prboom... on linux :(

[Laimiz]

yup... i've installed the rpm file, i went to "usr/games/", i try to run prboom executable on both KDE and linux console. On KDE, it doesn't do ANYTHING! On linux console it says that it can't find the mouse or smth.

I've got Linux Mandrake 8.1, so it should work as the fucking manual says ;).

I know this is dumb, i am dumb on linux, and don't tell me ro RTFM!

[Jon]

try running it in a terminal within a window manager. You will undoubtably need X open (that means erm, KDE for you). It's /usr/games not usr/games but I think you did the former really. Do RPMs handle dependancies? Do you have SDL installed?

[Laimiz]

SDL? i guess i don't because in linux console it says "could not initialize SDL [unable to open mouse]" this makes me cry :(

[TaZeR]

I have Linux on a small seperate harddrive and I cant even get my cable internet to work to download the Linux versions of Doom source ports =(

[Doom-Child]

I have the end all fix to your problem:

Step 1: Uninstall Linux.
Step 2: Detonate eight (8) pounds of TNT inside your case (your hardware was tainted anyway).
Step 3: Move to a new town (someplace where people care enough to keep each other away from teh Pain)
Step 4: Suffer with the rest of us in an environment that, while inefficient and slow, has market share.

DC

[læmænt]

Prboom works perfectly here, but then, I compiled it from source and so I'm sure I have everything it needs.



However, it seems that you do have SDL, so that's not the problem.



Like Jon said, run it from Xterm (or Konsole, or whatever) in KDE and see if it prints any error messages.

[læmænt]

Doom-Child said:

Step 4: Suffer with the rest of us in an environment that, while inefficient and slow, has market share.

DC

What does market share have to do with being or not being able to run Prboom?

[Doom-Child]

Nothing, but it has plenty to do with running other, more "important" apps.

See how I have seamlessly changed the track of this thread to an anti-Linux swamp.

DC

[stphrz]

I haven't got anything against Linux . I ain't a fanboy either :P With XP available I don't need to consider using Linux to get a fast stable operating system (from what I hear XP is fast and stable).

[zark]

I hate all these "Which OS is better" threads. It's a matter of personal preference, and each OS has its own merits.

[Doom-Child]

Stability has nothing to do with personal preference. I would prefer Linux, if they'd write some decent (read: understandable) documentation and allow you to install a goddamn sound card without a fifteen step plan.

DC

[Zaldron]

...and there was any software available. Cause, you know, I use my comp to run apps, not OSes.

[læmænt]

Zaldron said:

...and there was any software available. Cause, you know, I use my comp to run apps, not OSes.

Heh. I have all aps I need. Of course you're a special case...

[deadnail]

Zaldron said:

...and there was any software available. Cause, you know, I use my comp to run apps, not OSes.

Which is the shame about Mac because it has the potential of being a good competitor to Microsoft but fails because of it's irritating OS and the fact that Apple is just as bad as bundling software as MS.

As for Linux... it's a great choice if all you ever plan on doing is using freeware and have the time to sit back and read hundreds of pages of the manuals to get past the things that should be simple and intuitive.

[Doom-Child]

Things like:

1) installing hardware
2) defragging your harddrive
3) installing software
4) getting around a text editor
5) installing hardware

DC

[Jon]

should be simple and intuitive

Heh it is simple and intuitive to non-stupid people :P

Ok, that was a bit harsh. I found it hard at first, and I still have trouble with some things. Its a matter of personal preference I guess. When you understand why some things are the way they are (which at first seem frustratingly difficult) you realise the increased flexibility and control you have, and sit back and smile.

Or something.

documentation is a serious problem because the people who write the drivers/kernel/software live in a different world to most poeple...
I want to try Mac OS X...

[Zaldron]

Lament said:

Heh. I have all aps I need. Of course you're a special case...

Yep. Linux is just a lame platform when it comes to non-programming development.

[læmænt]

Jon said:

I want to try Mac OS X...

Heh, I just installed KDE3.0, it feels like what i imagined using OS X would feel like :)

[læmænt]

Zaldron said:

Yep. Linux is just a lame platform when it comes to non-programming development.

Well, gcc (the compiler) is a good thing, but I also have doom, quake3 (demo - damn i want to get the real thing), xchat (prettiest chat client ever), Xine (DVD/CD/media player), opera, etc. After I managed to get the soundcard working I really do have everything I need.

Of course, no photoshop. Heh.

[Liam]

AHAHAHAHhahAHahaHAHhAHAH

THE GIMP. SUFFER.

[Doom-Child]

After I managed to get the soundcard working

People continue to prove me right.

DC

[læmænt]

Doom-Child said:

People continue to prove me right.







DC

If ease of use (actually, only configuration) is the only thing you expect from an OS, go ahead, use windows. Better yet, Mac OS 9.

[Doom-Child]

No no, I expect ease of use in the context of performance, stability, and flexibility. Linux loses again.

DC

[læmænt]

Doom-Child said:

No no, I expect ease of use in the context of performance, stability, and flexibility. Linux loses again.



DC

That's just pure bullshit and you know it. That's not how you flame OSes properly :)

[Doom-Child]

What, you mean logically? Oh, I'm sorry, I'll be good.

LIINIX IS TEH G4Y!!11 I YOOSE WINDO$SE EXPYEE!!!11 I AM L33T H4X0R!!11 H4W H4W H4W H4W!!1

Better?

DC

[Jon]

I shoot stupid people

Irony

Mind you its fair enough for people to have no interest in how their computer works or to understand what their OS is actually doing... assuming they want nothing to do with computers in the professional world.

[Doom-Child]

So, just because I don't want to tweak my drive partitions on an hourly basis or spend two hours compiling a driver means I have no technical future?

I have an incredible interest in how my computer works, that's why I take it apart as often as I do. Now, I'm not an OS programmer, I tend to stick with graphics, but that doesn't mean that I don't like to know what's going on.

You Linux zealots are all the same. You think that just because we like having some things done for us that we're knuckle dragging troglodytes. Well you can just eat a shit brick.

DC

[deadnail]

Doom-Child said:

You Linux zealots are all the same. You think that just because we like having some things done for us that we're knuckle dragging troglodytes. Well you can just eat a shit brick.

Well said bucko.

The stabbing irony you didn't point out is, even though they constantly insult us for using an OS that actually operates without constant intervention they actually treat you WORSE when you try Linux and ask them for help. Never fails.

It's like, GET OFF MY OS. Well get off ours. =)

[Jon]

I am not a linux zealot. I like having some things done for me too. I don't compile every program I run from source. I've been running linux for a year or so now, with a lot of success on one machine (172 day uptime), and I don't tweak drive partitions or spend hours compiling drivers. I don't run linux exclusively.

My argument was, you were dismissing something because YOU don't want to use your brain at all. Some guy had to invest effort to install his soundcard, thus you are proved correct that linux is a complete waste of time for everything?

'ease of use in the context of performance, stability, and flexibility'. Never mind that this just doesn't make sense, but what could be more flexible than being able to rewrite any portion of your operating system to do anything you want? Benchmarking tests show that running some win32 applications (UltraHLE being one of them) through WINE (a windows pseudo-emulator) actually gives you BETTER performance than running them natively! (source: linuxgames.com).

And stability is a well discussed area already, so much so that everyday people can make jokes about Blue Screens of Death.

even though they constantly insult us for using an OS that actually operates without constant intervention...

At no point did I 'insult' or make comments about how shit windows is (until you begged comparisons), and it seems nobody else did either.

In fact this thread started out with some guy asking help and has deteriorated into an argument simply because you (DC) posted something as stupid as 'solution: uninstall linux.'

YUO = RETARD

[Doom-Child]

Some guy had to invest effort to install his soundcard, thus you are proved correct that linux is a complete waste of time for everything?

No, I'm proven right that installing most hardware is worlds more complicated than it should be.

'ease of use in the context of performance, stability, and flexibility' Never mind that this just doesn't make sense, but what could be more flexible than being able to rewrite any portion of your operating system to do anything you want?

I think it makes perfect sense. Ease of use in performance means that keeping your computer running with any kind of efficiency isn't a three day ordeal. Ease of use in stability means that you don't constantly have to watch your system for quirks and problems once you've fixed them once. Ease of use in flexibility means that you can easily change or modify your system to meet your needs. Rewriting part of your OS isn't flexible, it's inhumane.

Tell you what, find me a BSOD in XP that isn't user originating, and maybe I'll consider that you have a point. The only Blue Screens I've gotten have come from improperly seated hardware and dead RAM, two things that I'm HAPPY XP picked up for me.

In fact this thread started out with some guy asking help and has deteriorated into an argument simply because you (DC) posted something as stupid as 'solution: uninstall linux.'

He asked for an easy, painless answer. I gave the only one.

DC