could be interviewed by the CEO or one of his good ol' boys, or the developer team you'll actually work with daily, neither, or both. I once had an interview where the IT manager told me I was the first person to get a specific problem right on their coding exam in 3 years – and I got every other question right – but they never contacted me again. I couldn't think of anything I might have said that would scare them off. It seems that almost everyone still relies on that fateful number, "years of experience," at the end of the day. You could test better than all other candidates but someone else with 2 more years will get hired instead "just in case" (that one also happened to me, and they even used that phrase).

>>16917813

Often times it is also the engineers who are to blame. I once dared to mention that "not everything needs to be written in Java", and I was immediately met by a thousand death stares. The kind of which says "one more such comment and you're can pack your desk". So many soydevs learn one thing and never want to progress beyond that. I have been trying to nail down one bug for a month now, and whenever I try to plug one hole in the spaghetti piece of shit code two new ones pop up (of course there are no tests, test are for QA, not engineering, lol).

Our product managers are not programmers, our tech lead has only been with the company for less than three years, so the engineers have pretty much free reign. What we would need is to tear most of that shit down, pull our shit together and get out of our comfort zones. But of course that's never going to happen, so it's an eternal hackjob.

I view the existence of managers as a reaction to degenerate development. If the engineers cannot pull their own shit together then someone needs to be put in place to do it for them.

>>16918233

> we don't really know how to reliably make good software (or good programming languages, or …).

We do have good programming languages. I don't want to give away too much about what industry I work in, but there is actually a language designed by a major industry player exactly for the very purpose we need. And yet we all keep using Java because "we all know Java, lol". Management likes Java because it's easy to find Java developers, but they fail to realize that scraping the bottom of the barrel yields bottom of the barrel results. In fact, the whole idea of looking for "language X developers" is retarded; you should look for smart people who are familiar with techniques instead, then they can be trained very quickly in whatever language. I learned Java in a week or so, because I was already familiar with other languages.

As for writing good software, that has been known for a long time as well. The problem is that often time real-life tempts programmers into fudging things, and these hacks never get cleaned up, they keep accumulating and rotting. It also does not help when the entire application is developed as a monolith in one language. Different language excel at different tasks. Software should be written as if your boss could come in at any moment and demand that any one part of it needs to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Never get comfortable.

>>16918501

Eric Raymond is a moron and this is just one of the many reasons why. Being able to patch your software is the absolute baseline, not a recipe for quality. I seriously wonder how people who used open source shitware for more than a year can spout this sort of stuff without dying from cognitive dissonance.

>>16918563

I guess my standards for languages are rather high; I consider e.g. Ada and Common Lisp to be far above most other popular languages, but I wouldn't call either good. One thing I'm particularly angry about is how lackluster error handling is in extant languages. This includes the two I mentioned, even though they have some great stuff in that area.

>So many soydevs learn one thing and never want to progress beyond that.

This is true and really remarkable, there are so many programmers who get an absurdly strong and straight up irrational attachment to their tools, defending even the most blatant flaws as if a flaw of the tool was an indictment of their person. Go fanboys are a pretty recent example that left me speechless on several occasions, but there are many more.

I always wonder if this phenomenon is specific to programming. Even though brand loyalty is a thing everywhere, I don't think I ever saw it as extreme in a professional setting as it is here.

>I don't want to give away too much about what industry I work in, but there is actually a language designed by a major industry player exactly for the very purpose we need.

That's a shame, I would have very much liked to see it. Is the industry so small that this would already give away info about you?

>In fact, the whole idea of looking for "language X developers" is retarded; you should look for smart people who are familiar with techniques instead, then they can be trained very quickly in whatever language.

Ain't that the truth.

>The problem is that often time real-life tempts programmers into fudging things, and these hacks never get cleaned up, they keep accumulating and rotting.

I include knowing how to deal with this under knowing how to make good software, so we may actually substantially agree here and only argue about words. I really like Dijkstra's mathematical approach to programming for instance, but I know first hand how time consuming it is, even if the results are great.

>>16918591

>I guess my standards for languages are rather high; I consider e.g. Ada and Common Lisp to be far above most other popular languages, but I wouldn't call either good. One thing I'm particularly angry about is how lackluster error handling is in extant languages. This includes the two I mentioned, even though they have some great stuff in that area.

Ada is on my eternal "I'll learn it one day" list. I find some of its ideas really intriguing, like the type system. Comm Lisp is wonderful, even though it's quite ugly in parts. A real shame I never have the opportunity to use it in anything productive though.

>This is true and really remarkable, there are so many programmers who get an absurdly strong and straight up irrational attachment to their tools, defending even the most blatant flaws as if a flaw of the tool was an indictment of their person. Go fanboys are a pretty recent example that left me speechless on several occasions, but there are many more.

>I always wonder if this phenomenon is specific to programming. Even though brand loyalty is a thing everywhere, I don't think I ever saw it as extreme in a professional setting as it is here.

All I know are IDE fanboys. It's funny watching Eclipse and IntelliJ people fling shit at each other, when all IDEs are dogshit. Personally I couldn't care less about what tools other people use, but the soydevs don't know how to actually use the real tools, they only know how to press magic buttons in their IDE, so when it comes to project setup you either have to sheepishly follow their instructions, or figure shit out yourself. I don't need instructions, I need the specifications, the rest I can do on my own.

Brand loyalty has always been a thing, but I don't believe that this level of autism exists in other crafts. I cannot imagine a carpenter throwing an autistic shitfit because he has to use a sawblade from a different brand. He might bitch about the build quality, but he will get the job done. Part of this is because most sawblades are pretty much all the same, but more importantly, he understands his tools. IDEs are specifically designed for you to not understand what you are doing, to keep you dumb and dependent.

>That's a shame, I would have very much liked to see it. Is the industry so small that this would already give away info about you?

Oh well, fuck it, it's not like anyone from work reads this website. I meant Erlang. I started to learn it for myself, and we could have had so many problems solved for free, I am probably the only person in the entire company who even knows what functional programming is.

>>In fact, the whole idea of looking for "language X developers" is retarded; you should look for smart people who are familiar with techniques instead, then they can be trained very quickly in whatever language.

>I include knowing how to deal with this under knowing how to make good software, so we may actually substantially agree here and only argue about words. I really like Dijkstra's mathematical approach to programming for instance, but I know first hand how time consuming it is, even if the results are great.

Yes, I did not mean to disagree with you, I just wanted to point out why we can't have nice things. Computer science is an outgrowth of mathematics and electric engineering (the authors of SICP are actually electric engineers), but it seems that many programmers don't have have the mindset of either discipline.

>>16918922

>You sound like you have frontline experience in gamedev.

No, I do not, but I have dabbled in it and other areas a bit, enough to keep me afloat during my NEET days (not sure if that counts are NEET anymore when you have a small business). It was an interesting experience because I had to live with every shitty decision I made. Not enough testing? I get clean the mess up. Bad documentation? I get to deal with customer support. Lack of automation? I have to do it all by hand. Lackluster sales? It hits my wallet. Wrong choice of tooling? I have to put up with it. There was no "it's now someone else's problem", and that made me conscious of all the different perspectives at least on some level. I am still a programmer, and I wouldn't want to do customer service or marketing, but I have had at least contact with it. Perhaps that is why I have a different outlook on the development process than someone who just churns out code all day.

>>16918591

>Being able to patch your software is the absolute baseline, not a recipe for quality

Open and closed source softwares get patches. FOSS encompasses something much bigger. You want to get as many eyes on your software as possible to examine for bugs and write features. That is a huge benefit for quality.

>>16919134

>Erlang

I smell telcos. Ironically, Erlang was on my eternal list of things to check one day. Funny how these things work out.

>>16919152

Patches by me, the user, are the deciding factor, not patches by somebody. The 1000 eye mantra is as tired as it is wrong: Maybe a dozen of those eyes are useful, and maybe two of those are working on shit that needs to be done, while the others "write features" that cause problem after problem and that I don't want anywhere near my box. Most of my custom patches are removing dumbshit "features" that somebody had a lot of fun writing while the useful part of the software kept rotting.

But sadly, with the way you rattle off every cliché FOSS cultist line whether it fits what you are replying to or not I expect none of this to go into your head and am dearly waiting for all-time classics like "if it's so shit why don't you fix it" or "but Windows" or whatever else is on the evangelist recruitment flowchart for this situation. Reminder: You claimed FOSS magically results in quality software.

>>16919134

>IDEs are specifically designed for you to not understand what you are doing, to keep you dumb and dependent.

Never thought about it that way, pretty good point, i'm quite happy with the IDEs i use but maybe i should look into doing things myself. But on the other hand they can save me trouble and time, mind you i'm relatively new to this.

>>16919190

>Patches by me, the user, are the deciding factor, not patches by somebody.

Anon if you're wanting to patch the software you use, how will you do it without the source code?

>The 1000 eye mantra is as tired as it is wrong: Maybe a dozen of those eyes are useful, and maybe two of those are working on shit that needs to be done

Yes that's the point. Only a fraction of the people looking at it will actually provide any tangible change. These people are fixing shit that otherwise would remain broken in with closed source because nobody is able to examine the code aside from a small in house dev team who have to conform to arbitrary company standards which are more often than not shit.

>others "write features" that cause problem after problem and that I don't want anywhere near my box

This isn't a problem of FOSS, but the opposite. Only closed source software forces you to have features you don't want. You complain about having features you don't like, while also complaining about having the ability to remove said features you don't like. I don't think you know what FOSS means anon.

>But sadly, with the way you rattle off every cliché FOSS cultist line whether it fits what you are replying to or not I expect none of this to go into your head and am dearly waiting for all-time classics like "if it's so shit why don't you fix it" or "but Windows" or whatever else is on the evangelist recruitment flowchart for this situation.

(You)

>>16919134

>No, I do not, but I have dabbled in it and other areas a bit, enough to keep me afloat during my NEET days (not sure if that counts are NEET anymore when you have a small business). It was an interesting experience because I had to live with every shitty decision I made. Not enough testing? I get clean the mess up. Bad documentation? I get to deal with customer support. Lack of automation? I have to do it all by hand. Lackluster sales? It hits my wallet. Wrong choice of tooling? I have to put up with it. There was no "it's now someone else's problem", and that made me conscious of all the different perspectives at least on some level. I am still a programmer, and I wouldn't want to do customer service or marketing, but I have had at least contact with it. Perhaps that is why I have a different outlook on the development process than someone who just churns out code all day.

How do you get clients as a small business? Why wouldn't everyone just pay the biggest well-known reliable company for a similar service instead?

>>16919235

I can answer that. I run a one-person consultancy.

Several reasons. Cost, availability, means-of-access, willing to take on specific kinds of clients, support/not feeling like a 'cog-in-the-machine'.

An example, would you rather pay someone $250hr for 10 hours of work, or $150hr to someone, to perform at equal quality?

Branding, marketing, and projecting a specific image can be persuasive.

>>16918563

>What we would need is to tear most of that shit down, pull our shit together and get out of our comfort zones. But of course that's never going to happen, so it's an eternal hackjob.

Engineers like this piss me off. To me, it signals to me that ultimately, they do not like programming. They don't want to learn anything new because it scares them, despite the fact that they are being paid to do it so it's not like there is a huge amount of risk for them. They either never should have been programmers or were never taught the underlying concepts of computer science that allow any competent engineer to move from one language and framework to another with relative ease. It's all the same shit, just with a different syntax, unless you move to a highly opinionated piece of technology that demands you do something radically different. Ultimately it still all boils down to put data in memory address, manipulate data, and put it somewhere else.

>>16919134

>IDEs are specifically designed for you to not understand what you are doing, to keep you dumb and dependent.

That's a silly line of reasoning. It is in a programmer's nature to write programs to make their own workflow easier. Any ignorance or shortcoming in project structure and build process is purely the engineer's fault for not knowing enough about their own craft. This is why learning the underlying concepts is so important. If you were to tear it all down and work with the project manually using a basic text editor, you'd soon find yourself writing scripts to automate pieces of the process for you, which just ends up being a proto-IDE.

>I meant Erlang

Just so you know, there is actually at least one piece of industry standard tech which uses Erlang (RabbitMQ specifically) so there is some room for anonymity there.

>>16919190

>ybe a dozen of those eyes are useful, and maybe two of those are working on shit that needs to be done, while the others "write features" that cause problem after problem and that I don't want anywhere near my box. Most of my custom patches are removing dumbshit "features" that somebody had a lot of fun writing while the useful part of the software kept rotting.

I'm confused at why, in this hypothetical piece of FOSS, you allowed everyone to push their changes to the master branch with no verification, forcing yourself to write custom patches to remove features that were pushed there. Although being a repository manager is a lot of effort by itself and a noteworthy cost to maintaining a decent open source repository.

>>16919226

>he actually went for butwindows.txt

Nobody is arguing that closed source is better than FOSS, you fucking mongoloid. Try reading posts before you reply to them with irrelevant textwalls.

>>16919287

I'm not the one allowing anything because I'm not upstream. What I patch out is the dumb shit that upstream pushed into the next release. This isn't hypothetical FOSS, this is what I deal with as a user regularly.

>>16919298

le countersage

>>16919302

Why are you pulling shit from upstream that you don't want, you dumb nigger

>>16919302

So in other words, you're using software maintained by retards, then, or at the very least a retarded repo manager. That doesn't really prove that FOSS is shit, just that the repo manager is retarded.

>>16919192

IDEs have useful features like auto-completion, finding references or jumping to the definition. However, the idea that you need an IDE for that is wrong. You can take a plain, but programmable text editor like Emacs and just hook up these features to it.

This is for example how Common Lisp development is done: you have your editor, usually Emacs, and you have a Common Lisp server application called Swank. Swank is like an IDE, except it has no interface. Instead you use the Slime plugin for Emacs to hook up Swank to Emacs. The two can communicate and you get all the IDE features right in your favorite editor. But here is where it gets really good: if you don't want to use Emacs, there are also plugins for Vim, Atom and probably other editors as well.

Outside of Common Lisp there is a Language Server Protocol, which aims to be a similar thing, but provide one universal protocol for all the various languages. That's actually how I write Java: I use Emacs as my editor and the Eclipse language server, which is all the Java tooling extracted from Eclipse. It's pretty nice.

But I am not against IDEs in general. As I said, use whatever works for you. I would still encourage people at least when they are starting out to do things manually. You do not need to manually invoke the compiler every time, but having done it a couple of times gives you a sense for what all these tools are doing behind the scenes. Don't be that guy who only has a hammer and sees everything as a nail.

>>16919235

What >>16919256 said, plus being cheaper and more niche than the big guys. There are also websites where you can sell and advertise your stuff.

Mind you, I wasn't getting rich, I was just making enough to get by. Really, I was depressed as fuck and programming was the one thing that would keep my brain occupied with something else, I just got lucky that something I could monetize came out of it. I would like to run a business again, but this time for real, with proper clients and contracts.

>>16919287

>Engineers like this piss me off. To me, it signals to me that ultimately, they do not like programming. They don't want to learn anything new because it scares them, despite the fact that they are being paid to do it so it's not like there is a huge amount of risk for them. They either never should have been programmers or were never taught the underlying concepts of computer science that allow any competent engineer to move from one language and framework to another with relative ease. It's all the same shit, just with a different syntax, unless you move to a highly opinionated piece of technology that demands you do something radically different. Ultimately it still all boils down to put data in memory address, manipulate data, and put it somewhere else.

Now that I think about it, I think it would be accurate to say that "programming is a white-collar job which requires a blue-collar mindset".

>>16918367

its almost never nepotism

it is, however, almost always cronyism

theres a difference

>>16919366

If you do any government work, its always both nepotism & cronyism hires everywhere.

>>16918591

>I always wonder if this phenomenon is specific to programming.It isn't. For the overwhelming majority of human beings out there, having another person present an argument against one's interests/likes/tools/friends/families/etc is a direct and personal attack against one's self. Try and think of any time in your life where you brought up valid criticism against something another person held dear. Now think how many times the people on the receiving end of such criticism sperged out and got angry, and compare it to how many times they tried to get a clear picture of the events and continued the discussion in a rational manner.

Lack of objectivity and the inability to argue without resorting to emotions are two of the worst problems facing humanity. These two issues are the root of almost every man made problem since the dawn of history. Not being able to use language to communicate causes nothing but problems. On the flip side, problems rarely get solved without having a clear headed discussion; and failing a clear headed discussion, problems are usually ignored or solved by some form of violence. Try to imagine a world where schools teach children how to approach situations with objectivity, and how to argue without getting upset. Now compare that kind of world to the reality we have to deal with. It's depressing.

Why the fuck am I banned half the time when I try to post with tor?

>>16919366

well look I go based on personal experience and so for me it was neopotism that I had big problems with. A lot of smaller start ups in the games industry have this habit of bringing in family members or friends to fill roles in companies. This results in a lot of people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing. But yeah Cronyism is more a long the line of why AAA studios are so fucked. The smaller studios its nearly always Neopotism because they rarely trust outsiders with the higher paid jobs. They also pay each other waaaay too much compared to the rest of the studio.

>>16918492

Lots of things require merging a lot of different disciplines, though. Look at healthcare or, say, aircraft. A person can argue that the former has entire college degrees for it (of doubtful worth, I'm sure) and the latter is a lot of political maneuvering and letting people make small refinements to things that already exist. But they still require integrating many vastly different types of worker and with management that may know a small part of it well, and the further up you go the less the management knows any actual job. Look at other types of software aside from games. What makes games so unique in the software world? Specially incompetent management? The need to integrate art and voice and those kinds of assets?

I also suspect that plenty of old game companies were mismanaged and simply went under due to similar problems such as going overbudget and missing deadlines–but we don't remember them because they were small and disappeared. Newer studios are on balance bigger and better able to withstand a few botched releases or bad returns. Older games have suffered due to being rushed for Christmas seasons, for instance. Also, most games are integrating expensive and time-restricted (VA and mocap actor time etc) content, and integrating that kind of thing is challenging no matter what–integrating ANYTHING into a process that has difficult, expensive, or rigid change requirements makes the project harder to manage. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd like to know if older game shops were also as badly mismanged as new ones seem to be. I don't deny that working conditions are probably worse these days, but at least some of that's on the workers for being so enraptured with being allowed to make video games that they're not willing to walk away from bad conditions into other types of software development. It's not like the video game manager's association of America just decided one year to start collectively being shitheads. Perhaps the devs don't have much choice but to keep working, because their skills perhaps don't translate well into the development of other software. But then that makes game creation a dead-end job and those unfailingly have poor working conditions simply because workers have no ability to change jobs if they don't like the conditions.

I mean, naturally I'm talking out of my ass since I have no experience in the field or, really, in any other one. That's probably pretty obvious but I thought it would bear saying.

>>16919356

>That doesn't really prove that FOSS is shit

I haven't said that FOSS is shit, or that proprietary garbage is better. Why can't people read? I was answering somebody who claimed that making it FOSS is all you need to get quality software because muh 1000 eyes and other classic zealot mantras that have been disproven a million times over. Read the discussion between me and the other guy again and notice how his text walls have nothing to do with what I ever wrote.

>>16919451

>Why the fuck am I banned half the time when I try to post with tor?

Consider using the Hidden Service, it only gets banned when Mark the BO fucks up. Means no images though.

>>16919848

He wasn't quite saying that FOSS is "all you need" to get quality software. That would imply one only needs to make their software project open source in order to make it perfect. He was saying that going open source automatically improves it, which I think is debatable for every case but true in many examples. I think it mostly shifts responsibility to the repo manager or whoever is gatekeeping the project. You can have the best contributions from random people but if the gatekeepers don't accept it, your project will still end up poorly coded. Or if they accept code that they didn't check enough for bugs. They may have written automated tests which are actually shit, and someone checked the code but not the tests, so didn't realize that the tests were shit and the code has some obscure bug. Et cetera.

So you just think the other anon's arguments for FOSS are flawed, but that FOSS is fine? It helps if you clearly state your position because most people are going to assume you have a certain position if you are going to take the time to debunk or shit on the talking points, even if they are shitty talking points. I agree that the other anon is retarded for jumping to the conclusion that you were defending closed source though.

>>16919922

I don't know, replying to "how to reliably make good software" with "just open source everything" seems pretty straightforward to me and his other posts sure gave me the impression of a black/white worldview with FOSS as the silver bullet. It's not a particularly rare standpoint either unfortunately, it's standard "the mass will fix it" fare. I hear it all the time.

>So you just think the other anon's arguments for FOSS are flawed, but that FOSS is fine?

It's not like I have a problem with FOSS in principle, but it's definitely not fine as it is. "FOSS space" (for lack of a better term) is full of systemic problems, which I think are mostly related to the "everyone can play" unculture usually attached to it, so precisely the "much more" he mentioned. Taking a stance against this is hard work and unpopular, like telling the mass to go fuck itself usually is. Take OpenBSD for instance. Compare what you need to get a driver into OpenBSD with what you need to get one into Linux. Then compare the quality and popularity of the two projects. You can run a FOSS project sanely, but you rarely ever see that happen because it's expensive, and since FOSS projects typically suck at cooperation, you will frequently end up having to work around the newest popular insanity.

It's worth mentioning that I similarly don't have a problem with proprietary software in principle as long as the user still controls his machine - no bullshit restrictions, user has access to sources, etc. There are few good examples of this (the Lisp world had some) and most are long dead, so I'm glad that FOSS is there to choke this shit out of the market right now. But it's still a double-edged sword because you also kill the economic basis for sane software written that way. Not everybody can afford to give away his work for free.

>>16918922

>So most games are funded by people chasing trends and not giving too many fucks about product quality?

What? That's not what I said at all, most people running games don't understand the industry or how games are made. It's nothing about quality.

>>16920524

Ah, to clarify, to me, not understanding the industry a product is being built for and how its built, is part and parcel to quality.

>>16920973

>flowchart answer with epic reaction image

Every time. Go ahead, show me all those FOSS projects that weren't massively unprofitable for the first years of their life.

>>16920973

Ever heard of sophistry, anon?

>>16921025

>torpedo being retarded

every time.

>show me all those FOSS projects that weren't massively unprofitable for the first years of their life.

oh god, you're that fucking torpedo who thinks IF IT'S NOT RELEASED FOSS FROM THE START IT'S NOT FOSS.

least I don't have to write up another answer now that I know you're too retarded for it.

>>16921141

you quoted the wrong post, right? or are you getting confused by big posts that make even less sense?

>>16921255

His post talked about FOSS projects being profitable in the beginning. That means it can either refer to projects that started FOSS from the beginning and were profitable, or became FOSS and started to be or continued to be profitable after turning FOSS.

So the questions still stand, if you knw of any projects that were profitable from the beginning or became/continued to be profitable after turning FOSS, then you would prove him wrong.

>>16921317

>you'll never be a Mega Cum Lad

Why even live

>>16921255

So you can't.

>>16920072

>Take OpenBSD for instance. Compare what you need to get a driver into OpenBSD with what you need to get one into Linux. Then compare the quality and popularity of the two projects.

Linux and OpenBSD are for different use cases. The latter being into hardcore security, so it has higher standards. What's your point?

>you also kill the economic basis for sane software written that way

The obvious counter example to this is Red Hat. Though even GNU Project seem to get along by users donating to them, rather than being like a normal company.

>>16921607

Funny meme, 8/10

That artist sucks, 0/10

>>16921556

he complains about "black and white worldview" while posting absolute retarded arguments that ignore almost all factors involved, I don't think he even has a point.

>>16921556

My point is that the culture around FOSS encourages low standards and specific types of software flaws, so I can't call FOSS "fine". Recall, the context was how to reliably make good software. As for the second part, Red Hat and GNU are not the norm. Most FOSS authors earn absolutely jackshit from their projects, so when you "force" everything to become FOSS, you only get those that can afford doing so. A fair share of FOSS projects making money also do so in questionable ways. The author of GnuPG for instance is basically paid to maintain the incomprehensible mess he himself created and happily makes it messier every release. It's borderline blackmail.

I'm a bit interested in what you think Linux's use case is if it excuses bad code, but then the thread would be completely derailed.

>>16921871

>My point is that the culture around FOSS encourages low standards and specific types of software flaws

How does it encourage low standards, and what kind of flaws? And why would such flaws not be seen in proprietary software?

>Most FOSS authors earn absolutely jackshit from their projects

Most FOSS projects are autists putting what they develop on the weekend on github. The aim of FOSS isn't to make money even though it's been shown you can do that too. The point is to make it free as in free speech.

>The author of GnuPG for instance is basically paid to maintain the incomprehensible mess he himself created and happily makes it messier every release. It's borderline blackmail.

Contrast this to if the project was under a propriety licence. That would be blackmail.

>what you think Linux's use case is if it excuses bad code

Linux was the result of an autistic Finngol that wanted bootleg minix. If you believe Linux has bad code, which part do you dislike? And would you think the quality of codebase would be better if it had fewer eyes watching over it?

>>16921627

Fuck you.

>>16922262

Hey buddy, /cuteboys/ is two doors down.

>>16922259

>every single sentence is either twisting words or unrelated to what I said

>foss blackmail is actually fine because what if it was proprietary blackmail

I'm out. It's like I'm talking to a Jehova's witness.