idNews: from Jay
David Taylor
=-ddt->
If you are interested in developing and releasing a DOOM editor, some
sort of DOOM data manipulator or any utility that uses the DOOM name
and/or other id Software trademarked/copywrited properties you will
be required to enter a simple agreement with id Software. This
agreement is designed to define the relationship between third
parties and id as well as protect id Software's trademarked and
copywrited properties.
Document highlights:
-id Software requires no fees or royalties
-You may require user payment for your work
-Your utility MUST not work with the shareware version of DOOM
-You MUST represent that your utility is not an id Software product
and id Software cannot and will not provide support for your product,
nor for DOOM after the data has been changed by your product.
-You may be required to include some LEGAL text in your utility to
make our lawyers happy.
-There may be more or some of the above may not be in the final
document. It depends on my frame of mind at the time. :)
The document is in the construction phase and I expect to have it
ready to mail by the end of March, '94. If you would like a copy
please send your REGULAR POSTAL MAIL ADDRESS to
e-mail: ja...@idsoftware.com
Post: id Software
18601 LBJ Frwy, #615
Mesquite, TX 75150
Be sure to mark your letter "ATTN. THIRD PARTY EDITOR LICENSE
REQUEST" I am sorry to have to resort to the POST but I need to get
signatures and there is no other way to keep this process under
control.
VERY IMPORTANT: DO NOT CALL OUR ORDER, TECHNICAL SUPPORT or OFFICE
PHONE NUMBERS REQUESTING INFORMATION. License requests will only be
honored when sent via the methods described above.
Thanks,
Jay
chris phillips
<TRIPE DELETED>
: -You may require user payment for your work
: -Your utility MUST not work with the shareware version of DOOM
: -You MUST represent that your utility is not an id Software product
: and id Software cannot and will not provide support for your product,
: nor for DOOM after the data has been changed by your product.
: -You may be required to include some LEGAL text in your utility to
: make our lawyers happy.
: -There may be more or some of the above may not be in the final
: document. It depends on my frame of mind at the time. :)
: The document is in the construction phase and I expect to have it
: ready to mail by the end of March, '94. If you would like a copy
: please send your REGULAR POSTAL MAIL ADDRESS to
: Be sure to mark your letter "ATTN. THIRD PARTY EDITOR LICENSE
: REQUEST" I am sorry to have to resort to the POST but I need to get
: signatures and there is no other way to keep this process under
: control.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a while.
ID has no right to ask for licences... they havnt provided any
technology. Everyone who has produced a level editor has done so with
(enforced) clean room technics. Here a good rule of thumb when it comes
to signing agreements such as this: What rights have you signed away and
what have you got in return. As I see this you sign away a buncht
of rights regarding use and distibution of YOUR program. And what do you
get in return.... Bupkis... nada... not even tech docs...
I cant quote the exact case but Mega-company Bruderbund once
tried to stop a few small mail order companys from producing editor and
graphics for Print Shop. The judge just stoped giggling long enuf to say
Case Dissmissed.
Now if I was the parinoid type I might think like this:
You Mr. Goodcitizen say to your self: Hey, ID has been good to me
Ill take a look at this "Agreement". So you send in for a copy... but
for some reason decide not to sign it. You go ahead and produce your
level editor anyway.... 2 months later your in court. ID didnt have a
let to stand on... But now they have a nice POSTMARKED letter from you
address to 3RD PARTY EDITOR LICENCE REQUEST.
I'm not a lawer (my parents knew each other) but I would
certainly check with one before I did ANYTHING regarding this
"Agreement".
Re-butles ne1
Chris
Jussi T Haro
: David Taylor (d...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: <TRIPE DELETED>
[David Taylor original message deleted ]
: This is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a while.
: ID has no right to ask for licences... they havnt provided any
: technology. Everyone who has produced a level editor has done so with
: (enforced) clean room technics. Here a good rule of thumb when it comes
: to signing agreements such as this: What rights have you signed away and
: what have you got in return. As I see this you sign away a buncht
: of rights regarding use and distibution of YOUR program. And what do you
: get in return.... Bupkis... nada... not even tech docs...
SNIP SNIP
: I'm not a lawer (my parents knew each other) but I would
: certainly check with one before I did ANYTHING regarding this
: "Agreement".
While ID might not be able to sue anyone for writing an editor for DOOM,
they are able to one pretty important thing which you seem to have
forgotten. If people continue to write programs that work with the
unregistered version, the next game ID will produce will have encrypted
datafiles, making it pretty much impossible to create these
'unauthorized' editors.
By not encrypting the datafiles that come with DOOM ID pretty much left
open doors to people doing the current programs, and I'm sure they knew
(or at least should have known) what they were doing, and that should be
respected.
The demands David posted seemed pretty OK to me - they could be asking
for money from people making it with their editors.
jussi
--
Remember : no-one can prove I wrote this, or that you have written
anything here, assuming no-one has recorded the action
onto any other medium. Electronic mail has no fingerprints.
weig...@vax.sbu.ac.uk
> ready to mail by the end of March, '94.
Hmmm, ready to mail in about two weeks. Now that sounds familiar. ;)
Neil.
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Neil Weightman | Telephone: +44 (0)71 815 7923 |
| School of Applied Science | Fax: +44 (0)71 815 7999 |
| South Bank University | E-Mail: WEIG...@VAX.SBU.AC.UK |
| London, UK | My Opinions: Are Mine |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>David Taylor (d...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
> <TRIPE DELETED>
>
>: -You may require user payment for your work
>: -Your utility MUST not work with the shareware version of DOOM
>: -You MUST represent that your utility is not an id Software product
>: and id Software cannot and will not provide support for your product,
>: nor for DOOM after the data has been changed by your product.
>: -You may be required to include some LEGAL text in your utility to
>: make our lawyers happy.
>: -There may be more or some of the above may not be in the final
>: document. It depends on my frame of mind at the time. :)
>
>: The document is in the construction phase and I expect to have it
>: ready to mail by the end of March, '94. If you would like a copy
>: please send your REGULAR POSTAL MAIL ADDRESS to
>
>ID has no right to ask for licences... they havnt provided any
>technology. Everyone who has produced a level editor has done so with
>(enforced) clean room technics. Here a good rule of thumb when it comes
>to signing agreements such as this: What rights have you signed away and
>what have you got in return. As I see this you sign away a buncht
>of rights regarding use and distibution of YOUR program. And what do you
>get in return.... Bupkis... nada... not even tech docs...
Agreed. When Doom was first annouced, Id said that it was going to *offically*
release all the specs, and would promot the creation of 3rd party editors.
As the release date approced, they asked people to do editors only for the
regestered version. NOW they want you to sign your life away.
Here are some bones I want to pick:
A. I got Doom, I bought Doom, but its over hyped. Alot of cool features were
taken out and with each update, the program got buggier. I have to use
the freakin shareware excutable to get it to run right (.99).
B. legal, as long as we don't include source code, people can make editors
for anything.. including the shareware game. They just asked and most
people obeyed since id is such a cool group of guys.
C, They lost my freakin order the first time.
D. version 1.2 is horrible under os/2.
E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
I say we have given them enough rope. If they are going to treat us like
that, I say treat them like any other company.
>
> I cant quote the exact case but Mega-company Bruderbund once
>tried to stop a few small mail order companys from producing editor and
>graphics for Print Shop. The judge just stoped giggling long enuf to say
>Case Dissmissed.
I remember that.. But back then, Bruderbund was probably small than id is.
Rob Merritt
*opinions are my own*
>
Bob Minowicz
In article <1994Mar17....@apgea.army.mil>, rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.doom
From: rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>)
Subject: Re: idNews: from Jay
ok, I think we can all see that id is asking a bit too much here.
However, I'd like to make a few comments...
< Large section deleted >
> Here are some bones I want to pick:
> A. I got Doom, I bought Doom, but its over hyped. Alot of cool features were
> taken out and with each update, the program got buggier. I have to use
> the freakin shareware excutable to get it to run right (.99).
I've had very few problems with it save the one mentioned below.
> B. legal, as long as we don't include source code, people can make editors
> for anything.. including the shareware game. They just asked and most
> people obeyed since id is such a cool group of guys.
Given. But it does cause them trouble to have to deal with the support
questions that they _will_ get regarding the products that others come up
with. You can't really blame them for trying to get folks to go along with
it for no gain. If people agree to it of their own volition, with no real
compensation, then id is guilty only of good business thinking.
> C, They lost my freakin order the first time.
Considering how many orders they did get, I wouldn't hold it against them to
much. I'm sure they didn't loose all that many orders on a percentage basis,
and they sure as hell didn't loose it on purpose. It means $$$ for them.
> D. version 1.2 is horrible under os/2.
Just plain pathetic really. It was a major step down in quality just to add a
PAS native mode driver for DOS users. I tried for hours to get it to work.
No luck. Major problems there.
> E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
> making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
> 2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
Well, this is where I have to go into full flamethrower mode. Parental
discretion is advised.
FLAKE UNIX OS!!! Get a grip! If you're talking abaout Linux, then please
try not to spew your prejudiced view point all over the place. It ruins
what little credibility you might be pretending to have.
It is obvious that you've never used it before. Likely, you've never used
and OS before. Please try not to throw up your hand to scream that you've
used DOS plenty... DOS, as anyone will tell you is a really nice, fully
featured program loader, with a limited file system and a long series of
duct-tape-patched memory management schemes.
Please try to understand that I have nothing against DOS programs, and nothing
at all against Intel based machines in general. I feel that the best choice
for a low priced machine today is an Intel based machine with a real
operating system on it.
A real operating system means multi-process, multi-threaded operation, with
the ability to deal with _all_ hardware without constricting limitations, and
the flexibility to deal with many file systems accessed through often vastly
different interfaces. DOS is none of this; OS/2 and Linux are all of these.
If there's anything lame on your x86 machine, it's DOS and you.
>
> I say we have given them enough rope. If they are going to treat us like
> that, I say treat them like any other company.
Good idea. And while you're at it, just make sure you treat them with the
respect of any group with lots of money, and lots of lawyers to give it to.
P.S. -- Get a spelling and grammar checker.
> Rob Merritt
> *opinions are my own*
Well, it's obvious that at least some of them weren't stolen from anyone that
had even half a brain. It would be clear if they were from anyone else.
(By the way, to those DOS folks that are out there that don't have any twisted
prejudices. I'm not DOS bashing. It really does do what it does quite well.
But When somebody cans your OS of choice in an off hand manner without even
having seen it run... Well, you get the point.)
--
--
Bob Minowicz | "I've seen things you people wouldn't
Consultant | believe -- attack ships on fire off the
Computing Center | shoulder of Orion. I watched sea beams
Joe Wasik
>the next game ID will produce will have encrypted
>datafiles, making it pretty much impossible to create these
>'unauthorized' editors.
That would make it harder, not "pretty much impossible". See, they
will send their decryptor and crypt-key right inside the game.
A little reverse engineering and presto.... you have a normal
data file again.
--
Joe Wasik, Pacific Bell, San Ramon, CA (510)823-2422, jcw...@pacbell.com
Scott C. Cottrille
: David Taylor (d...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: <TRIPE DELETED>
[bitching removed]
This is almost not worth responding to, but:
If Id has copyrighted and registered the trade-mark Doom, then what's wrong
with protecting it? From David's mail, it seems as if this is their only real
concern, other than preventing people from creating tools to modify the
shareware version (which they also have asked you not to do). Any company
worth their beans will protect their copyright and/or trademark. If you wrote
a program that was wildly accepted and became a house-hold name, yet contained
a screen that defaced IBM's big blue letters, I don't think you would be
waiting long before you found yourself in court.
Come on, read the mail before you bitch about something that's not even
relevant.
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>> Here are some bones I want to pick:
>> A. I got Doom, I bought Doom, but its over hyped. Alot of cool features were
>> taken out and with each update, the program got buggier. I have to use
>> the freakin shareware excutable to get it to run right (.99).
>
>I've had very few problems with it save the one mentioned below.
Well, every version since .99 has incressed in disk access. have a 486 dx 33
with 16 megs of ram, it drives me up the walls to see that floppy icon
appear all of the time. Plus to get sound or to have the ability to use
a joystick, I have to boot up DOS! (nothing ticks me off more) So I stick
with .99
[stuff chopped]
>> E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
>> making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
>> 2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
>
>Well, this is where I have to go into full flamethrower mode. Parental
>discretion is advised.
>
>FLAKE UNIX OS!!! Get a grip! If you're talking abaout Linux, then please
>try not to spew your prejudiced view point all over the place. It ruins
>what little credibility you might be pretending to have.
With who? There are only about 500,000 users of some form of Unix in the US.
How many can possibly be running Linux? 10,000?
I'm not picking on the quality of the system. What I've read of Linux leads me
to believe that it might be a better os that os/2. However I remember that
Jay said that the os/2 market was to small and Shawn Green said that os/2
could not do games. (lack of developer tools or something like that which was
proven to be false.)
So when I was saying "flake unix os" I was refering to the hypocrocy of their
past positions.
people can possible be running
>
>It is obvious that you've never used it before. Likely, you've never used
Your right, I haven't used it before. I've used BSD, Solaris, SunOS, Xenix and
Coherent.
>and OS before. Please try not to throw up your hand to scream that you've
>used DOS plenty... DOS, as anyone will tell you is a really nice, fully
>featured program loader, with a limited file system and a long series of
>duct-tape-patched memory management schemes.
Yes, I agree, that why I use OS/2 at home and Solaris at work. (ok, I'd rather
use SunOS but thats not the the direct that sun is going)
>
>Please try to understand that I have nothing against DOS programs, and nothing
>at all against Intel based machines in general. I feel that the best choice
>for a low priced machine today is an Intel based machine with a real
>operating system on it.
I don't. I wish we could just push Dos to an early grave. But I do like Intel
based systems. Sure its a kludge but its grown on my.
>
>A real operating system means multi-process, multi-threaded operation, with
>the ability to deal with _all_ hardware without constricting limitations, and
>the flexibility to deal with many file systems accessed through often vastly
>different interfaces. DOS is none of this; OS/2 and Linux are all of these.
Agree about os/2, I'll take your word for it on Linux.
>
>If there's anything lame on your x86 machine, it's DOS and you.
Thank you for a personal jab. f### you too.
>
>>
>> I say we have given them enough rope. If they are going to treat us like
>> that, I say treat them like any other company.
>
>Good idea. And while you're at it, just make sure you treat them with the
>respect of any group with lots of money, and lots of lawyers to give it to.
Agreed. I just thing their special treatment should end.
>
>P.S. -- Get a spelling and grammar checker.
>
I'd love to but since I'm stick with vi on a OLD BSD system for mail, I have
no ability to run a spell checker since none is approved to run on this
system.
>> Rob Merritt
>> *opinions are my own*
>
>Well, it's obvious that at least some of them weren't stolen from anyone that
>had even half a brain. It would be clear if they were from anyone else.
>
I have to put this disclaimer in there because of where I work.
>(By the way, to those DOS folks that are out there that don't have any twisted
>prejudices. I'm not DOS bashing. It really does do what it does quite well.
>But When somebody cans your OS of choice in an off hand manner without even
>having seen it run... Well, you get the point.)
Running os/2, I get that feeling from Id.
>
>
>--
>--
>Bob Minowicz | "I've seen things you people wouldn't
>Consultant | believe -- attack ships on fire off the
>Computing Center | shoulder of Orion. I watched sea beams
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
my opinions are my own,|"Call me old fashion, but I believe | "Give me OS/2
not of my employer. | in the one true god. His name is | or give me DOS!"
| Orgo and he lives in this lake" | -me
| -- The State |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB6218
[blah blah original messages deleted]
> While ID might not be able to sue anyone for writing an editor for DOOM,
> they are able to one pretty important thing which you seem to have
> forgotten. If people continue to write programs that work with the
> unregistered version, the next game ID will produce will have encrypted
> datafiles, making it pretty much impossible to create these
> 'unauthorized' editors.
> By not encrypting the datafiles that come with DOOM ID pretty much left
> open doors to people doing the current programs, and I'm sure they knew
> (or at least should have known) what they were doing, and that should be
> respected.
> The demands David posted seemed pretty OK to me - they could be asking
> for money from people making it with their editors.
I agree with Jussi. DOOM's data formats are the cleanest, easiest, and
most flexible of any game that I've ever looked into, and I've done a lot.
And I am quite certain that their next game WILL be simultaneously
encrypted and compressed, for reasons of disk space and because of
all the righteous complainers who will destroy whatever faith id had
in third party developer morality.
No one has a god-given right to make doom utilities. And you don't have a
god-given right to official specs either. Try the unofficial specs, they've got
almost everything anyway. We all know that id has made many so-called
promises, and then not delivered. So what?
I think the game speaks for itself, the format of the doom.wad speaks
volumes, the fact that they released it as shareware first was simply
courtesy, and finally, I think we should all enjoy the current state of
information products today, because we're living in a golden age of
data. In the near future, there's going to be a real tightening of the screws.
Everything will be encrypted, and third-party stuff is going to have to have
the blessings of the original developers if it wants to be any good.
Submit all flames to NUL.
Brad Isley
>E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
> making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
> 2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
Yo. Pinhead. Get yer shit together before you post. Linux is not a flake OS.
It works much better than Interactive ever did. I'm running it on six machines
with zero problems. Complete source code for everything. X comes up running
fine. Networking. UUCP. Everything's here except Motif, which requires a
license. AND IT'S FREE. So, put up or shut up.
(It's running on this machine, too)
'nuf said.
--
br...@slammer.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) +1 404 925-9663(H) 493-2484(W)
Student - 30
Besides, why in the world would ID do this in the first place?
ID originally authorized the use of theses editors as long as they work
on the registered versions only, so in fact, they are not 'unauthorized.'
Furthermore, ID only gains from these editors because they generate more
interest for the game. I know I would not have bought the reg. version
if it weren't for these editors. They enhance an already excellent game.
The only reason I can think of that ID would do such a thing is
if they have decided to publish their own editor (greedy, if you ask me).
In that case, as Joe said, reverse engineering would not be particularly
difficult.
BANE.
Tom Weinstein
[ licensing terms deleted ]
> This is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a while.
> ID has no right to ask for licences... they havnt provided any
> technology. Everyone who has produced a level editor has done so with
> (enforced) clean room technics. Here a good rule of thumb when it comes
> to signing agreements such as this: What rights have you signed away and
> what have you got in return. As I see this you sign away a buncht
> of rights regarding use and distibution of YOUR program. And what do you
> get in return.... Bupkis... nada... not even tech docs...
You are an idiot. They have to do this in order to keep their trademark
on the name DOOM. If they don't, the first time someone write
something, and calls it "DOOMedit", their trademark is potentially
jeopardized. If you want to write a doom utility, but don't like the
restrictions of the license, don't use "DOOM" in the name.
--
Chinese is a lousy language for scrabble | Tom Weinstein
-- Neal Stephenson | to...@orac.asd.sgi.com
to...@orac.asd.sgi.com
[ licensing terms deleted ]
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
jerry...@aol.com
Just a quick comment...
>>Uh, then what was the spec file that Hank aka the unpaid employee of Id
>>provided?
> You mean the "Unoffical Doom spec" with about 70% of the info
>and about 99% of that from outside users. Where is the info from ID???
Hank distributes the specs. I write it. Yes, this is Matt Fell in disguise,
I'm trying out AOL. The specs have about 90% of the info, soon to be
97%, since all I have to do is finish the revised part on nodes.
Missing 3% now = new problem, S_ sprites and F_ floors don't work
in PWADs :-(
100% of the info is from outside users, namely me, and a handful
of correspondents with some corrections and additional info.
0% info from id, nevertheless, I'd have to classify myself as an
"id worshipper".
$ $$$$ $$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
chris phillips
: chris phillips (chr...@halcyon.halcyon.com) wrote:
: If Id has copyrighted and registered the trade-mark Doom, then what's wrong
: with protecting it? From David's mail, it seems as if this is their only real
: concern, other than preventing people from creating tools to modify the
: shareware version (which they also have asked you not to do). Any company
: worth their beans will protect their copyright and/or trademark. If you wrote
: a program that was wildly accepted and became a house-hold name, yet contained
: a screen that defaced IBM's big blue letters, I don't think you would be
: waiting long before you found yourself in court.
The conditions outlined in the original post had next to nothing
to do with their tradmark. All any doom editor has to do to stay within
the law is say prominatly "Doom is a registerd trademark of ID Software"
or whatever. The conditions as I see it, were slanted toward telling
programers what they could and couln't do. And to quote "get some
signitures" on licence agreements. I also like the vauge "and whatever
else I may think up" (paraphrased) condition... As to your BIG BLUE
argument. That would be defacement of a trademark, a total seprate
issue. Do you think all the companys making Vacum cleaner bags need a
licence to say "Our vacume bags work in Kirby vacumes". Almost the same
thing....
No, all this "request" is, is a attempt to control something
they have no legal right to control. And the funny thing about that is
that, so far the Best (and only) doom(tm) level editor is from europe
somewhere.... Fat chance they will pony up any licence agreement.
Ball is in your court
Chris
chr...@halcyon.halcyon.co
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Jason O'Rourke
> This is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a while.
>ID has no right to ask for licences... they havnt provided any
>technology. Everyone who has produced a level editor has done so with
>(enforced) clean room technics. Here a good rule of thumb when it comes
Uh, then what was the spec file that Hank aka the unpaid employee of Id
provided?
Back to the licenses: perhaps you noticed that they were not charging
anything for the license, and they were allowing you to charge your users
whatever you like. I'd say they want the addresses as a contact point
in case hordes of users with buggy doom wad files come banging on their
door.
Stop the whining.
Jason O'Rourke
j...@halfmoon.cea.berkeley
Stop the whining.
Jason O'Rourke
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
chris phillips
Jason O'Rourke <j...@halfmoon.cea.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>Uh, then what was the spec file that Hank aka the unpaid employee of Id
>provided?
and about 99% of that from outside users. Where is the info from ID???
A
>
>Back to the licenses: perhaps you noticed that they were not charging
>anything for the license, and they were allowing you to charge your users
>whatever you like. I'd say they want the addresses as a contact point
>in case hordes of users with buggy doom wad files come banging on their
>door.
>
Gee, thats nice of them... They dont give us anything.. but dont
charge us. But they "Let" us charge for our hard work. Best deal I've
heard of in quite a while. The support issue is a valid one, but I dont
see how a "licence" is going to change that. Doom(tm) displays a message
when you modify the WAD. That says "We wont support this". Isn't that
enuf. and if it isnt how is a licence gonna help.
Come on! Is every one in this group a blind ID worshiper! I miss
the ID that promised Doom(tm) would be "Open" with specs provided. The
ID who loved all the user support Wolf 3D recived. Somewhere along the
line ID became the Pc game comunity eqivilant of a "Suit". Witch is fine
with me. Everybody's got to make a living. But dont expect me to bend
over when ID snapes its fingers, just because its produced the only
decent game in 2 years.
Man, the gloves are off now.
Chris
>
chr...@halcyon.halcyon.co
>
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
JerryB6218
Just a quick comment...
>>Uh, then what was the spec file that Hank aka the unpaid employee of Id
>>provided?
> You mean the "Unoffical Doom spec" with about 70% of the info
>and about 99% of that from outside users. Where is the info from ID???
Hank distributes the specs. I write it. Yes, this is Matt Fell in disguise,
M Butow
[previous article and part of Jussi's response deleted...]
>By not encrypting the datafiles that come with DOOM ID pretty much left
>open doors to people doing the current programs, and I'm sure they knew
>(or at least should have known) what they were doing, and that should be
>respected.
Agreed, and I also think we should respect ID's wishes on not tampering
with the shareware version, but to require "licenses" for developing
utilities for the registered version using clean room methods - without
even using ID's non-existent "official specs" - goes too far IMHO.
Encrypting their datafiles would just be a quick fix, and I don't think
their customers would like it, because non-trivial crypto is hard to
implement and too time-consuming, unless you play on a Cray :-)
So, why not chill out a little, ID ?
Mike
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\ Michael Butow
/ (mbu...@cs.uct.ac.za)
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Scott Coleman
>I agree with Jussi. DOOM's data formats are the cleanest, easiest, and
>most flexible of any game that I've ever looked into, and I've done a lot.
>And I am quite certain that their next game WILL be simultaneously
>encrypted and compressed, for reasons of disk space and because of
>all the righteous complainers who will destroy whatever faith id had
>in third party developer morality.
I'm not so sure. Decryption and decompression both take time, and when
a game is pushing the envelope of performance, it just doesn't have the
spare cycles to be constantly decrypting and decompressing everything.
To convince yourself of the merit of my point, ask yourself how well DOOM
runs on a DOUBLESPACEd hard disk. Then add decryption time to that.
Maybe the next generation hardware will be up to it. Maybe not.
--
Scott Coleman tm...@uiuc.edu
President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)
Ed Green Fan Club #005
gen...@ilces.ag.uiuc.edu
Joseph James Ervin
I disagree with your comments about running DOOM on a doublespace'd drive.
I do it all the time, on my 486DX-33 at home, and I have no complaints
whatsoever. I've run DOOM on several different PC's, and the penalty due
to the doublespace compression is negligable.
This is true in general for doublespace with respect to reading information
from the disk. Writing information to the disk is noticably slower, but
when running games and such, the performance is more affected by the read
performance, in my experience.
>>>Joe
er...@pinbot.enet.dec.com
>>>Joe
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Barry Bloom
> chris phillips <chr...@halcyon.halcyon.com> wrote:
> > This is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a while.
> >ID has no right to ask for licences... they havnt provided any
> >technology. Everyone who has produced a level editor has done so with
> >(enforced) clean room technics. Here a good rule of thumb when it comes
> Uh, then what was the spec file that Hank aka the unpaid employee of Id
> provided?
Someone who isn't associated with iD. Someone hacked the information in
the .wad file from scratch.
> Back to the licenses: perhaps you noticed that they were not charging
> anything for the license, and they were allowing you to charge your users
> whatever you like. I'd say they want the addresses as a contact point
> in case hordes of users with buggy doom wad files come banging on their
> door.
> Stop the whining.
> Jason O'Rourke
REALITY CHECK!
These are the guys that made DOOM. They talk to us more than any other
company.
Just keep this flame fest up. Slowly but surely we'll all make iD go
away to software "suit" land like all the rest. Thanks a bunch.
Can you imagine the shit that Origin would raise if someone made an
editor that allowed you to create a whole new Ultima! Jeez, this is what
iD is saying is OK to do. We will have NEW doom as long as we want.
What other company can claim to give it's users this freedom. Look at
the facts.
I for one, wanted to have some input into Quake when they start making
it. So much for that.
BTW: I run my FTP site because I want to. Id gives me nothing for it.
--
ba...@noc.unt.edu I am convinced that UFOs exist
Modem strings for doom? Send email. because I've seen one
DOOM only FTP: ocf.unt.edu /pub/doom -Jimmy Carter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ba...@jove.acs.unt.edu
> Stop the whining.
> Jason O'Rourke
REALITY CHECK!
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Rcmerrit
> Come on! Is every one in this group a blind ID worshiper! I miss
>the ID that promised Doom(tm) would be "Open" with specs provided. The
>ID who loved all the user support Wolf 3D recived. Somewhere along the
>line ID became the Pc game comunity eqivilant of a "Suit". Witch is fine
>with me. Everybody's got to make a living. But dont expect me to bend
>over when ID snapes its fingers, just because its produced the only
>decent game in 2 years.
>
> Man, the gloves are off now.
> Chris
>
Here!Here! I whole heartedly agree. I don't think that we should put them down
(even though they have broken so many promishes) but they shouldn't get any
special treatment.
The amount they advertised Doom on the net was almost criminal. They should
have to pay like everyone else.
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
my opinions are my own,|"Call me old fashion, but I believe | "Give me OS/2
not of my employer. | in the one true god. His name is | or give me DOS!"
| Orgo and he lives in this lake" | -me
| -- The State |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Jim Pitts
Barry Bloom <ba...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>Jason O'Rourke (j...@halfmoon.cea.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>> chris phillips <chr...@halcyon.halcyon.com> wrote:
>> > This is the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a while.
>> provided?
>Someone who isn't associated with iD. Someone hacked the information in
>the .wad file from scratch.
>> Back to the licenses: perhaps you noticed that they were not charging
>> anything for the license, and they were allowing you to charge your users
>> whatever you like. I'd say they want the addresses as a contact point
>> in case hordes of users with buggy doom wad files come banging on their
>> door.
>
>REALITY CHECK!
>
Good idea.
>These are the guys that made DOOM. They talk to us more than any other
>company.
>
Id is a software company like any other. They make money at our expense. The
fact that they listen to us is just a sign that they are smart. They know
how to market and sell a game. Asking us what we want is sort of saying
"what would you pay for?" Market research is smart for them, good for us.
I have no intention of granting Id -any- slack. I expect them to hold up to
the standards of -any- software company. So far, they have done a totally
cool job. I hope they keep it up. If they do, I am sure they will prosper.
>Just keep this flame fest up. Slowly but surely we'll all make iD go
>away to software "suit" land like all the rest. Thanks a bunch.
>
I agree with this on levels. Sure, Id would like us to register and use a
license, if for no reason than to limit the amount of hacking that goes on.
I am sure they know perfectly well that after any game is out long enough
the talented hacker community has hacked the crap out of it (how long was it
before there was a save game editor for Doom ...) These things happen. It
is a fact of life.
I do -not- think Id would be so silly as to "software "suit" land" over a bunch of hackers
breaking their file formats ... unless such hacks started to infringe on
their copyrights.
Remember, if you have a copy of shareware Doom, or purchased a copy of the
registered Doom, you can modify and use anything in the code/data files, period.
It is your property, your computer, and your life. Go for it. What you
can -not- do is sell or distribute your modified copies. You can sell and
distribute a patch, can sell and distribute utilities of -any- kind, but
can -not- sell and distribute modified Doom source code/data files.
Yes, that means that all these people editing and distributing WAD files
violate the software agreement made with ID. If you write a program that
writes the file from scratch (ie does not read in and modify/write out the
Id owned Doom levels) that is cool. Modifying and distributing the
WAD files from the Doom distribution is not.
Same goes for the early versions of SERSETUP where people used a hex editor
to modify and SERSETUP distributed with Doom. It was legal to do it on
your legal copy, not legal to distribute the modified binary.
Now I am sure Id does not care (I hope), so don't flame me.
No, you do -not- have to register jack with Id to write/market software for
use with Doom. If you choose not to, however, be careful. There are hazards
that you can easily fall into legally. Honestly it is cool that Id as allowed
people to easily and cheaply register. There is no reason not to, and it is
only in your legal advantage to do so. It makes it possible for all sorts of
cool Doom 3rd party software out there ... and you can bet there will be
some. Bravo, Id.
Now if you register with them and sign a software license agreement, get
information on their file formats, and -then- break the rules ... well that
is a different story.
>Can you imagine the shit that Origin would raise if someone made an
>editor that allowed you to create a whole new Ultima! Jeez, this is what
> iD is saying is OK to do. We will have NEW doom as long as we want.
>What other company can claim to give it's users this freedom. Look at
>the facts.
>
I agree that Origin would have pitched a fit. They also would not have had a
legal pot to pee in. Id has about as much say in this as Origin have.
FYI I am -sure- Origin would have raised a fuss. I am also sure that Origin
wrote Ultima so that this could not be done without violation of their
copyright. And if you did that ... well ... what a mess.
>I for one, wanted to have some input into Quake when they start making
>it. So much for that.
Me too. If they keep up their current market tactics I am we will.
--
- pi...@mimosa.astro.indiana.edu ^ | James J. Pitts -
- Most people are sheep. /@\ | IU Physics Dept -
- Only a select few are fit to rule. / \ | Voice: 812-855-8247 -
- We are The Bavarian Illuminati. /_____\ | FAX : 812-855-5533 -
pi...@mimosa.astro.indian
Good idea.
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Gary Smith
chris phillips <chr...@halcyon.halcyon.com> wrote:
>Scott C. Cottrille (sco...@lynx.cs.washington.edu) wrote:
>: chris phillips (chr...@halcyon.halcyon.com) wrote:
>
> The conditions outlined in the original post had next to nothing
>to do with their tradmark. All any doom editor has to do to stay within
>the law is say prominatly "Doom is a registerd trademark of ID Software"
>or whatever. The conditions as I see it, were slanted toward telling
>programers what they could and couln't do. And to quote "get some
>signitures" on licence agreements. I also like the vauge "and whatever
>else I may think up" (paraphrased) condition... As to your BIG BLUE
>argument. That would be defacement of a trademark, a total seprate
>issue. Do you think all the companys making Vacum cleaner bags need a
>licence to say "Our vacume bags work in Kirby vacumes". Almost the same
>thing....
I don't understand why everyone is getting so upset about this. id isn't
asking for money. They just want your signature stating that you won't write
an editor for the shareware version (simply protecting their business interests)and that any tech support for problems caused by your program is your problem,
not theirs. Is that so bad? No. You people are just flying off the handle
over nothing. I'd hate to see some of the comments if the _had_ asked for a
license fee. id has been relatively cool with us so far, don't piss them off
too much by making a big deal over this.
> No, all this "request" is, is a attempt to control something
>they have no legal right to control. And the funny thing about that is
>that, so far the Best (and only) doom(tm) level editor is from europe
>somewhere.... Fat chance they will pony up any licence agreement.
What editor was that, and where is it available?
>
> Ball is in your court
> Chris
>
>
>
--
"Everyone _is_ out to get you...paranoia's just good thinking."
-Dr. Johnny Fever, 1979
Toma
>Can you imagine the shit that Origin would raise if someone made an
>editor that allowed you to create a whole new Ultima! Jeez, this is what
> iD is saying is OK to do. We will have NEW doom as long as we want.
>What other company can claim to give it's users this freedom. Look at
>the facts.
Why would anyone need to create an editor for Ultima? It has one build in.
Sure you can't change conversations and such with the editor, but you
can create any item you want, build your own castles, design your own
dungeons, move walls, etc. In fact, a method was posted not to long ago
of designing your own castle.
What special freedom does ID give us? To design our own editors?
Game editor have been out for quite a while now, and not just for DOOM.
If someone made a editor for the Shareware version of DOOM, there's
nothing anyone could do about it. What, are you saying that we need
licenses in order to make editors? That's a bunch of bull.
Jason
--
Jason Hardt | Take an extra moment, when you find yourself at ease
to...@sage.cc.purdue.edu| to think about your values, and your own affluency...
-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------
UNFKNBLVBL | We may be human, but we're still animals.
le...@latrobe.edu.au
> That reminds me, with the exception of messages transfered between players
> during network games, were there ANY features or concept changes they used
> from the net???
>
Not really. So what? Heaven forbid they actually coded the thing instead
of reading every little post. :) Anyway, by the time anyone knew enough
details about the game to make *meaningful* suggestions, it was already
90% written in stone. As far as them removing features, hey if I could
have coded Doom to do all they originally said it would do (and it
does virtually all of it now), I think I still would have wanted Doom
to be able to wipe my hiney, too! Now THAT's a feature! :) But ya gotta
draw the line somewhere and make a few design decisions
if you are going to get anything done. P.S. This isn't a flame. I just
think too many people here are shooting people for snoring, so to speak.
Lewis
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
David Reeve Sward
Robert M. <rcmerrit>@apg
> have to pay like everyone else.
*snort* The users of the net did 99% of whatever advertising you are
referring to.
--
David Sward swa...@cmu.edu
ber...@bjt105.rh.psu.edu
: With who? There are only about 500,000 users of some form of Unix in the US.
: How many can possibly be running Linux? 10,000?
No one knows for sure, but a conservative estimate of the number of
Linux users is 50,000. Liberal estimates range 100,000 and up.
There are many more than 500,000 UNIX users today, and many many
more than 10,000 Linux users.
Linux is exploding because it's so cool: a FREE system that
is better in many ways that what Microsoft, IBM, and all
the other big boys have to offer.
For example, the first issue of Linux Journal, the magazine of Linux
($19 worldwide, mail subscr...@fylz.com) has a distribution of
20,000.
Some other facts and analysis: (long, ignore if you don't care)
The Linux Counter currently has 5381 registered users.
This is up from 5173 at the beginning of this month, and
up from 4961 on February 8 (the first number I've kept lying around).
I'll include the HELP file at the end of the posting.
I am pretty sure that this is more than 0.1% of the Linux users, and
pretty sure that it is less than 5%, giving an estimate of 107.000 to
5.300.000 Linux users.
My favourite number is 1%, giving 500.000 Linux users total.
The counter also includes a section for registering machines, and more
information about people; so far, 592 machines are included, and
471 persons.
This gives a *tiny* chance of an estimate: Look at what they are running.
Distribution of distribution (554 reported)
------------------------------
18 3.2%: debian
89 16.1%: diy
14 2.5%: lgx
21 3.8%: mcc
1 0.2%: nascent
6 1.1%: other
241 43.5%: slackware
155 28.0%: sls
1 0.2%: snow
6 1.1%: tamu
2 0.4%: yggdrasil
A total of 16 (lgx + yggdrasil) run the Yggdrasil LGX CDs. Rumour had
it they sold 8000 CDs, as of some months back. This gives a hitrate of
0.2 percent.
Another interesting number (but with fewer people counted, since I
installed the question only some weeks ago) is where people install
Linux from:
Distribution of source (85 reported)
------------------------------
1 1.2%: cd/metro
1 1.2%: cd/morse
1 1.2%: cd/sls
1 1.2%: cd/trans-ameritech
3 3.5%: cd/transameritech
1 1.2%: cd/yggdrasil
1 1.2%: debian
2 2.4%: floppy/friend
1 1.2%: floppy/linux system labs
1 1.2%: floppy/linux systems labs
59 69.4%: ftp
1 1.2%: ftp (sunsite.unc.edu)
1 1.2%: ftp floppy/friend
1 1.2%: ftp/ftp.cdrom.com
10 11.8%: nfs
You see that 73 out of 85, 85% got it on the 'Net, but distributing CD-ROMs and
floppies is *still* a viable business.
(OK, people totally off-net are *guaranteed* not to register.....)
Other sources:
Cx magazine in Germany had a poll in September '93, from which one could
conclude that there were *at that time* 7.500 Linux users among the
magazine's circulation of some 26.000
The counter currently says:
9 de Germany 800 4 804 79.1 10.1
This gives a 10% registration rate, if no more people started
using Linux in the meantime.
But among my findings is also this tiny chart (from PERSON registrations):
How many years they have been using Linux
=========================================
0y 0m: 32 7.0% (probably it takes them 3 months to discover the counter)
0y 3m: 150 33.0%
0y 6m: 65 14.3%
0y 9m: 42 9.3%
1y 0m: 43 9.5%
1y 3m: 53 11.7%
1y 6m: 23 5.1%
1y 9m: 22 4.8%
2y 0m: 20 4.4%
2y 3m: 16 3.5%
My guesstimate is that the Linux population has doubled every 6 months or so.
Well, I'll stop guesstimating, and just include the HELP file.
Have fun with Linux!
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--
Bernie Thompson -- Internet connected with Linux via PSU dorm ethernet
PSU Linux WWW: http://bjt105.rh.psu.edu/www.html
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Steve Withers
David Taylor <d...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> This is from Jay on the editor issue:
>
> =-ddt->
>
> If you are interested in developing and releasing a DOOM editor, some
> sort of DOOM data manipulator or any utility that uses the DOOM name
> and/or other id Software trademarked/copywrited properties you will
> be required to enter a simple agreement with id Software. This
> agreement is designed to define the relationship between third
> parties and id as well as protect id Software's trademarked and
> copywrited properties.
Just a reminder that lots of us are not going to buy DOOM until the sound
is fixed under OS/2 2.1 in DOOM 1.2......
This has been a public service announcement......
Return to your regular news reading now.
Steve
Jim Pitts
<ber...@bjt105.rh.psu.edu> wrote:
>Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> (rcme...@apgea.army.mil) wrote:
>
>: With who? There are only about 500,000 users of some form of Unix in the US.
>: How many can possibly be running Linux? 10,000?
>
>No one knows for sure, but a conservative estimate of the number of
>Linux users is 50,000. Liberal estimates range 100,000 and up.
>There are many more than 500,000 UNIX users today, and many many
>more than 10,000 Linux users.
>
Not a flame. Although I don't run Linux (I am a FreeBSD person myself),
I respect the ongoing maturity of the package. The growth of it has been
amazing, but so has the growth of -all- the *BSD packages out there
these days.
I find your estimate of the number of users to be perhaps a tad high. I
was under the impression that the number of registered users was close to
5-6K. Of course the number of non-registered users is much more than that,
but a factor of 10?
I would be intrested to know what you base your 'conservative' figures on.
I just find it hard to believe that of the -entire- base of Unix users out
there 10% are running Linux.
Again, not a flame, just curious. I have never been good at getting the
proper inflection of my intrest in a typed message.
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>the ID that promised Doom(tm) would be "Open" with specs provided. The
>ID who loved all the user support Wolf 3D recived. Somewhere along the
>line ID became the Pc game comunity eqivilant of a "Suit". Witch is fine
>with me. Everybody's got to make a living. But dont expect me to bend
>over when ID snapes its fingers, just because its produced the only
>decent game in 2 years.
>
> Man, the gloves are off now.
> Chris
>
Here!Here! I whole heartedly agree. I don't think that we should put them down
(even though they have broken so many promishes) but they shouldn't get any
special treatment.
The amount they advertised Doom on the net was almost criminal. They should
have to pay like everyone else.
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
Richard Krehbiel
> Besides, why in the world would ID do this in the first place?
> ID originally authorized the use of theses editors as long as they work
> on the registered versions only, so in fact, they are not 'unauthorized.'
> Furthermore, ID only gains from these editors because they generate more
> interest for the game. I know I would not have bought the reg. version
> if it weren't for these editors. They enhance an already excellent game.
>
> The only reason I can think of that ID would do such a thing is
> if they have decided to publish their own editor (greedy, if you ask me).
> In that case, as Joe said, reverse engineering would not be particularly
> difficult.
The reason id needs to "harass" level-editor-authors is because they
have to act to protect their trademark on the name DOOM(tm). If they
do not actively protect their trademark, they lose ownership of it
into the public domain.
Nothing I've heard has led me to believe that id intends to revoke
anyone's license to make a DOOM game editor. They just need to make
sure that the trademark DOOM is used properly.
--
Richard Krehbiel ri...@netcom.com
Picture a clever one-liner here...
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>Jason O'Rourke (j...@halfmoon.cea.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>REALITY CHECK!
>
>These are the guys that made DOOM. They talk to us more than any other
>company.
My talks to me more than any other person but if she starts lying to me,
break promishes, and make unreasonable demands I'm going to be pissed.
The same applies to iD
>
>Just keep this flame fest up. Slowly but surely we'll all make iD go
>away to software "suit" land like all the rest. Thanks a bunch.
They are going that way fast all by themselves.
>
>Can you imagine the shit that Origin would raise if someone made an
>editor that allowed you to create a whole new Ultima! Jeez, this is what
Well those editors have existed for Ultima on the C64. And mission, ship and
sound editors exist for Wing Commander. Have we heard from Origin?
> iD is saying is OK to do. We will have NEW doom as long as we want.
iD was going to make Doom open. I remember when the first features were
dropped, Jay quickly came out and said that they would release ALL of the
specs and that a good programer could ad it.
>What other company can claim to give it's users this freedom. Look at
>the facts.
iD is becoming another Apogee.. face the facts
>
>I for one, wanted to have some input into Quake when they start making
>it. So much for that.
That reminds me, with the exception of messages transfered between players
during network games, were there ANY features or concept changes they used
from the net???
getting input was merely a ploy to advertise doom for a year and soon they
will try it again with Quake.
>
>BTW: I run my FTP site because I want to. Id gives me nothing for it.
>
>
> --
>ba...@noc.unt.edu I am convinced that UFOs exist
>Modem strings for doom? Send email. because I've seen one
>DOOM only FTP: ocf.unt.edu /pub/doom -Jimmy Carter
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
Doug DeJulio
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
>stuff just because its free?
>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
You're missing what I think is the single most important reason. Doom
was originally *developed* under a Unix OS (NeXTstep, to be specific).
The port to Linux should, therefore, be much *easier* than the port to
OS/2. A cost-benefit analysis will probably reveal that the ratio of
gain-to-effort is higher for the Linux port than it is for the OS/2
port. Even if that's not true, it's probably perceived as true.
--
Doug DeJulio
dd...@cmu.edu
Lewis Beard
> That reminds me, with the exception of messages transfered between players
> during network games, were there ANY features or concept changes they used
> from the net???
>
Not really. So what? Heaven forbid they actually coded the thing instead
Barry Bloom
I'd like to see you make a whole, transportable, new game from the built
in editor in U7. Not possible. Find anygame out there (besides wolf-3d)
that has the ability, because of the design Id put into the .wad files,
for people to create 3rd party, seperate games with all new graphics,
sound, and level structure. This is built into the organization of the
.wad file. Id gave us the ability to make all kinds of DOOM games.
Whole entire NEW games.
That is cool. Their request is nothing compared to what they gave. 40
measly dollars to play as MUCH doom as the entire DOOM-INTERNET community
can generate. Look, don't come grab my .wad files that I make with the
new Deu 5.0 (when it is released). You who disagree should have some
integrity and boycott 3rd party hacks and add-ons because the evil/bad iD
monster MADE them all possible.
*sniff* id is so MEAN. They suck.
The above is sarcasm for the humor-impaired. Obviously I support id.
Bernie Thompson
: With who? There are only about 500,000 users of some form of Unix in the US.
: How many can possibly be running Linux? 10,000?
No one knows for sure, but a conservative estimate of the number of
Linux users is 50,000. Liberal estimates range 100,000 and up.
There are many more than 500,000 UNIX users today, and many many
more than 10,000 Linux users.
Linux is exploding because it's so cool: a FREE system that
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> (rcme...@apgea.army.mil) wrote:
>
>: With who? There are only about 500,000 users of some form of Unix in the US.
>: How many can possibly be running Linux? 10,000?
>
>No one knows for sure, but a conservative estimate of the number of
>Linux users is 50,000. Liberal estimates range 100,000 and up.
>There are many more than 500,000 UNIX users today, and many many
>more than 10,000 Linux users.
>
(alot of quotes from europe deleted)
>--
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Take a deep breath, and re-read what I said - "in the US". Sun World
estimated that there were 500,000 users of unix in the US.
I have no sources for out side of the us use.
ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
stuff just because its free?
As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
David Simmons
>>Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> (rcme...@apgea.army.mil) wrote:
>>
>>: With who? There are only about 500,000 users of some form of Unix in the US.
>>: How many can possibly be running Linux? 10,000?
>>
>>No one knows for sure, but a conservative estimate of the number of
>>Linux users is 50,000. Liberal estimates range 100,000 and up.
>>There are many more than 500,000 UNIX users today, and many many
>>more than 10,000 Linux users.
>>
>
>estimated that there were 500,000 users of unix in the US.
>I have no sources for out side of the us use.
>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
>stuff just because its free?
>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
I'd just like to make a few short statements.
1. Let's not be US-centric
2. ID Software is not channeling any major energy into porting DOOM
to Linux. David Taylor, a software engineer for ID, is doing it
in his spare time because he thinks that Linux is cool.
3. After a port to Linux has been accomplished using X, ports to other
platforms like Sun, SGI, etc., are probably much more trivial in
comparison. Thus, the product can reach a wider range of UNIX
users than just the Linux users.
--
David Simmons, System Administrator sim...@ee.msstate.edu
Mississippi State University Electrical and Computer Engineering
Visit my home page! http://www.msstate.edu/~dls3/
Eric Stern - ACPS/W94
: Here are some bones I want to pick:
: A. I got Doom, I bought Doom, but its over hyped. Alot of cool features were
: taken out and with each update, the program got buggier. I have to use
: the freakin shareware excutable to get it to run right (.99).
Its STILL better than anything else available for the PC, and worth more
than the price.
: B. legal, as long as we don't include source code, people can make editors
: for anything.. including the shareware game. They just asked and most
: people obeyed since id is such a cool group of guys.
Agreed.
: C, They lost my freakin order the first time.
Haven't you ever lost anything? Haven't other companies lost orders? Do
think they did on purpose? Give them a break, s**t happens.
: D. version 1.2 is horrible under os/2.
It wasn't really designed to. I'm impressed it worked at all.
: E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
: making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
: 2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
I'm not surprised they don't show up anymore, with every immature idiot on
the net sending them "When will DOOM be out" and then, "F**K YOU ID, cause
DOOM has a little bug in it" email messages all the time. Granted that it
was their choice to use this medium, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
decided it was more trouble than it was worth. No other software companies
have to put up with pressure like that.
: I say we have given them enough rope. If they are going to treat us like
: that, I say treat them like any other company.
As you wish. Too bad they aren't like any other company.
--
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Eric "Stormalong" Stern Owner, Storm Adventure Gear |
| Captain, Vespis Ethereal "Paintball Guns & Supplies" |
| (416) 979-5000 ext 3794 |
| OS d'jour: DOS,OS/2, or LINUX Toronto, Ontario |
| Sethanis or Stormalong on multiple MU*'s |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
sim...@ee.msstate.edu
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
>In article <2md7g4$m...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> ber...@bjt105.rh.psu.edu (Bernie Thompson) writes:
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Sunny Yum
>estimated that there were 500,000 users of unix in the US.
>I have no sources for out side of the us use.
>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
>stuff just because its free?
I don't know anyone who would run something "just because its free". You
don't run something like an operating system "just because its free" --
because it isn't -- an operating system takes up valuable disk space and
time (install/upkeep). Besides, speaking for myself, I would not tolerate
something that was second rate _only_ for the reason that it was "free".
I've used OS/2 2.1 for some time too, and its a heck of a lot nicer than
DOS, but I've also used Linux before and after that experience, and
at both points in time, Linux (in terms of operating system performance
and features... *and* price) really outpaced OS/2.
>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
Well, I'm not putting down any OS either (but I am putting _up_ 'Linux' ;),
but if you look at some of the comments iD had concerning thier experience
with different operating systems (DOS, OS/2, Unix, NextStep), it seems
that they rank the OS's in terms of their efficiency as a development
environment in that order: DOS < OS/2 < Unix < NextStep. I don't remember
exactly were I read those comments... if someone recalls something along
this line, please re-post it (if you have it).
Steve Withers
> There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
> Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
> stuff just because its free?
> As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
> that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
May be they just know how to do it.....and don't know how to port to
OS/2. That would exlain why a market less than 1/10th the size of OS/2 is
going to get its own version.....
Steve
ste...@actrix.gen.nz
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
ste...@actrix.gen.nz
Steve Withers
R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> In article <CMx3F6...@cs.cmu.edu>, Doug DeJulio <dd...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >In article <1994Mar18.2...@apgea.army.mil>,
> >Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
> >>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>
> >>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>
> who upgraded to 2.1 (probably close to 80%, given early 2.1 sales).
> Around 3 million active users, perhaps, if you want to assume that
> every person who bought Os/2 is actually using it (not a safe assumption
> for *any* software).
You seem to assume that all copies of OS/2 currently in use were paid
for....not a reasonable assumption. Of the OS/2 users I know, about half
have not actually bought the software. I don't "turn them in" because in
many cases they have gone on to buy OS/2 apps and "spread the word". Call it
an individual marketing decision on my part.
> >>Os/2 users buy just about all their software,
>
> OS/2 users don't seem to buy all that much software at all, but
> what they do buy is often DOS or Windows software, because it works
> so well. (Often better than the OS/2 software, at that.)
How can I put this politely....I'll try: You're wrong. Most OS/2 users
(including the pirates) have actually bought several apps each: VisPro
REXX, CA-Realizer, FaxWorks, Borland C++, C Set++, *TCP/IP*.
You'd be right that word processors and spreadsheets don't figure
prominently in the list (though MESA/2 may change that if what I hear
about it is true. DeScribe is also popular. Sure, the range isn't there
(yet), but the quality is certainly there in most cases. These apps also
have functionality you won't get with DOS/Win: *threads* in particular.
BTW...I heard today an OS/2 version of MathCAD is on the way. Another
new app. Good. I already have my order in for SimCity and Galactic
Civilizations. Your argument becomes a less accurate reflection of
reality with each passing day........
> >>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
> >>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
>
> Let's see:
>
> OS/2 Linux
> bigger potential market smaller potential market
> run DOS version (OK not 1.2) can't run DOS version (any)
OS/2 runs 1.2 just fine. I was playing modem DOOM with a friend this
afternoon - no sound....but the kids were having a nap anyway.....and the
PC Speaker was OK.
> >The port to Linux should, therefore, be much *easier* than the port to
> >OS/2.
>
> No, not really. Harder, probably, because I'm told that the OS/2
> FS modes are roughly similar to the DOS modes. Sound is an altogether
> different problem that I suspect the OS/2 folks haven't given a
> modicum of thought to.
There is an API for sound. Write to it and you get sound. You can get
sample source code on the devcon CD.
> >A cost-benefit analysis will probably reveal that the ratio of
> >gain-to-effort is higher for the Linux port than it is for the OS/2
> >port.
>
> Rather, a cb analysis reveals that the benefit of an OS/2 port
> is zero and that the Linux benefit is possibly higher.
Not quite zero....I will only pay for an OS/2 version of DOOM. In the
meantime, I am awaiting the arrival of GalCiv and in June, SIMCity -
bought and paid for.
Steve
ste...@actrix.gen.nz
Steve
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
R S Rodgers
Steve Withers <ste...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>In article <2mf77n$c...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
>R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>> In article <CMx3F6...@cs.cmu.edu>, Doug DeJulio <dd...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> >In article <1994Mar18.2...@apgea.army.mil>,
>> >Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
Maybe, now that "Grubbed" is becoming a useful catch phrase,
there ought to be a word like "Steve'd" or "K-OS/2'd" to describe
the postings of a certain noisy pack of IBM-devotees. (Actually,
I believe the NeXT users are rapidly moving towards noting an
article's "Dahmus" points, but that's another issue altogether.)
>> >>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>>
>> There is no way to measure the number of Linux users.
>>
>> >>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>>
>> There are 5M - (X*2M) where X is a percentage of the 2.0 users
>> who upgraded to 2.1 (probably close to 80%, given early 2.1 sales).
>> Around 3 million active users, perhaps, if you want to assume that
>> every person who bought Os/2 is actually using it (not a safe assumption
>> for *any* software).
>
>You seem to assume that all copies of OS/2 currently in use were paid
>for....not a reasonable assumption.
Steve, piracy exists on both sides of the fence. I know people who
have pirated copies of Windows 3.1, NT, and NeXTSTEP.
What is your point? That there are proportionately more OS/2
pirates than, say, DOS 6.x, ND7.0 or Windows pirates?
I'd hope you weren't honestly foolish enough to believe such a
thing, and that this was just another one of your OS/2-is-god
knee-jerk reactions.
>> >>Os/2 users buy just about all their software,
>>
>> OS/2 users don't seem to buy all that much software at all, but
>> what they do buy is often DOS or Windows software, because it works
>> so well. (Often better than the OS/2 software, at that.)
>
>How can I put this politely....I'll try: You're wrong. Most OS/2 users
>(including the pirates) have actually bought several apps each: VisPro
>REXX, CA-Realizer, FaxWorks, Borland C++, C Set++, *TCP/IP*.
You must know some strange OS/2 users. Almost every one of them
must be a developer, from the apps you've listed.
Which makes them, I assure you, in the minority.
>You'd be right that word processors and spreadsheets don't figure
>prominently in the list (though MESA/2 may change that if what I hear
>about it is true. DeScribe is also popular. Sure, the range isn't there
>(yet), but the quality is certainly there in most cases. These apps also
>have functionality you won't get with DOS/Win: *threads* in particular.
>
>BTW...I heard today an OS/2 version of MathCAD is on the way. Another
>new app.
I heard yesterday that Photoshop, Autocad and Maple were getting
ready to release for NT. BFD. None of this has anything to do with
the subject in hand.
Steve, may I ask a question? Do you have some bizarre compulsion
driving you to post OS/2 commercials in every group you read? I mean,
is this something you can control, or is it like a drinking problem?
>Good. I already have my order in for SimCity and Galactic
>Civilizations. Your argument becomes a less accurate reflection of
>reality with each passing day........
Uh, yeah, sure.
>> >>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>> >>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
>>
>> Let's see:
>>
>> OS/2 Linux
>> bigger potential market smaller potential market
>> run DOS version (OK not 1.2) can't run DOS version (any)
[Amazing how Steve deleted the most important one, isn't it?
That is, "nobody wants to do it" and "someone doing it on own
time." Strangely, the mention of easy portability to other
X systems was deleted too. Must be a bad editor or line noise,
right? Steve certainly would have at least addressed them with
some witty "X is a PIG!" retort, surely.]
>OS/2 runs 1.2 just fine.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I was playing modem DOOM with a friend this
>afternoon - no sound....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jesus, Steve. I actually knew a drunk who used to drink himself
unconcious, but then insisted that, sure, he drank himself
unconcious rather often, but this is not a problem. "I'm fine."
>but the kids were having a nap anyway.....
"But I didn't have a problem, cause I was going to take a nap
anyway."
>and the PC Speaker was OK.
Fess up. 1.1 and .99 worked better than 1.2. 1.2 does not work
well under Os/2, but this will probably be fixed--Id has shown
that they're willing to work to get it running under OS/2.
It's mighty sad that you can't even admit a very clear truth that
has been hashed out (and bitched) by many OS/2 users who *are* bugged
by the problems with 1.2.
>> >The port to Linux should, therefore, be much *easier* than the port to
>> >OS/2.
>>
>> No, not really. Harder, probably, because I'm told that the OS/2
>> FS modes are roughly similar to the DOS modes. Sound is an altogether
>> different problem that I suspect the OS/2 folks haven't given a
>> modicum of thought to.
>
>There is an API for sound. Write to it and you get sound. You can get
>sample source code on the devcon CD.
I haven't seen the API. There is a question of complexity, however.
Can the OS/2 sound API play 4 sounds at once, with accurate timing
and background music running at the same time? How about more than
four? Do you _know_, or did you merely assume that because the sound
API allows programs to play sounds (like a single digitized sample)
that it can do the same things that Doom does for itself under DOS?
>> >A cost-benefit analysis will probably reveal that the ratio of
>> >gain-to-effort is higher for the Linux port than it is for the OS/2
>> >port.
>>
>> Rather, a cb analysis reveals that the benefit of an OS/2 port
>> is zero and that the Linux benefit is possibly higher.
>
>Not quite zero....I will only pay for an OS/2 version of DOOM.
That's nice. Does this mean that you've pirated the registered
copy, or that you simply didn't enjoy Doom enough to bother
registering?
Although, there is a third, rather fanatical and sad choice. You
might be one of those "I'm not going to buy Doom because it isn't
OS/2, even though I can run normal doom just fine" types. They remind
me of the Women's Studies majors, who wont buy magazines that don't
have female editors.
Sad, really. It's an OS, not a religion.
[More commercial, deleted]
--
Be sure to vote *YES* on rec.music.menudo!
Doug DeJulio
>>was originally *developed* under a Unix OS (NeXTstep, to be specific).
>
> port is headed.
No, Doom wasn't written for X. It was written for a different
windowing system -- NextStep.
Furthermore, they wrote it in such a way that it'd be easy to rip out
the graphics layer and put in a new one for the MS-DOS port, since
that was their idea from the start.
In theory, all that needs to be done to get a Linux version up and
running is to rip out the NS graphic layer and paste in an X11
graphics layer. The rest of it should pretty much work fine already.
Now, considering this, do you *really* think an OS/2 port would be
easier?
Add on to this that one of the programmers already did this, in his
own spare time, because he felt like it. From what he said, ID didn't
ask or pay him to do it.
--
Doug DeJulio
dd...@cmu.edu
dd...@cs.cmu.edu
dd...@cs.cmu.edu
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
R S Rodgers
>Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
>>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
There is no way to measure the number of Linux users.
>>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
There are 5M - (X*2M) where X is a percentage of the 2.0 users
who upgraded to 2.1 (probably close to 80%, given early 2.1 sales).
Around 3 million active users, perhaps, if you want to assume that
every person who bought Os/2 is actually using it (not a safe assumption
for *any* software).
>>Os/2 users buy just about all their software,
OS/2 users don't seem to buy all that much software at all, but
what they do buy is often DOS or Windows software, because it works
so well. (Often better than the OS/2 software, at that.)
>> how many Linux users run stuff just because its free?
A lot. Then again, those who run Linux and want to buy software
generally have DOS and Windows around to run it.
>>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
Let's see:
OS/2 Linux
bigger potential market smaller potential market
run DOS version (OK not 1.2) can't run DOS version (any)
no portability of native ver *lots* of portability of native ver
nobody wants to do it someone is doing it on own time
Incidentally, Doom kind of sucks when the windowsize is a little
2" wide job. So that's a bonus to OS/2: OS/2 has fullscreen native
programs, X doesn't (and they're apparently not using SVGAlib).
>You're missing what I think is the single most important reason. Doom
>was originally *developed* under a Unix OS (NeXTstep, to be specific).
So what? DOOM wasn't written for X, and that is where the Linux
port is headed.
>The port to Linux should, therefore, be much *easier* than the port to
>OS/2.
No, not really. Harder, probably, because I'm told that the OS/2
FS modes are roughly similar to the DOS modes. Sound is an altogether
different problem that I suspect the OS/2 folks haven't given a
modicum of thought to.
>A cost-benefit analysis will probably reveal that the ratio of
>gain-to-effort is higher for the Linux port than it is for the OS/2
>port.
Rather, a cb analysis reveals that the benefit of an OS/2 port
is zero and that the Linux benefit is possibly higher.
R S Rodgers
Steve Withers <ste...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>Just a reminder that lots of us are not going to buy DOOM until the sound
>is fixed under OS/2 2.1 in DOOM 1.2......
>
>This has been a public service announcement......
>
>Return to your regular news reading now.
But Steve! Just a few messages back you said that you wouldn't
buy Doom until there is an OS/2 version.
So which is it?
And BTW: When you mentioned that there are pirated copies of OS/2
in use, what were you, Steve, trying to tell me, anyway? That there
are pirates running OS/2, so Id ought to release an OS/2 version..
so that pirates can pirate it and run it on their pirated copies
of OS/2?
Clear that issue up, too, while you're at it. Although I'd admit that
Id is probably overlooking what you seem to believe is the sizable
OS/2-pirate game market, I don't see this as, well, a bad thing.
JerryB6218
request? Please move the linux debate to somewhere else,
like e-mail :-)
Marc Fielding
*chomp*
>Can you imagine the shit that Origin would raise if someone made an
>editor that allowed you to create a whole new Ultima! Jeez, this is what
> iD is saying is OK to do. We will have NEW doom as long as we want.
>What other company can claim to give it's users this freedom. Look at
>the facts.
Yeah, I've always wonder about that....Why haven't level
editors come out for the Ultima Underworlds?
Are their datafiles encrypted?
Just curious,
Marc F.
--
.sig not present......use your imagination....
mfie...@agsm.ucla.edu
mfie...@agsm.ucla.edu
Ben Byer
>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
>stuff just because its free?
>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
As I recall, the main reasons for porting Doom to Linux over OS/2
were:
* Linux users can't run Doom at all, but OS/2 users can (at least
somewhat)
* David Taylor wants to port Doom to the various Unices, and he has
access to Linux already
* IBM has approached Id about doing a Doom OS/2 port themselves.
--
Ben Byer by...@netcom.com I am not a bushing
GCS:d?c++++l+u+e(*)m---(+)!ns+/+hf+(?)g-(+)w+t+(-)r!y
by...@netcom.com
by...@netcom.com
pmol...@maths.tcd.ie
>REALITY CHECK!
>These are the guys that made DOOM. They talk to us more than any other
>company.
>Just keep this flame fest up. Slowly but surely we'll all make iD go
>away to software "suit" land like all the rest. Thanks a bunch.
Seconded. The pettiness to be seen in this thread (and in this
newsgroup as a whole) by some people is just mindboggling. Here
we have a company who don't just treat their customers as a mass
to be sucked of money. They're quite willing to have a two-way
process, and to allow other people to extend the life of their
product without making any money out of it themselves. But, give
some people an inch...
P.
--
moorcockdenislearypratchettdelasouliainmbanksneworderheathersu2batmanpjorourke
clive p a u l m o l o n e y "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
james dublin ireland http://www.scrg.cs.tcd.ie/scrg/guests/pmoloney.html
brownbladerunnersugarcubesjohnwooelectronicblaylockpowershiassenham'ncornpizza
---
þ Cam-GOLD v1.00:
þ Cam-GOLD v1.00:
pmol...@maths.tcd.ie
cc...@cc.uq.oz.au
> ....
> Come on! Is every one in this group a blind ID worshiper! I miss
> the ID that promised Doom(tm) would be "Open" with specs provided. The
> ID who loved all the user support Wolf 3D recived. Somewhere along the
> line ID became the Pc game comunity eqivilant of a "Suit". Witch is fine
> with me.
If I were a developer I wouldn't release the "Open" specs when my
software isn't completely stable.... and DOOM 1.2 isn't that stable....
So, I think ID is still working on it.
> .....
-David-
cc...@cc.uq.oz.au
C McCarthy-Artman
: rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
: >ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
: >There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
: >Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
: >stuff just because its free?
: >As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
: >that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
: As I recall, the main reasons for porting Doom to Linux over OS/2
: were:
: * Linux users can't run Doom at all, but OS/2 users can (at least
: somewhat)
: * David Taylor wants to port Doom to the various Unices, and he has
: access to Linux already
: * IBM has approached Id about doing a Doom OS/2 port themselves.
As I understand it, the Linux port is a personal endeavor of one of the
developers.
He *wants* to do a linux port, it doesnt have to "add up"
Additionally, the linux port is more correctly a generic X port.
This brings the number of users up dramatically, as if it matters.
Sean McCarthy
wx8l%bar...@tacom-emh1.army.mil
cmar...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
LINUX - Because a pc is a terrible thing to waste.
cmar...@vela.acs.oakland
James Antoniou
[mucho grande bandwith waste deleted]
My contribution to bandwith waste:
Damn, I was hoping to get away from comp.os.os2.advocacy forever.
- Jim Antoniou
--
\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\
// James Antoniou "Parsing Shakespeare one 'anon' at a time" //
\\ Undergraduate, Dept of English - University of California, Davis \\
//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//
da...@lhc.nlm.nih.gov
>Just a reminder that lots of us are not going to buy DOOM until the sound
>is fixed under OS/2 2.1 in DOOM 1.2......
Right. It has been WEEKS AND WEEKS ID, with NO INFO POSTED ON EVEN HOPING
FOR A FIX, only people saying they 'heard from ID that they will fix this'.
PLEASE, C'MON AND PATCH THIS DAMNED BUG!
--Don
Don A.B. Lindbergh II | Why can't you make a living
| like the rest of the boys
da...@lhc.nlm.nih.gov | Instead of filling your head
not a spokesperson for nlm | with all that synthesized noise? - Todd R.
JerryB6218
> ba...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Barry Bloom) writes:
> *chomp*
>>Can you imagine the shit that Origin would raise if someone made an
>>editor that allowed you to create a whole new Ultima! Jeez, this is what
>> iD is saying is OK to do. We will have NEW doom as long as we want.
>>What other company can claim to give it's users this freedom. Look at
>>the facts.
>Yeah, I've always wonder about that....Why haven't level
>editors come out for the Ultima Underworlds?
>Are their datafiles encrypted?
The Underworld data was a little bit harder to crack than,
say, doom or wolf, but I did find out how to change some
of the level stuff. The reason I never went far with it is
because a HUGE part of the game is in the stuff that
isn't level structure, who is where, what they say, how
to make the dragon boots, etc. Figuring out
all of this was getting to be nightmarishly difficult, especially
considering that I doubt anyone would have the time to
actually create a new, worthwile adventure.
PDeMaio
>iD is becoming another Apogee.. face the facts
ID is becoming another Apogee the same way Fararri is becoming another Fiero.
PDeMaio
Is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just an oncoming train?
pde...@draper.com
PDeMaio
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
>
>>ok, lets be generous, lets say world wide there is 800,000 linux users.
>>There are 5 million OS/2 users and iD ports Doom to linux (or wants to).
>>Os/2 users buy just about all their software, how many Linux users run
>>stuff just because its free?
>>As I've said before, I'm not putting down Linux or any Unix os. Its just
>>that the reasons for porting to one os over another just don't add up.
>
>As I recall, the main reasons for porting Doom to Linux over OS/2
>were:
>
>* Linux users can't run Doom at all, but OS/2 users can (at least
>somewhat)
>* David Taylor wants to port Doom to the various Unices, and he has
>access to Linux already
>* IBM has approached Id about doing a Doom OS/2 port themselves.
>
Yes I realize all this (although the IBM thing is probably net rumor)
I had a few complaints about iD that I wanted to get off my chest. And I
got lots of email form users that agreed with me. However, I got alot of
flack because I said on one small part on one line in a long post "flake
unix os".
I really didn't intend on this being a os/2 vs linux debate. (although it seems
quite a few linux users don't know the difference better dos and os/2) And
to be honest, I forgotten that it was Linux they were porting too.
I used the word flake to expand on my frustration. Now if people really want
to continue this debate, please join me in the os/2 advocacy. If you want
to through personal insults at me, please do it in email.
(I'm not refering to this poster, just linux users in general.
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
my opinions are my own,|"Call me old fashion, but I believe | "Give me OS/2
not of my employer. | in the one true god. His name is | or give me DOS!"
| Orgo and he lives in this lake" | -me
| -- The State |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rcmerrit
---
ş Cam-GOLD v1.00:
Paul Moloney
David Vu
Michael Brown
> who upgraded to 2.1 (probably close to 80%, given early 2.1 sales).
> Around 3 million active users, perhaps, if you want to assume that
> every person who bought Os/2 is actually using it (not a safe assumption
> for *any* software).
Then again there are likely to be a few people still (illegally) running the 2.1
beta that was released on the net a while back.
> >>Os/2 users buy just about all their software,
>
> OS/2 users don't seem to buy all that much software at all, but
> what they do buy is often DOS or Windows software, because it works
> so well. (Often better than the OS/2 software, at that.)
Get real. I haven't paid a cent for any DOS or windows software since I
upgraded to OS/2. All the OS/2 software that I have paid for runs far
better than anything I could run in a DOS-box.
> >> how many Linux users run stuff just because its free?
>
> A lot. Then again, those who run Linux and want to buy software
> generally have DOS and Windows around to run it.
So why do they need a native version of Doom then? This sounds exactly like
the reason you are giving for ID not to do an OS/2 port.
> Let's see:
>
> OS/2 Linux
> bigger potential market smaller potential market
> run DOS version (OK not 1.2) can't run DOS version (any)
> no portability of native ver *lots* of portability of native ver
> nobody wants to do it someone is doing it on own time
>
> Incidentally, Doom kind of sucks when the windowsize is a little
> 2" wide job. So that's a bonus to OS/2: OS/2 has fullscreen native
> programs, X doesn't (and they're apparently not using SVGAlib).
>
> >The port to Linux should, therefore, be much *easier* than the port to
> >OS/2.
>
> No, not really. Harder, probably, because I'm told that the OS/2
> FS modes are roughly similar to the DOS modes. Sound is an altogether
> different problem that I suspect the OS/2 folks haven't given a
> modicum of thought to.
Get real. IBM has already done a large chunk of the work here. Even if ID
decided that they didn't want to make use of MMPM/2, I don't see why they
can't hit the hardware direct like the DOS version (that runs under OS/2
remember) does.
> Rather, a cb analysis reveals that the benefit of an OS/2 port
> is zero and that the Linux benefit is possibly higher.
So what OS do you use then?
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Brown PO Box 6143 |
| zi...@aurora.equinox.gen.nz Upper Riccarton |
| FIDO 3:770/120 Christchurch 8004 |
| SL-Net 250:700/578 New Zealand |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael Brown
> It wasn't really designed to. I'm impressed it worked at all.
It _was_ designed to...it's even in the docs. The fact that it
was written to run under OS/2 is one of the main excuses ID use
to not do an OS/2 port.
Laurence Chiu
: * IBM has approached Id about doing a Doom OS/2 port themselves.
Now that might encourage me to boot OS/2 more often! I currently run
dual boot but tend to remain in DOS/Windows because you really need
16MB to run OS/2 with no pain. 8M is just not enough.
+======================================================+
| Laurence Chiu | Walnut Creek, California |
| Tel: 510-215-3730 (work) | Internet: lc...@crl.com |
+======================================================+
Andy - Patrizio
>E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
> making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
> 2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
Their news feed died. Or did you bother to send mail asking where they've
been? No. You just made an ASSumption.
--
Andy Patrizio | I am OS/2mandius, King of Kludges! Look upon
a...@shell.portal.com | my R&D costs, IBM, and despair!
I am being repressed.
>In article <1994Mar18.2...@apgea.army.mil>,
>Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
>>
>May be they just know how to do it.....and don't know how to port to
>OS/2. That would exlain why a market less than 1/10th the size of OS/2 is
>going to get its own version.....
>
>Steve
JESUS. GET A LIFE YOU DAMN LOSERS. I have never seen such
pathetic people gathered in such quantities before. What did
every damn reject of the net come here? You cat like doom is
the only god damn computer program every written. Why don't
you just whine and bitch until id releases a version of doom
that will run on EVERY cpu chip ever made regardless of OS
and regardless of architecture.
Let me see if I can um up this *stupid* newsgroup.
whine whine whine
id is evil
whine whine whine
where is/how do I/other stupid faq
usefull messages
whine whine whine
I hate id
whine too slow
whine my modem doestn work and it is id's fault
whine whine whine
I wish I would have never made this stupid newsgroup in the first
damn place.
--
Unless you are born in finland you can't be finnish.
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
>
>>E. They use to post on the internet and chat with us. Now they sold their game,
>> making their money and only post too.. 1) tell us want to NOT to do, or
>> 2) To say they are porting Doom to a flake unix os.
>
>Their news feed died. Or did you bother to send mail asking where they've
>been? No. You just made an ASSumption.
Are you just the cute little poster.
Even counting their newsfeed died (which I've never seen but since they are
id, the almighty, we must believe them) almost all of them post since then.
Lewis Beard
> Are you just the cute little poster.
> Even counting their newsfeed died (which I've never seen but since they are
> id, the almighty, we must believe them) almost all of them post since then.
>
> Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
That's because I told ddt how to use the utexas email->news gateway. They
can send stuff to news via email, and thats about it. They probably don't
even know about the arguments that each of their posts creates .. tho they
would to well to bet any post they make creates 100 responses. :)
Lewis
Steven Pemberton
>
> Not quite zero....I will only pay for an OS/2 version of DOOM. In the
> meantime, I am awaiting the arrival of GalCiv and in June, SIMCity -
> bought and paid for.
>
> Steve
>
Correct-o-mundo Steve :)
That's the message we have to give developers like ID.
OS/2 users no longer have to 'make do' with DOS app's, native app's are
either here or imminent.
If I hadn't recieved my registered DOOM as a gift then I wouldn't have bought
it.
But I guess there's no harm in playing it now... :)
Steven James A Pemberton Go 16 bits good
Melbourne, Vic, Australia OS/2! 32 bits better!
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
Well then, that answers my question. :)
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
Barry Bloom
> In article <2mmttd$6...@Joanna.Wes.Army.Mil> le...@latrobe.edu.au (Lewis Beard) writes:
> >In article <1994Mar22....@apgea.army.mil>, rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
> >> Are you just the cute little poster.
> >> Even counting their newsfeed died (which I've never seen but since they are
> >> id, the almighty, we must believe them) almost all of them post since then.
> >>
> >> Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
> >
> >That's because I told ddt how to use the utexas email->news gateway. They
> >can send stuff to news via email, and thats about it. They probably don't
> >even know about the arguments that each of their posts creates .. tho they
> >would to well to bet any post they make creates 100 responses. :)
> >
> >Lewis
> Well then, that answers my question. :)
A smiley!!! All your ranting and a smiley makes it ok? I don't think so.
How about a retraction? You have raised enough hell about everything
having to do with iD. Don't you think you should learn your facts next
time before you go on about how id has "left the net." Among other
things you claim (like, they are not going to release the specs.)
Please, this is a public forum. Don't abuse it.
> Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> my opinions are my own,|"Call me old fashion, but I believe | "Give me OS/2
> not of my employer. | in the one true god. His name is | or give me DOS!"
> | Orgo and he lives in this lake" | -me
> | -- The State |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
ba...@noc.unt.edu I am convinced that UFOs exist
Modem strings for doom? Send email. because I've seen one
DOOM only FTP: ocf.unt.edu /pub/doom -Jimmy Carter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>
>A smiley!!! All your ranting and a smiley makes it ok? I don't think so.
>
Here's an idea, don't you think that everyone, including me is really tired
of this thread? Hmmm? But noooo... you have to go on and on and on....
I read the this news group for enjoyment. In one post, I had a few
problems with id that I listed out. I got about 20 different people who
said I was right and about 5 people who have carried this discussion to
the level of alt.atheist debates. <sigh>
>How about a retraction? You have raised enough hell about everything
>having to do with iD. Don't you think you should learn your facts next
>time before you go on about how id has "left the net." Among other
>things you claim (like, they are not going to release the specs.)
>
I shouldn't answer but I feel a must...
1. A retraction? Everything I've said is true. Besides, like someone said,
they probably haven't any idea what goes on here.
2. The net. So they had some tech problems. How hard is it to get on internet?
There are other sources. And the only time they do post is to relay bad news
unless ofcourse your one of the *millions* who have Nextstep, Jag, or Linux.
3. As for the specs, have they release them yet? When was the last time the
said they were going release them? enough said!
4. As for writting a letter to get permission from id to write an editor for
doom, when was the last time someone wrote microsoft for permission to
write a dos program? (and as for editors, check out the US court ruling
on nintendo vs Galgoo (whoever the game genie makers are))
5. the only thing I did *wrong* was to say a few tiny things bad against id.
I enjoyed the game (better after the pain in the ass it was to get it)
id looks like a group of guys that enjoy their work.
>Please, this is a public forum. Don't abuse it.
>
Yes, If you really, really, really want to continue this silly little
conversation, do it via email, ok?
>ba...@noc.unt.edu I am convinced that UFOs exist
>Modem strings for doom? Send email. because I've seen one
>DOOM only FTP: ocf.unt.edu /pub/doom -Jimmy Carter
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merritt email: rob...@magnus1.com OR rcme...@cbda9.army.mil
Coen Mark
: In article <1994Mar17....@apgea.army.mil>, rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>) writes:
: Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.doom
: From: rcme...@apgea.army.mil (Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit>)
: Subject: Re: idNews: from Jay
: < Large section deleted >
: P.S. -- Get a spelling and grammar checker.
Come on, Rob. If you're going to flame someone, even as small a flame
as it is, you best be point perfect on your own post. Go back and check
your usage of "to." Isn't that supposed to be "too?" :) (For the PC {I
mean "politcally correct" not "personal computer"} people that have to have
smileys to indicate humor).
: > Rob Merritt
MKC-"I ain't met a Imp I didn't like...to kill!" or for the grammer
freaks-"I haven't encountered an Imp..."
Wade R. Boaz
>In article <byerrCM...@netcom.com>, Ben Byer wrote:
>: * IBM has approached Id about doing a Doom OS/2 port themselves.
>
>Now that might encourage me to boot OS/2 more often! I currently run
>dual boot but tend to remain in DOS/Windows because you really need
>16MB to run OS/2 with no pain. 8M is just not enough.
I'm currently at 8M on my 466 machine ( w/local-bus S3 and Adaptec
2842VL SCSI ), and it's more than enough for me. Admittedly, I want to
up the RAM, DASD, adapters, etc. 'till I drop, but I run that system a bit
on the hard side now and it keeps up fine.
Can't run DOOM, though: makes me fall on the floor after a few minutes
of play ( from dizziness 2:).
Wade R. Boaz 28-) "Well, I've been to one World Fair, a picnic,
wa...@vnet.ibm.com and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing
I ever heard come over a set of earphones."
The opinions expressed in this article are all mine. Mine. Me.
Nobody else's.
Not even my employer's.
So there.
Steve Withers
R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> In article <CMvzE...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> Steve Withers <ste...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >Just a reminder that lots of us are not going to buy DOOM until the sound
> >is fixed under OS/2 2.1 in DOOM 1.2......
> >
> >
> >Return to your regular news reading now.
>
>
> But Steve! Just a few messages back you said that you wouldn't
> buy Doom until there is an OS/2 version.
>
> So which is it?
Let's say that if they fix the sound under OS/2....I might consider
buying DOOM. I haven't made up my mind completely either way. Call it
indecision (it is a great game!).
<silly comments re: piracy deleted>
> Clear that issue up, too, while you're at it. Although I'd admit that
> Id is probably overlooking what you seem to believe is the sizable
> OS/2-pirate game market, I don't see this as, well, a bad thing.
A lot of people use OS/2. You can deny it all you like. It doesn't
matter.
BTW....I suggested in this newsgroup a few days ago that ID was not going
to do an OS/2 port because they didn't want to/didn't know how/don't
care.....
So you were a bit late on that one. I am glad to see you still place
personal abuse high on your net-agenda. Nice one!
Steve
Steve Withers
I am being repressed. <crfi...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
> In article <14.3743.72...@actrix.gen.nz>, <ste...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >In article <1994Mar18.2...@apgea.army.mil>,
> >Robert C. Merritt <rcmerrit> <rcmerrit> wrote:
> >>
> >May be they just know how to do it.....and don't know how to port to
> >OS/2. That would exlain why a market less than 1/10th the size of OS/2 is
> >going to get its own version.....
> >
> >Steve
>
> JESUS. GET A LIFE YOU DAMN LOSERS. I have never seen such
> pathetic people gathered in such quantities before. What did
> every damn reject of the net come here? You cat like doom is
> the only god damn computer program every written. Why don't
> you just whine and bitch until id releases a version of doom
> that will run on EVERY cpu chip ever made regardless of OS
> and regardless of architecture.
>
> Let me see if I can um up this *stupid* newsgroup.
>
> whine whine whine
<deletia>
> I wish I would have never made this stupid newsgroup in the first
> damn place.
And then there are those who have nothing to offer at all......
Steve