On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 11:17:09AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 01:42:45AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Just because it is easier to write scripts for Python than it is
> quake2-engine, doesn't change the fundemental issue that the sources are
> for an engine, not a game.
Sure. An engine that is not usable at the least in its current state,
except to play the proprietary quake game with it.
> > Second: It is easy to write scripts. People do write them.
> > The challenge here is: Show me a single useful way to invoke the quake
> > engine with only free software or data. Even if it is just an empty room
> > without any monsters, weapons. Just a wall. Something.
>
> Again, it is not easy to write C code, but gcc is useless without it.
> Complexity means nothing.
What's so difficult about "main(){}" and going from that? That's the
minimum you need to feed to gcc to create a runnable program. If you can
provide us with a similar null-game for quake engine, it would be a strong
point in favour of your argument.
I think the right comparison is not quake-engine with a C compiler like gcc,
but quake-engine with a gcc without libgcc and the C library. Theoretically
usable, but not really. Now add a proprietary libgcc and C library to it,
which is used with this custom version of gcc in 99.999% of all cases where
this gcc is used at all, and I think you are starting to get a fair
analogy.
> > Third: Python scripts exist. There are plenty in Debian.
> > Show me a quake-data package that requires the engine.
>
> I'm giving up. Let's just dump it into contrib and tell everyone to
> either warez the data files or buy them. Screw trying to promote free
> stuff. Screw trying to promote people to create free datafiles for a
> free game engine.
Let's promote when we have something to promote.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
