This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
46
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: September 25, 2014, 04:07:17 pm »I agree with lone on this one, static linking, less messy and more portable.
That's the whole idea started in GM, build games fast and create an executable......not create an executable and dependencies / files requirements.
Keep in mind, just using the GNU LGPL wouldn't make static linking impossible for everyone. It would still be possible for GPL-compatible games. Actually, I think this would be an advantage: it might encourage some people to release their code under a GPL-compatible license for the privilege of distributing a single executable, yet I don't think it's such an important feature that it will cause people who are hard-set on making their games proprietary flock to Game Maker instead based on it.
47
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: September 25, 2014, 06:17:36 am »why separate the libs
Please pay attention. Dynamically linking instead of statically linking by default would allow proprietary programs to use ENIGMA if it were under the GNU LGPL, eliminating the need to write up the legal language required for permitting static linking without leaving a loophole.
48
Off-Topic / Re: Restructuring the Community
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:57:40 pm »I just have to respectfully disagree to that, for one because I am gay and two because that misnomer is entirely harmless.
"Harmless" and "mature" are two distinct things.
49
General ENIGMA / Re: Please vote for ENIGMA's new license
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:52:17 pm »Quote
the second option gives anybody involved in the development the assurance of being an official, osi approved license
The GNU LGPL is OSI-approved. Additional permissions don't make a license any less open source.
I just want to summarize some points, because there seems to have been an explosion of misunderstandings over something very simple:
When you dynamically link or otherwise include any GPL'ed code, such as libraries provided by ENIGMA, the entire program must be under the GPL. This doesn't mean you can't sell copies, it just means you need to give users the same freedom you were given. What the GNU LGPL does is allow you to dynamically link to the program under the GNU LGPL and not release the whole under the GNU LGPL.
What Josh wants to do is also allow static linking, rather than just the dynamic linking allowed by the GNU LGPL, so that everything can be put into a single executable on Windows. The problem with this is it could easily be abused if done wrong; imagine someone taking ENIGMA, making improvements, then wrapping that in a very small program that basically just includes the modified ENIGMA and does its job. Going the other way, the copyleft provisions could accidentally be left too strong.
Personally, I think the concern about having DLLs or other shared object files is silly. Sure, Game Maker users are used to having one file, but it's not a common practice in the first place. Even Windows programs more usually use some sort of installer or just a simple ZIP archive, and if it's even possible on GNU/Linux, I've never seen it there. Besides, consider all the libraries released under the GNU LGPL already; I'm not aware of any case where proprietary software developers rejected these libraries because they wanted to statically link and couldn't.
I say, just use the GNU LGPL, and make sure the way ENIGMA compiles the games dynamically links by default.
One last thing: it would be completely retarded to just make it permissively-licensed. I once heard an anecdote that people who do proprietary software development laugh at people who release their code under permissive licenses, because they can take that code, put it in their proprietary software, and give nothing back. It should be taken with a grain of salt, but it makes perfect sense. Let's say, for example, that ENIGMA manages to get a killer feature added that makes everyone want to migrate away from Game Maker. If it's permissively licensed, YoYo Games can just plop it into Game Maker with virtually zero effort. Don't get stuck in the mindset that "companies are going to release contributions anyway". Corporations are, by definition, amoral entities, driven by profit.
50
Off-Topic / Re: Restructuring the Community
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:08:22 pm »
If people view the community as immature, I imagine it's for the same reason that I do: use of racist and homophobic slurs, and other crude or offensive language. Like "GayMaka: Stupido". I was honestly surprised that Robert B Colton is apparently a young adult and not a pre-teen.
51
Proposals / Re: Extend LateralGM's room editor to be usable as a generic level editor
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:31:40 am »You could try with a liveusb with persistence, just saying
Yeah, I could, but it would be a lot less convenient (especially with my slow Internet connection, having to download an image several hundred megabytes in size), it's not urgent, and it's not as if there aren't other projects I can work on, anyway.
Side note: I added an XML-based format to ulvl (ULX), so that might be useful for adding support for this in the non-Python editors.
52
Proposals / Re: Extend LateralGM's room editor to be usable as a generic level editor
« on: September 14, 2014, 07:50:42 am »
Well, damn, I won't easily be able to run that Python one until I upgrade to Trisquel 7, so I'll have to hold off on adding the feature to that until then. (I could edit it without testing it, but especially considering my lack of familiarity with Qt, that seems likely to produce buggy results.)
53
Proposals / Re: Extend LateralGM's room editor to be usable as a generic level editor
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:22:57 pm »
Oh, there's a Python one? I should do that, then! Where's it at?
Still, LateralGM supporting it would be nice.
Still, LateralGM supporting it would be nice.
54
Proposals / Extend LateralGM's room editor to be usable as a generic level editor
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:08:16 pm »
I recently released a library called "ulvl", which defines some generic level formats that games can use:
https://gitorious.org/ulvl
The idea is, rather than level editors being directly tied to a particular game (as is the case for most level editors) or engine (as is the case for LateralGM's room editor), any game can read the format, and then game developers using any engine or graphics library can just get on with making their levels without having to make a level editor first.
I'm writing a generic level editor from scratch in Python, but thinking about it, LateralGM's room editor can fit the bill perfectly. Rooms could be saved as JSL (JavaScript Level) files very simply:
- Each LateralGM instance in the room can be a level object in the JSL file.
- The JSL file objects' IDs can be the "object" name in LateralGM.
- The JSL file objects' "option" values can be set to the LateralGM instances' creation code.
- The LateralGM room width and height can be assigned to a 2-value array "size" meta variable in the JSL file.
- Other room properties can optionally be assigned to arbitrary meta variables in the JSL file.
- The room creation code could be repurposed as a way to define other meta variables.
Alternatively, another format (maybe one based on XML?) could be added to ulvl, and then that could be supported by LateralGM.
Would anyone be interested in adding this option to LateralGM (to save and load at least one of the ulvl level formats)? I could probably do it myself, but I am very inexperienced with Java. It would be too big of a project for me. Someone familiar with Java could probably do this much more easily. However, I would be glad to define another format (e.g. one based on XML) if it's helpful.
By the way, I'd prefer this to be in the main distribution of LGM, not in a separate fork, if possible. Done correctly, this feature wouldn't interfere with LGM's usual work. It would just be two additional buttons and/or two additional menu entries.
https://gitorious.org/ulvl
The idea is, rather than level editors being directly tied to a particular game (as is the case for most level editors) or engine (as is the case for LateralGM's room editor), any game can read the format, and then game developers using any engine or graphics library can just get on with making their levels without having to make a level editor first.
I'm writing a generic level editor from scratch in Python, but thinking about it, LateralGM's room editor can fit the bill perfectly. Rooms could be saved as JSL (JavaScript Level) files very simply:
- Each LateralGM instance in the room can be a level object in the JSL file.
- The JSL file objects' IDs can be the "object" name in LateralGM.
- The JSL file objects' "option" values can be set to the LateralGM instances' creation code.
- The LateralGM room width and height can be assigned to a 2-value array "size" meta variable in the JSL file.
- Other room properties can optionally be assigned to arbitrary meta variables in the JSL file.
- The room creation code could be repurposed as a way to define other meta variables.
Alternatively, another format (maybe one based on XML?) could be added to ulvl, and then that could be supported by LateralGM.
Would anyone be interested in adding this option to LateralGM (to save and load at least one of the ulvl level formats)? I could probably do it myself, but I am very inexperienced with Java. It would be too big of a project for me. Someone familiar with Java could probably do this much more easily. However, I would be glad to define another format (e.g. one based on XML) if it's helpful.
By the way, I'd prefer this to be in the main distribution of LGM, not in a separate fork, if possible. Done correctly, this feature wouldn't interfere with LGM's usual work. It would just be two additional buttons and/or two additional menu entries.
55
Developing ENIGMA / Re: The benefits of Visual Studio's compiler?
« on: September 05, 2014, 02:29:30 pm »Quote
called "Min" for a reason
Er, yeah, it's called "minimal" because it doesn't give you a full GNU environment. It gives you a minimal GNU environment within Windows, with all the important tools you would use to compile stuff on a GNU system like GNU/Linux.
I don't know how good Visual Studio's C++ compiler is, but GCC is not a performance hog by any means. There's a reason it's as popular as it is.
As far as I understand, most projects use Visual Studio instead of MinGW because it's easier to do it that way, not because it's a better compiler.
56
General ENIGMA / Re: A few suggestions of features I feel I would work better with
« on: August 16, 2014, 03:14:46 pm »3) Multi-user online editing - I want to get my dev team working on this project, but it kinda makes it difficult that we have to pass the file around
over skype. (Again, I can just about cope without this)
The proper solution is to use a revision control system, such as Git, Mercurial, or Subversion. This goes for any other programming as well.
57
Issues Help Desk / Re: Linux Requirements
« on: August 13, 2014, 05:47:13 pm »System requirements are important. You shouldn't have to pretend otherwise.
I don't pretend otherwise, but ENIGMA's requirement isn't something like "Ubuntu 12.10 or later". That's overly specific. Particular versions of each dependency are required. Some distros have those dependencies, and some don't. But there's no need to pretend that ENIGMA only works with Debian-based systems, much less a particular version of Debian, just because it's what ENIGMA's developers use and test ENIGMA on.
Most libre programs claim GNU/Linux support with libraries X, Y, and Z, then tell you exactly how to easily compile/install the program on a common system like Debian so that those on that system don't have to search for libraries X, Y, and Z. I suspect Game Maker is only claimed to have Ubuntu support because it's easier to support just Ubuntu than GNU/Linux in general. It's not something a program that's offered "as-is" at no cost has to deal with.
Quote
Most poeple who use a computer in their everyday lives don't understand what terminal or command line even is, let alone how to use it, and don't forget most earthlings who have a life outside of the computer will probably never care to learn more or find out what these complicated things are.
That level of hand-holding is the job of a distributor (e.g. Canonical in the case of Ubuntu).
Some projects provide packages for e.g. Debian or Ubuntu, but what does that have to do with documenting "system requirements"? A package being available for Ubuntu 12.04 but not Ubuntu 12.10 and not Fedora doesn't mean that the program can't work on Ubuntu 12.10 or Fedora, it just means that Ubuntu 12.10 and Fedora users have to install it a more difficult way.
58
Issues Help Desk / Re: Linux Requirements
« on: August 13, 2014, 01:20:08 pm »
This is a nonsensical question. Why would you expect only certain distributions of the same basic system to work with ENIGMA? The only version-specific requirements would be for the dependencies, and neither GNU nor Linux is a dependency. Even if a distro doesn't include ENIGMA's dependencies, you can get them yourself.
On the other hand, if you're just talking about what distros ENIGMA binaries are distributed for by the ENIGMA devs, that's kind of self-documenting, is it not? Obviously, if an Ubuntu 12.10 package doesn't exist, Ubuntu 12.10 isn't supported that way.
On the other hand, if you're just talking about what distros ENIGMA binaries are distributed for by the ENIGMA devs, that's kind of self-documenting, is it not? Obviously, if an Ubuntu 12.10 package doesn't exist, Ubuntu 12.10 isn't supported that way.
59
Off-Topic / Re: GM:Studio Standard Now Free
« on: July 09, 2014, 11:11:16 am »
Ah, I see. I went straight to the download page. Didn't expect it to be only on the home page...
60
Off-Topic / Re: GM:Studio Standard Now Free
« on: July 09, 2014, 06:21:09 am »TKG, Monkey is also open source, you only have to pay for the binaries. I really like what Mark Sibly is doing, his IDE is also Qt. This is of course if we are talking about the same primate....
I don't see any source code links for Monkey X. I wasn't even able to find source code for it in a search engine.