gaming December 11, 2012 Jack No comments

On the Steam Box

The Steam Box has been making the news lately, most recently with a confirmation from the venerable Gabe that it’s a thing that may exist in our plane of reality. There’s also been a lot of talk lately about the Steam Linux beta (that I got in to, hooray!) and the release of Steam’s Big Picture which is a console like controller interface intended for big screens (i.e. TVs).

Because of the timing, a lot of these Steam Box announcements, and a lot of the buzz around it has been that this box will run Linux. As such, in the gaming community there’s a lot of “whoa, Linux… what does that mean for us?” and in the Linux community there’s a lot of “finally Linux games!” I love Steam, I own a handful of titles in it, and I’m extremely pleased that they’ve put out a native Linux client (even in beta form). However, I am totally unconvinced that this is going to be a Linux based Steam machine, despite the timing. Here’s my logic.

Why Not Linux?

I think that it’s likely that a Valve console would take advantage of the huge Steam library. They’ve put almost a decade of effort into turning Steam into a slick, painless, even fun experience and they’ve sold millions of games. Steam is now a big release platform for a lot of AAA publishers (Bethesda, id, Eidos, Firaxis, Gearbox, etc.) as well as a load of indie publishers that wouldn’t have found nearly the following if it wasn’t as painless to find out about them and pay them.

It seems to me that Valve would be making a huge mistake if they’re not parlaying that massive, successful library directly into their prospective console. Bringing a handful of AAA launch titles into your living room on day one makes the Steam Box just another console that differentiates itself with maybe a handful of Valve exclusives (Half-life 3, anybody?). Bringing 2000 mature, well-loved and already purchased games into your living room with a cheap box and promising all the future PC releases would be killer. In addition, a Steam Box that was just a Windows machine with a slick interface would suddenly become the defacto PC spec – solving an issue that game devs have struggled with since the very beginning of PC gaming, namely how to deal with the thousands of different hardware and resource configurations. Finally, it would have the added benefit that literally any game that runs on Windows would effectively work out of the box (perhaps with a little tweaking for the spec, or any novel input devices, but without the pain of a full port).

There is a whole lot of greatness in bringing a cheap, well configured and standardized PC into the living room with a giant library of already working and popular games.

Unfortunately, with a Linux based OS on it, this is impossible. Valve titles would be ported, of course (and in fact that seems like it will happen regardless thanks to the Steam Linux beta) and a fair number of indie games already have ports, but what about the library titles that would strengthen a console release? How many developers can Valve convince into doing a free port of an older game? I believe the answer is very few because for most of these old games there’s no profit in it. Technology like Wine could be used, but if your focus is on solid gaming experience that’s a whole new set of problems. As such, using a Linux based OS would almost completely obviate the advantage of the Steam library.

Why I Could Be (And Hope I Am) Wrong

First of all, perhaps I’m overstating the likelihood of the Steam library coming to the living room. A lot of the older, unportable games would not be controller friendly and if they’re aiming for a more traditional controller oriented approach (instead of controller, mouse, and keyboard) they’d be worthless and hard to play even if they ran perfectly. Not to mention the fact that, by definition, the entire existing library already runs elsewhere which doesn’t really give the Steam Box any draw over a gaming PC except perhaps to those without the cash for an expensive pre-built or the know-how to build their own.

In essence, maybe losing compatibility wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world and if that’s the case Linux starts making a whole lot more sense. You get a very mature stack from kernel through display and because you’re targeting a single hardware configuration you can create a stable, well-tested release on top of open source components fairly easily. Compared to the amount of time it would take to custom develop the entire stack, the bugfixing would take a trivial amount of time and effort.

Second, Linux is free as in freedom. What other console developer would be able to glean fixes and features from unpaid volunteers?

Third, Linux is free as in beer. A Steam library compatible approach would have to come packaged with a Windows license which easily adds $100 to the unsubsidized price tag of the device. Ideally, if they chose to go this route, they could get a deal from Microsoft. The Dreamcast, for example, ran a version of WinCE developed by Microsoft that was seamless. That was before the Xbox hit the scene however and I highly doubt Microsoft would be so amenable these days. On the other hand, if the alternative is to have a Linux box running AAA games, they might be better served by giving Valve a deal to maintain their edge in the desktop space. Either way, though the box becomes more expensive and they lose the advantage of the open source stack.

The final, and best fact for the possibility of Linux on the console is that, if they chose to ignore compatibility, and went the more traditional console route with a release in 2014 / 2015, they’d have plenty of time to rally support for Linux titles, get the already existing Linux ports lined up and polished, and – in the end – come to the table with a more extensive library than any of the competitors.


  • Massive Steam library already polished and working
  • Easy to productize fast
  • Already mature
  • .

  • Take a price hit on licensing / packaging Windows
  • Less fine grain control of software stack
  • Free (as in beer) – lower end price
  • Open source – get fixes from volunteers
  • Already mature
  • Not many existing ports in the catalog
  • Brand new platform without much industry expertise

I’m still not convinced that this isn’t going to end up being Valve’s effort to further monetize their work on the existing Steam library, but if they are willing to start a serious console from scratch then Linux is cleary the way to go. None of the information we already know about the device seems to indicate which approach Valve is favoring and as such I think it’s premature to make assumptions.

gaming November 25, 2012 Jack No comments

On Intermediate Dwarf Fortress

I’ve been playing Dwarf Fortress a lot these days, after a hiatus and I finally managed to get my first Barony (i.e. a stable fortress that’s got enough imports, exports, and population to get a noble – the first step to a monarchy). This fortress is about five years old, which is a feat in and of itself, but it’s survived four good sieges, a minotaur attack and initially I thought it was cursed and doomed to be a failure (I had a failed strange mood dwarf turn out to be a vampire that went berserk and lost 5 dwarves and damn near tantrum spiralling the remaining 10 and then had some migrants show up pissed off and some dwarven babies die mysteriously and a vampire fishery worker that got elected mayor… I could go on).

I thought I’d take advantage of this milestone to write a few things that I’ve realized in my last year or two of Dwarf Fortress that may not be obvious to even players that have been at it for while and had their share of FUN. As such I won’t be covering basics like food production or embark, but leaning more toward intermediate strategy and surprises.

The first tidbit I have is that Dwarf Fortress is all about supply. Half of your game is spent supplying masons with stone, smelters with ore, forges with bars, food, fuel, water, furniture. You have to look at optimizing the speed at which your supply chains work in order to avoid getting bogged down.

This starts with specialization. First, of the stockpile. General stockpiles have their uses (like keeping all of your workshops uncluttered), but general stone stockpiles will get choked quickly. Even general metal ore stockpiles will get bogged down in tetrahedrite and galena. You need to specialize them even more. For example, getting steel production started. You’re going to need to smelt quite a bit, first iron, then pig iron, then steel. The stockpile around your smelters then should allow just your most common iron ore (i.e. magnetite), and bars of pig iron and iron. Nothing else. If you are going to switch from steel to copper (say to bash out a bunch of copper bolts or bins) then either start a new smelter/stockpile, or change the stockpile settings and mark everything currently in it for dumping.

Why does this make such a difference? Because – especially with the 0.34 hauling changes – you want your haulers to do the hauling and your artisans to do the crafting. If the stockpiles around your workshops are inefficiently loaded, you’ve got your legendary armorer walking up ten flights of stairs and hauling materials back to his shop to get his task done when any idle Urist getting drunk in the hall can do it. Higher skilled workers craft way faster than novices, but if they’re wasting their time hauling it doesn’t matter at all.

Which brings me to the other specialization: of workers. The higher skill a worker the better their output and the faster they produce it. A legendary artisan, mason, smith, carpenter can blink through a full order of items in no time and they’ll be great quality. Once you’ve reached that level, you’re pretty much no longer bound by how fast you can produce the items, but how fast you can supply the craftsman with materials. By ensuring that you’re always focusing on leveling a single dwarf, you’ll reach that point faster than if you throw 10 novice dwarves at it. You take a hit initially (if you’re unlucky and don’t get a decent migrant for the job) but after that single dwarf you drafted gains a few levels, he’ll be moving much faster than the handful of dwarves with less experience would be.

Unfortunately, the basic UI makes this a huge pain in the ass. There’s no good way to get a decent overview of the skills of your fortress and as such it’s too easy to have high level crafters languishing as novices in other fields. As such, I recommend Dwarf Therapist for anyone that wants to have any level of control over their dwarves (and yes, it works on Linux). With Dwarf Therapist when I get a migrant wave, I group by squad (so I can use the “no squad” group) and then sort by skill in each labor ensuring that I have the highest dwarf in each skill assigned and only one or two related skills enabled at a time. For example, I usually only have one or two masons and now, five years in, both of them are “accomplished” (level 10) and they can build walls, bridges, coffins, etc. as fast as I can get them stone. My single legendary + 3 carpenter can make a new brace of 30 beds in no time. My single weaponsmith is also “accomplished” and I started him from nothing – he’s just made literally every weapon and bolt ever produced at the fortress (arming military, hunters, weapon traps, some trade orders). In short throwing dwarves at the problem is almost never the answer.

That said, some labors – like stone smoothing or woodcutting – respond well to having dwarves thrown at them because they are no supply (or one-time supply) and have no workshop. This is why I have 4 wood cutters and 8 detailers (5 of which are legendary).

With this knowledge in hand, I’ve gone from having a massive list of managed jobs that seemed to take forever, to having short bursts of jobs that disappear quickly and it’s made all of the difference not only to my fortress but to my frustration level. I lost many a fortress to not being able to get weapons or ammo out fast enough, or produce coffins, beds, etc.

The next bit of knowledge is that the manager isn’t perfect. Playing DF would really suck without the ability to manage jobs on a higher level than the workshop and the manager does a good job of providing that interface. I almost always have a standing meal and brew order and it’s great for handling bedrooms (queuing beds, rock cabinets, rock doors) and smelting wouldn’t be nearly as painless without it.

However, the longer than chain of actions, the worse the manager performs. I used to draft a half-squad, then queue up a huge amount of jobs for iron then steel, then crafting weapons, armor, and leather clothing. The problem is that the forge jobs get queued at the same time as smelter jobs so that even though you list the squad’s weapons as top priority, those jobs are getting cancelled constantly until you’ve got the supplies to complete them. The result is the first random job that’s queued and has materials gets done so that even though you clearly gave the weapons top billing, you could get a squad that has two weapons, four breastplates, one gauntlet and a mail shirt when you could’ve had them all at least armed and training with the same amount of metal and time.

There are two ways to deal with this. The first is that you queue up chunks of tasks. For example, queueing the fuel creation jobs and waiting, then the smelting jobs, and waiting, then the actual jobs you want done. This works, and because it takes advantage of the manager’s ability to track the items and notify you on completion, it’s the best for large tasks (like outfitting a squad).

The second way is to take manual control of part of the process. The manager blindly queues jobs up in a sort of round-robin manner between workshops, but it will never cancel jobs unless the overall task has been cancelled. That means, if you need something made quickly it’s often better to just go to the workshop, cancel the inactive manager tasks, and insert your own. The manager won’t override you, you don’t have to wait for them to validate the job, and you don’t have to wait for the already queued jobs at the workshop to be completed. This is best for on the fly jobs, like creating more bolts in the middle of a siege, or anything else you want to rush to the front of the line.

Another tidbit is that the military is never enough. Military dwarves are great because they can become mobile killing machines capable of putting down sieges like no other. That takes a long time though, and a lot of hard experience. Even getting decent marksdwarves takes quite awhile even though you can get pretty experienced hunters. In the meantime, it’s perfectly possible to bottle up your fortress – but being forbidden from the surface means your pastures are destroyed, you have no access to huge amounts of trees, or fish (unless you had enough time to get them underground), or hunted meat. Traders will get slaughtered, diplomats leave unhappy. No, you need to be able to capture or kill an onslaught outright.

Personally, I like a two story entry way, with a trap hallway and entrance on the first level, and open space on the second level with fortifications bordering one side. The entrances and fortifications are all behind bridges that can be raised and the whole entry way can then be flooded. This way I can bite off a certain number of invaders by toggling the entrance bridges, deal with them (cage and pit, eviscerate, headshot from above or – worst case – seal off and drown). After they’re dealt with, pit the captured invaders, reset the cage traps, and take another bite.

This automated system works pretty but it’s very rigid as well. A military is still necessary for handling the unexpected forgotten beast that flies up by accident into your lower levels and suddenly appears in your dining room breathing fire. Or for clearing out goblin stragglers, thieves, snatchers etc. In addition to berserk dwarves of which there will be many.

Another brief tidbit is read the magmawiki page on Armor. For a long time I thought that military dwarves only needed one piece of chest, leg, foot, arm, head armor but in the end they need way more than that to be decked out. The difference is staggering.

Last military one is be aware that you can have standing active and inactive orders. I was ignorant of the fact that you can actually have “inactive” squads training and guarding and “active” squads be in position for a siege. This makes calling everyone to battle stations as easy as setting everyone to active on the military alert screen. You switch between active and inactive orders with /. Before, I had my training and guarding on the “active” schedule, and then when a siege came I’d manually position my squads but that’s not nearly as useful because you can’t easily burrow them and you can’t easily control their numbers.

Last bit of knowledge: quality easily trumps quantity. Setting up a great hall with tables, chairs, food, and booze is a necessity that all DFers are familiar with. Maybe you’ve even seen dwarves griping about the lack of chairs if you haven’t gotten to it yet. If you have to choose between 30 rock tables and thrones versus a couple of nice metal (gold, silver, platinum – even lead) go for the nicest ones you can provide. The lack of chairs thought will be easily outweighed by just being in the presence of these nice objects. My current fortress (whose inhabitants are mostly ecstatic) had literally four gold tables and chairs in the hall with 150 dwarves for awhile and not once did I catch a sad dwarf complaining about lack of chairs, but a lot of my others always had “admired a fine seat” in their thoughts.

The same thing is true with other furniture, meals, booze, and virtually all trade goods. Try to put out the best product rather than the most product. This dovetails with the worker specialization I mention above.

Anyway, these are my notes after receiving my first Barony. Hope they help you with your FUN.

politics November 7, 2012 Jack No comments

On Election 2012

I, like many of my colleagues, took a breath of relief last night when Obama won his second term. In addition, a lot of the other interesting races went Democrat as well, Elizabeth Warren most notably, but also Donnelly and McCaskill (seems like the Republicans got bit pretty hard over their rape insanity). The only thing that would’ve made me happier (aside from the entirely unlikely possibility of the Democrats taking the House) is if Jim Graves put Bachmann out to pasture once and for all.

Not all of my colleagues are relieved today, however. Since I started coming in to the office more (new team) in August, and as the pressures of the race started to make it daily conversation, I heard a lot of crazy things coming from engineers that I would otherwise respect. I can’t be sure, but I don’t think that they make 250k a year either. I guess Texas is Texas even in Austin.

We had a lot of nice propositions on the ballot for Austin too and most of them passed which hopefully translates into a lot of new funding for great projects like libraries, museums and – most controversially if you judge by yard signs – a new medical school for UT.

However, returning to the national level, the picture is almost resoundingly positive for we progressives.

The Supreme Court

At least one, if not more of the justices will be replaced in the next 4 years due to death or retirement. Ginsburg is likely who would’ve been replaced by a conservative judge in a Romney universe. Instead a younger liberal judge will be put in place. Other’s like Kennedy or Scalia would be wins for the Democrats, and for sanity, as things like Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, and hopefully new reforms are challenged in our highest court.

The life term limit for the judges makes their influence long reaching and for Obama to get another one or two appointments to the bench would go a long way to avoiding future conflict for major progressive reforms (if we get that far). For the record I don’t advocate violating the Constitution for these reforms, but I do believe that the Constitution was written 200 years ago and must be interpreted to be relevant today.

The Punishment of Liars

The GOP is full of lies and misinformation. There’s no way that you can deny that they’ve been involved in some of the most vapid and factless campaigns in history. From Romney’s 2010 Lie of the Year coming up in a debate two years after it had been thoroughly debunked, to the fact that the Romney campaign “won’t be dictated to by fact checkers” to the bold-faced, consistent and totally idiotic lies from day one of the Obama presidency (i.e. Obama is a muslim/socialist/fascist/anti-christ/gay/communist/Kenyan).

On top of it, Mitt Romney’s campaign promises were many and details were few. While I can’t say he didn’t have a brilliant set of tax deduction eliminations and plugged loopholes to offset his tax cut agenda, I can say that if he did he’s an idiot for not being specific and that lack of details likely means he was bullshitting us all in an attempt to get elected on a mound of empty promises.

If the GOP had been rewarded this cycle with the Presidency or a new majority in the Senate, it would cause them to view lying and empty promises as a valid tactic. Thankfully, that didn’t happen, and in fact the Democrats made gains at every level nationally. I’d be surprised if the GOP does some soul searching and realizes that they need to come up with concrete solutions instead of promises next time around, and I fully expect the next round of utter bullshit is already being cooked up, but if we can establish a pattern over a few more cycles of “crazy and/or liars = unelectable” maybe the Democrats can take the House in 2014 and the Presidency again in 2016 and then after so many cycles of failure, they’ll get the point. Maybe they’ll realize that pandering to the extreme right for the primary and then tacking hard back to center for the general election is a losing strategy. Then perhaps we’ll get a real alternative party or, even better, a party that is willing to cross the aisle and compromise when the American people universally realize that we need progression instead of regression.

b5, scifi, trek October 19, 2012 Jack 13 comments

On the DS9 / Babylon 5 Controversy

Note: It’s been a long time since I’ve watched B5, and I’m keeping an open mind. If you want to nitpick or bring up new evidence, please do so in the comments, I’d be happy to edit and expand the discussion.

On Reddit recently, I was defending my favorite of the Treks, DS9, against a horde of Babylon 5 fans that argued that Paramount ripped the entire premise of DS9 from material that J. Michael Straczynski (JMS) tried to sell to them long before DS9 was ever announced.

Do I believe that Paramount would be that unscrupulous? Absolutely. They’re a studio, and in the history of movies and TV I’m sure you can find plenty of other examples of assholish behavior. Personally, that seems like legal grounds to sue the shit out of Paramount, but JMS apparently didn’t want to taint either show with legal action. That doesn’t seem very businesslike, but hey. I can’t fault the guy for wanting to have more sci-fi on TV rather than less.

I’ve watched Babylon 5. I enjoyed it. I am not a conspiracy theorist however so I decided to look at the supposed mirror-like similarities between the shows and determine what I thought myself.


The first thing I wanted was a concise list of the similarities. It’s been quite awhile since I’ve watched B5 so while I remember the grand sweep of things, the details are little hazy. The best summation is a list I found in the IMDB FAQ for B5 and it goes a little something like this.

  • Babylon 5 involves a space station beside an artificial hyperspace jumpgate. Deep Space Nine involves a space station beside an artificial wormhole.
  • Both shows had human captains who would end up becoming figures of religious significance to a local race. Benjamin Sisko would become the Bajoran Emissary while Sinclair was Valen.
  • Both shows involved humans working alongside a recent enemy race: the Minbari in Babylon 5 and the Klingons in Deep Space Nine (although the friendly nature of the Klingons was established in Star Trek: The Next Generation)
  • Both shows would introduce a small, powerful, first of its kind warship at similar points in their third season: The Defiant on Deep Space Nine and the White Star on Babylon 5
  • Both shows featured female seconds in command who were hot tempered: Kira Nerys on Deep Space Nine and Susan Ivanova on Babylon 5
  • Both shows featured doctors who had strained relations with their fathers and who were hiding secrets: Julian Bashir’s genetic modification on Deep Space Nine and Stephen Franklin’s involvement with the underground and his stim addiction on Babylon 5
  • Both shows involved combat against mysterious foes who seemed much more powerful than the protagonists: The Dominion on Deep Space Nine and the Shadows on Babylon 5
  • In addition there are several names which appear in both shows such as Lyta/Leeta and Dukhat/Dukat..

Let’s get cracking.

The premise

Babylon 5 involves a space station beside an artificial hyperspace jumpgate. Deep Space Nine involves a space station beside an artificial wormhole.

This seems to be the most damning evidence that the premise of DS9 was ripped off. On the face of it, these are very similar. However, if you break it down, I’d argue that these are genre pieces.

Set on a space station. It seems suspicious that JMS would pitch B5 to Paramount and then, 4 years later, when B5 got the greenlight elsewhere, suddenly there would be a new Trek set on a space station. However, this ignores one fact and that’s that not only are space stations totally average in sci-fi and in fact are mentioned endlessly in TOS and TNG, but also that the human race has actually (in reality) put a number of space stations in orbit around earth. The Russian Mir space station was put up in 1986, three years before JMS’s pitch, and 7 years before DS9 started to air. It’s unsurprising then that TV sci-fi, especially in two franchises set in our future rather than in some alternate reality like Star Wars, would choose a space station. JMS chose it for B5 because it acts as a semi-neutral diplomatic area, DS9 chose it because it was a different take on a universe that had already had two shows about cruising the galaxy.

Set by a [transportation device]. This seems like a stronger argument than it’s base setting. Jump gates and worm holes? Basically the same thing, right? No… not really. In B5 jump gates are the mechanism for ships to enter hyperspace. They’re like highway on and off ramps and standard ships have to use the jump gate network to cross vast distances. Trek already had something like this, warp speed. The wormhole is different, it’s a one-of-a-kind link between two points in space that are vast distances apart.

This doesn’t address the core issues though. Regardless of technology, there’s still some transit feature next to the space station. But really, isn’t that an obvious device for both shows? B5 requires a jumpgate because otherwise it wouldn’t be very useful as a space station in a world where ships have to use them to cross large distances. In the same way, DS9’s story requires the wormhole because without it, it’s just one of a hundred different Federation space stations and not a very integral or interesting one at that. It’s one of the oldest literary devices in the book to have a trade point, a port, a bridge, a mountain pass in the setting because it gives a reason for exotic people and items to show up. In military stories, it gives a tactical weight to the setting. In short, nobody should be surprised that this is part of the base setting for either show.

What’s being left out. There are a lot of omissions in the setting that are left out of this argument as well. Like the fact that B5 was constructed by and for Earth, where DS9 was taken after the occupation of Bajor. Or that B5 is a node on an already known (locally, at least) network, where the wormhole basically puts DS9 on the frontier of an entire new and unexplored quadrant.

Most importantly though, the premise of DS9 from episode one is still exploration, albeit in a different way than previous Trek. It explores philosophy (Distant Voices, Life Support et. al) religion (Bajoran episodes, of which there are many) in addition to planets (ala Meridian, Paradise, Children of Time, etc. as well as introducing Trill, Ferenginar and New Sydney on screen). It takes two full seasons before the main antagonist, the Dominion, is even seen and almost another three seasons before the main conflict begins. At it’s core DS9 is still solidly in the one-off paradigm of TNG for its first 5 seasons, and even the longest Dominion War arc is only a handful of episodes long.

To B5’s credit, it’s the origin of the highly serialized sci-fi that would fit right in today, in the age of the DVR when all modern drama is serial as well. The story, as such, is also serial and has much more to do with the continuing machinations between the races on B5, Earth, Mars, Earthforce, Psi Corps and eventually the Shadows than it does with any sort of exploration. That’s not a criticism, it’s a fact. Where DS9 is more like a collection of short stories with the same characters but vastly different topics and tones, B5 is closer to a coherent novel with complex factions and subterfuge.

It’s here in the story, not the setting, is where the premise of shows must differentiate themselves. If you don’t believe that, then every modern hospital drama is a rip-off of ER, every cop show is a rip off of Hill Street Blues, etc. etc.

The religious undertone

Both shows had human captains who would end up becoming figures of religious significance to a local race. Benjamin Sisko would become the Bajoran Emissary while Sinclair was Valen.

First of all, the Minbari are not a “local race” except in the fact that they have residents on B5 – a human station -, but I’ll ignore that part.

Second, while Sisko as The Emissary is definitely religious, I don’t remember Valen ever being established as anything but a badass historical figure. I suppose the “Minbari not of Minbari” metamorphosis thing can be interpreted as miraculous, and there is the time travel but that could be equally attributed to science fiction as divinity. I won’t hinge my argument on that though, especially since I might just not remember.

The real crux here is that, while B5 does make use of religion occasionally, it’s not a consistent component of the overall story. The example that’s given here (Sinclair being Valen) isn’t even hinted at until the third season of B5 (episode 3×16, War Without End pt 1.) at which point Sinclair is not the (or even a) main character. It also didn’t air until May 13th, 1996. DS9 established Sisko as the Emissary in the first episode, which aired almost 3.5 years before then on January 3rd, 1993.

B5 fans might argue that JMS is just a genius and that this was his plan all along and part of his foolish disclosure to evil Paramount but I find that highly unlikely.

Even if the above doesn’t sway your opinion

It’s clear that each series has a vastly different approach to religion and again, that’s what matters more than a silly bullet point. DS9 is constantly expounding on Bajoran religion, Sisko being the Emissary is an integral part of the show. What with the orbs, the festivals, the vedics, the kais, virtually all of Kira’s back story, the Prophets and their role in the Dominion War, the Pah Wraiths and their cult. Even Dax’s death at the hands of a Wraith. DS9 spends a lot of on-screen time getting into the minutiae of Bajoran religion. In B5, religion takes a pivotal role by weaving it through the plot through Sinclair/Valen and prophecy as motivation instead of persistent set dressing, as exodist points out in the comments.

Working with former enemies

Both shows involved humans working alongside a recent enemy race: the Minbari in Babylon 5 and the Klingons in Deep Space Nine (although the friendly nature of the Klingons was established in Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Personally I don’t think this holds water for the same reason the bullet states. When DS9 started, the Klingons had been established as an ally for 5 years of TNG (and closer to 25 in-universe). If we take into account that the Klingons don’t start playing a major role until Season 4, then it’s even longer. The previous state of enmity isn’t even referenced in DS9 because it’s unnecessary.

Later, there’s a time when the Klingons and the Federation are at war again (thanks to the Founders), but that’s the nature of politics in drama and a separate case than working with a long-established enemy.

New armaments

Both shows would introduce a small, powerful, first of its kind warship at similar points in their third season: The Defiant on Deep Space Nine and the White Star on Babylon 5

First, the “third season” is misleading. DS9’s Defiant showed up in the third season premiere, on September 26th, 1994. The White Star class showed up (as far as I can tell from the wiki and the bullet) in the B5 third season premiere a year later on November 6th, 1995 although I guess the B5 fans can argue once again about JMS’s possible omniscience and subsequent foolhardiness in the Paramount office.

Anyway, a year after the Defiant, the White Star comes out with the ability to create a jumpgate at any point to get to hyperspace… sounds a bit like warp speed to me. Who’s copying who again? =P

In all seriousness this argument doesn’t hold weight for one reason: it’s an obvious necessity. Both shows are set on (relatively) stationary space stations, both shows have a looming threat (we’ll discuss farther down) so is it really a surprise that both shows introduce a new badass heavy fighter-type ship? Absolutely not. The main characters have to leave the station and do some ass kicking. It’s as simple as that.

But why a new ship, in either case? Because there’s a new threat that has to be answered with better, more agile hardware. In B5 human ships were a joke compared to the massive Minbari ships which in turn were a joke compared to the massive Shadows. In DS9, sure they could’ve used a Galaxy class ship but those were exploration, science and defense ships with massive crews. The Defiant, as Sisko says, is a ship with one purpose: war. It’s fast and it packs a punch.

Female First Officer

Both shows featured female seconds in command who were hot tempered: Kira Nerys on Deep Space Nine and Susan Ivanova on Babylon 5

No way! A 90s show with a strong female that doesn’t take any shit? And she’s close to the top of the hierarchy? Amazing. Forget the fact that Kira was essentially a guerilla terrorist shortly before the show began, and Ivanova was a figher pilot because, you know, that might actually differentiate them. This is more a result of out-of-universe culture shifting than anything in-universe in my opinion.

Dr. daddy issues

Both shows featured doctors who had strained relations with their fathers and who were hiding secrets: Julian Bashir’s genetic modification on Deep Space Nine and Stephen Franklin’s involvement with the underground and his stim addiction on Babylon 5

Seriously? Let’s break it down.

Both stations have doctors. That should have obvious reasoning on both sides.

Both characters have issues with their fathers… okay, but not only is that tangential to their overall story, it’s not uncommon in reality and it’s quite common in TV. Franklin’s father was a strict general, Bashir’s parents illegally genetically modified him as a child, Ivanova has an issue with her telepathic mother that committed suicide, Kira has an issue with her mom who was a traitorous comfort girl to the Cardassians, Quark has an issue with his mother because she’s so progressive, it goes on and on. The reason that people on TV have a lot of family issues is that it’s a familiar dynamic to every person in the human race. As such, I’m ignoring the father issues as too common.

Both characters have secrets. That is so vague as to be meaningless. Especially since on B5 practically everyone has secrets, that’s the sort of show it is. Again, not a criticism, in fact having flawed characters instead of Trek-ish ideologues is to it’s credit. However, if Bashir didn’t have a secret, then Kira would and the previous bullet would’ve been “tough female second in command with secrets” because Ivanova’s mom’s telepathy secret. If not Kira, then Worf would have secret and then it would be a parallel to Garibaldi’s secret Italian food addiction (or his dark period). The point is that two analogous characters having secrets isn’t a big deal. You know what other doctor has daddy issues and secrets? Dr. House. If I watched a lot of the other medical shows I could probably come up with other characters too but I basically despise them.

Now, if the secrets were in any way similar perhaps there’d be more to this argument but they’re totally different. Bashir’s secret is his genetic status, given to him against his will, that nonetheless allows him to perform superhuman feats of intellect. Franklin’s secret is his underground dealings and stim addiction. They’re completely unrelated and, on top of it, form episodes in the series that are vastly different. Bashir gets discovered and it brings up classic Trek philosophy of how we’d deal with genetic engineered humans, whether he deserves to retain his commission, who gets punished. Later, his genetically modified state is used when Section 31 shows interest in him, and also in a couple of (rather tiresome) episodes where he attempts to communicate with some genetically engineered misfits. Franklin’s secret stim usage causes him to resign the medlab, go on “walkabout” and return with new insight, a clear disgrace and redemption arc, a self-discovery.

The primary foes

Both shows involved combat against mysterious foes who seemed much more powerful than the protagonists: The Dominion on Deep Space Nine and the Shadows on Babylon 5

Once again, this is such a common trope throughout all literature that it’s almost not worth discussing. An existential threat to you and your way of life is the essence of drama. That’s why you watch 300, or Battlestar Galactica, or disaster movies like Armageddon, or Aliens, or Independence Day, or a slew of other shows and movies. You want to see the underdog defeat the big bad guy, especially when the underdog is your planet or species. This same sort of conflict shows up in each of the previous Trek series (the Borg, the Q, the Armageddon Machine). More generically, this sort of story shows up everywhere from Animal House (misfits band together to save their frat house from being destroyed) to Rocky.

As I’ve tried to point out in many of the previous blocks, it’s the execution that matters, not the surface trope level similarities and the Dominion and the Shadows are not similar at all except in their relative power to the protagonists.

The Dominion is much more straightforward foe. They have a massive standing force of ships and soldiers. They have an empire on the other side of the wormhole with a strict and known hierarchy. They encompass hundreds of worlds and races. In many ways the Dominion is a despotic version of the Federation, a parallel that I don’t think was used enough in DS9. Their great power comes from sheer resources rather than ultra-advanced technology beyond that of their enemy. Their motivation to attack the protagonists comes from the desire for conquest.

The Shadows, on the other hand, are an ancient race of beings that emerge every 1000 years to cull the weak races through bloodshed and thus form a sort of natural selection pressure. They have bizarre organic advanced technology but are somehow vulnerable to telepathy. They are the flip side to the Vorlon, a race with the goal of nurturing races to survive the shadow wars.

There are some similarities in their execution. Like their unsurprising use of cunning to undermine their foes, or their intense desire to exterminate the protagonists and… I guess their ability to cloak themselves? But none of these are specific enough to call one a copy of the other.


In addition there are several names which appear in both shows such as Lyta/Leeta and Dukhat/Dukat..

Give me a break. Ask yourself this. If DS9 was really going to rip off B5, don’t you think they’d have the smarts to change the names?

Ugh. Leeta (DS9) and Dukhat (B5) are minor characters, in vastly different roles from their counterparts. In a context in which we’re not trying to paint DS9 as a rip-off, these might even be considered homage but as evidence of plagiarism they’re about as weak as it gets.


Look, I’m a fan of both series. None of the above should seem like a criticism of B5 itself. It’s a solid show and it was well written for the most part. It’s also got a totally different dynamic, arc, and execution than DS9.

I’ll admit that DS9 is my favorite Trek and thus it might seem like I have a dog in this fight, and I do, but I’m not trying to make the argument that DS9 is better, just that it’s not a rip-off. There are too many good writers that worked on the show and wrote too many good episodes (without analogues in the whole of B5) to dismiss them as plagiarists.

I’m all for fan theories, but this one just seems petty. Perhaps it’s the ultimate expression of the disappointment that B5 fans (myself included) feel about the fact that it got jerked around during production. I could see some people creating this theory because there is a seed of truth (JMS presenting B5 to Paramount before DS9 was in the works) and, if it were true, it would mean that Babylon 5 would’ve been just as successful as DS9 if it had the same level of backing.

In the end, I’ve found no argument that this theory is true except for some TVTropes level generic similarities. Even if I admit that it’s possible that Paramount guided the creation of DS9 with JMS’ manuscript in its back pocket, there’s no evidence (even JMS can’t tell for sure), and that’s still no reason each show can’t be original where it really matters: the story. The actual execution.

That said, maybe I’m missing some key point or piece of evidence. Maybe I’ve ignored parts of the show that are relevant. If that’s true, put it in the comments and we can continue discussion! I am open minded and convinceable if given the proof.

software October 18, 2012 Jack 6 comments

On Qtile

Anyone that knows my open source predilection also knows that I have a lot of obscure and elitist taste in software. The only thing that could make me more tech hipster is if my kernel/OS of choice was a BSD instead of mainstream Linux.

Case in point, my primary environment is a tiling WM written in Haskell, Xmonad. However, lately, I’ve been wishing for a bit more ease of use and a bit more flexibility in my whole base setup. With FOSS, whenever I have an itch, I try to scratch it one way or another.

Lately I’ve tried popular tiling WMs, like awesome and dwm. A couple of serious in-development ones as well, like subtle, i3, and musca. I still have a few to try, like spectrwm. However, for the past few days I’ve been really enjoying one called Qtile.

It’s written in Python, which is a major plus for me because it’s my dynamic language of choice. In the 21st century, window management isn’t even close to “intensive” and as such I think trading speed (from C) for flexibility (from Python) is clearly the way to go.

The configuration for Qtile is done in it’s native language. Xmonad is configured in its native language too, it just happens to be Haskell and my days of pure functional programming are long gone so I appreciate the ability to mess with code, configuration and plugins without having to re-learn a set of enigmatic operators. Tangentially, I also experimented with native config in the last major version of my own software (Canto) and it’s an extremely powerful configuration strategy. In part because the interpreter for your dynamic language is very powerful and (hopefully) well-designed and also because obviously the structures created in the configuration are simple to then manipulate in the code itself. In the end I started to migrate away from it because it’s hard to programmatically alter a configuration whether to convert to another version, or to save configuration done via a software interface. Qtile, and other tiling window managers, generally have no need to do either of these things if their initial interface is complete enough so I’m glad to see that I can execute arbitrary Python in the config and look forward to being able to construct my own layout capabilities.

Another advantage of Qtile is that it takes a more circumspect view of window management. Each piece of software doing one thing and doing it well is a great facet of the Unix philosophy but the lines drawn between functionality are arbitrary. Xmonad, for example, does literally nothing except manage windows (as you would expect). It does it very well, but it only has a bit of functionality to play nice with the other tools that most modern users would consider necessary (it’s capable of reserving space for bars / trays and it has capability to output text based on internal status). Qtile includes window management, but it also includes a configurable bar with status output, focused window titles, a clock and a tray. With Xmonad, achieving a similar setup to this requires setting up a loghook (interfacing with Haskell), and using two or three different programs in tandem (i.e. stalonetray for the tray, dzen2 for the bar, and that’s not counting any other status info like battery, memory, or cpu – all of which come with Qtile out of the box – which would inevitably require an app like conky to do in one place). Subtle, and to some extent i3 take this approach as well, but Qtile’s implementation is nicer, in my opinion. In effect you get more than the bare minimum of functionality which means you have less effort to integrate secondary components for the basic. Also, the Qtile widgets actually include a lot of the same default options which are passed through Python kwargs to each widget so it’s easy to keep your widgets’ behavior consistent and tweaked to your liking.

One really cool thing about Qtile is qsh, which provides a shell+filesystem like interface to your WM. It allows you to query what windows are on what screens, information about your configured bar, switch layouts, close windows etc. This sort of thing is very handy if you ever want to interact or squeeze some functionality out of your WM with a simple script instead of Python.

At this stage I have no criticisms of Qtile, which is saying something. I will however state that I haven’t been using it long and I’m still trying to learn the default keybinds (instead of porting my Xmonad configuration keys over — for the most part). One aspect I’m curious about is the multiple monitor support, but from the documentation it seems like even that usually neglected area, has good support even for things such as separate bars. We’ll see. My dual monitor usecase has faded in recent times.

All in all, it’s definitely worth a try. Especially if you’re looking a tiling WM that doesn’t force you to find other programs to get basic information.

gaming October 8, 2012 Jack 24 comments

On Why Tekkit isn’t as good as vanilla Minecraft

I was, admittedly, late to the game on picking up Minecraft, and only started with 1.2.5, but it doesn’t take very long for you to “get” it and see that it’s a very persuasive game. It’s simple in mechanics, yet deep in possibility. You harvest various things to make tools, to make buildings, to defend yourself from the native mobs and other players (if that’s how you play). As this very well known Penny Arcade comic (and it’s follow up) suggests, it’s a concept that will immediately click with a large subsection of gamers. It’s a game that takes a very minimal amount of training to pick up and play, but will reward those that learn a bit more. It’s even something I can play with (or just around) my six year old daughter and not have to worry about it showing up negatively in her subconscious years later too – a major bonus for a gamer dad used to the fare of killing demons with increasingly powerful weaponry or headshotting virtual human beings.

However, being an engineer, when I see some sort of technical complexity – like Minecraft’s brilliant crafting system – I can’t help but wonder what it would be like to take it to the next level.

Enter Tekkit, a collection of mods designed around adding a huge amount of technical complexity to Minecraft by integrating a huge number of machines and components, new concepts and recipes. From simple electric circuits, improved redstone, to computer blocks and nuclear reactors.

Where tekkit succeeds

When I first got going with Tekkit, I thought I was in nirvana. There are so many conveniences. The macerator to grind up ore and get double the ingots from a block. The electric appliances powered by wind or solar or geothermal devices connected with wires. The lovely amount of complexity of the electrical systems. The improved redstone. The automation potentials. This basic improvement in minecraft life is great and addicting. New ore and gems to tantalize you when you’re deep in the earth. New plants, new crops. New gadgets like automatic miners and jetpacks. New weapons and armor. There isn’t a single area of vanilla that isn’t expanded on.

Where tekkit fails

Unfortunately, it doesn’t take long for you to reach a point where the resources you’re going to need for your planned projects are going to be insanely vast. For example, my first goal was going to be to setup a force field to defend my little area. The recipe to create a force field doesn’t look too bad but its energy requirements are steep (as you would expect) when you’re protecting a large area. So, instead of tackling the complexity, or following a blueprint for a nuclear plant, I decided I’d just craft a HV (high voltage) solar array which would power my force field and charge a battery to keep the power up at night. Simple enough, this was all based on theorycrafting.

However, to create a single HV array would require 512 (8x8x8) solar panels. Each solar panel requires a generator, two circuits and some other easier to get components. Each circuit require copper wire, iron, and redstone. Copper wires require rubber. Generators require batteries, furnaces, and machine blocks (8 iron). The recipes aren’t hard, but for a single HV solar array I’d need something like 5000 iron and 3000 copper, 1500 rubber. These are rough, the tekkit wiki probably has real numbers, but the point is that it was clear from the get-go I wasn’t going to be harvesting these myself. To get 5000 iron I’d probably spend days of play time in mines.

And so I discovered the Equivalent Exchange (EE) part of Tekkit. It’s mod that, at its core, lets you echange many lesser valued items for one higher valued item. It’s a great concept because it means that all of that extra garbage you get from mining you can convert, losslessly, into another type of item. I can’t tell you how many stacks of cobblestone I’ve had from mining that just sit in a large chest waiting for me to use them because I can’t bare to let them go. With EE I’d be able to convert them into something I actually need. Sounds fair. After all, it’s in the title: equivalent exchange.

But EE also comes with energy collectors that are able to absorb EMC (the “currency” of items) from sunlight. It becomes clear that when you can absorb enough EMC to basically replicate an iron ingot in a couple of seconds that this is probably the best way to get 5000 iron ingots without strip mining the planet.

So it seems all right then. Sure you’ve got uber expensive items, but you’ve also got a way to convert time spent doing anything into items. Just be patient and you’ll have enough EMC to pay for your ingredients. Problem solved, right? Sure, but at what cost? What reason do you now have to play the game if resources are meaningless with a little effort?

Why explore? Why face danger? Why delve into the caverns and discover underground strongholds and dungeons if you will never return with anything that you couldn’t have replicated? Why spend more than two minutes in the nether if you only have to get one glowstone dust forever?

You know what the most efficient strategy for playing Tekkit is, after you’ve got an energy collector and a condenser up to a certain efficiency? Go do something else and leave your character to idle nearby. Zero effort, guaranteed reward. I generated more diamonds in my sleep this way than I would’ve ever mined in days of gameplay otherwise.

I’m sure that I can afford the reagents to make that HV solar array now, but what’s the point? There’s no achievement left in creating it except for building a machine to crank out solar panels so I don’t have to put up with the tedium of thousands of steps I’d have to take by hand to create one myself. And I understand that designing such a machine is pleasurable, but if creating the components of the machine is just a waiting game for ingredients, why not go to creative mode and design it there? Similarly, if having 1000 diamond blocks is your goal for building your mansion of unparalleled wealth, why not just skip the few days of waiting (or less, likely, if you have a better collector/relay/condenser setup) and just do it in creative mode? Because you want to be “challenged” by sitting around waiting doing anything else for long enough? Because it’s an achievement to have replicated a mansion?

In short, by forcing us to get around resource gathering by making end-game level items insanely expensive, Tekkit has obviated the whole point of playing the game in survival mode.

Perhaps I’m unfortunate in being too obsessed with efficiency. Tekkit has a lot of great additions to vanilla, but I can’t bring myself to ignore the gamebreaking ones. If I can have access to unlimited resources, I can’t help but take advantage of them and, eventually, it makes more sense to keep upgrading your replicator setup than it does doing pretty much anything else. Perhaps I can just remove the EE mod (I am running a personal server after all), but then I don’t know how I’d deal with the insane amounts of material I need to pursue my grand plans. Maybe I could just force myself to ignore collectors, and only convert “honest” items into more useful ones? I don’t know. All I know is that, right now, the simplicity of vanilla looks a lot more challenging, rewarding and, thus, appealing.

scifi, trek July 23, 2012 Jack No comments

On TNG 25th Anniversary

There’s an event tonight that I’m looking forward to in the utmost: TNG 25th Anniversary in theaters.

It’s a couple of episodes, some behind the scenes footage, a sneak peak, and most importantly the chance to geek out to some classic TNG on the big screen in newly remastered high def.

The event, and the accompanying blu-ray releases over the next several years underline the desire that we trekkies have for a new series. After all, Enterprise has been off the air for 7 years now. The 2009 movie and its forthcoming sequels are enough to sate us, for now, but their glitz and sleek action don’t scratch the fundamental itch of a Star Trek at its best. I am not one that hates the new films, but I recognize that Trek movies in general have always been about trading some of the series’ best attributes (it’s willingness to approach philosophy with sci-fi, it’s vision of humanity and the Federation as benevolent keepers of a utopian society) for attributes that attract the laymen of Trek canon, the casual summer blockbuster ticket.

No, what Trekkies are thirsting for is another series. One with a set of characters we can grow to know well, like we feel we know Picard or Data or Riker or Geordie. One that takes us to new places with new challenges and, certainly, new foes. But what we have to remember is that 7 years of no series isn’t anything. There was a full decade between the end of TOS and the release of the first movie, almost another decade on top of that before TNG started. 20 years separates the series.

Now, 7 years from the truncated end of Enterprise, we hear rumors. We salivate over premises that, frankly, aren’t very strong. We are so desperate for a new series that we cling to these rumors and draw hope from them. Personally, though, I can wait. If we want to return to the halcyon days of Trek (like the 90s, which started and ended without ever knowing a day without a new Trek episode on the schedule) the first series to break the ice has to be phenomenal. It has to explode on the scene.

In this light, it’s easy to find a new respect for TNG. After a 20 year drought, 10 of which were filled with movies featuring the old cast, they had to come on, pay homage but, more importantly, find their own niche. They did this by advancing the timeline 100 years to a more mature, more organized Federation that focused more on a peaceful exploration with strict rules about non-interference. Simultaneously though, conflicts were bigger and badder, the stakes higher. TNG came in after 20 years of the same characters off and on and managed to up the ante on practically every front. Then, given 100 more episodes (more than twice as many) they managed to turn Trek from a series into a franchise that dominated TV sci-fi for another 15 years afterwards.

This is what I want. I don’t want another series. I want another era. If we have to wait for another 13 years to get the chance at having another 15 year age of Trek then I’ll wait. One good series is worth 10 ST: Cardinals or other proposed series.


Taking the above to heart, what would a new series have to look like? First let’s try to distill what makes Trek Trek. Here’s my barest definition.

  1. The Future. This should be pretty obvious. I don’t think there’s much Trek in a modern day series.
  2. Human. Trek is inherently about humanity. Our journey through the stars and our trials and tribulations.
  3. Federation. Inasmuch as Trek is human, it’s also about a future in which we are banded together with many other species with similar ideals. Watching Trek without the Federation would be just watching sci-fi that happens to be in the Trek universe. Enterprise gets a pass because it was a prequel, but I think that ground has been trod.

Elaborating on the above, this is what I’d like to see in a new series.

Prime Universe. Abrams’ films are fine and exist handily in another universe which allows them to be considered wholly separate from every bit of Trek ’til now. Let’s take advantage of that fact and stick to the prime universe that’s already so well established.

Expand the Timeline… but not too far. Enterprise set a pretty firm range of dates for time travel becoming trivial enough that it’s regulated. Personally, I believe that once we get too much temporal flexibility, the premise will become too stretched. If time travel is an easy tool it means that you get infinite retries on the best outcome and nobody has to live with unintended consequences as long as they are in control of a time machine. Fortunately there’s about 600 years between the end of VOY (2378) and the temporal police of the 31st century in Enterprise, although I think time travel would’ve likely become a tool sometime before that.

Enterprise. DS9 is my favorite Trek even though it’s close with TNG and TOS, however I believe that DS9 was able to drastically change the core premise of Trek (by being on a space station rather than roving the galaxy) because TNG had given the series a good lead in. A new series should return to the Trek fundamental of exploration and diplomacy on the Enterprise to start on solid ground before considering a more studious (if rewarding) approach.

Another aspect of this point, and why it’s “Enterprise” and not “On a Ship” is that I want the core cast to be good at what they do, the best even. There’s a trend in TV and movies lately to have anti-hero or flawed characters. This was part of the ST: Cardinal premise that I thought was terrible. I want to see shining examples of logic, efficiency, and compassion. The traits that make us, as a species, great. I don’t want the same tired and conflicted main characters that you can find in every modern drama or sci-fi. I want to see my captain struggle to maintain or restore order in the galaxy, not struggle to get out of bed in the morning.

Crew Diversity. One of the great aspects of TNG was the ability to bring many viewpoints to bear. The TNG crew had plenty of humans, but also Troi, Worf, Data, and even Barclay to bring viewpoints other than human Elite Starfleet officers. TOS struggles with this in universe (Spock being the only non-human) but excelled in it out of universe (having a black woman, an asian man, and a Russian on the bridge in the late 60s). DS9 focuses on the Federation vs. Bajor contrast with Kira and various semi-regular Bajorans, but also includes Worf, Dax, Odo and Quark providing outside influences (coincidentally being on a space station instead of a ship is a definite plus in the diversity). VOY and ENT made attempts but were unsuccessful at accomplishing this, despite the seeds of possibility.

Screen Time. The final thing I’d like to see in a Trek series is a lot of screen time. These days, there’s been a definite trend toward short seasons. For the most part, this is good. If Game of Thrones has only 12 episodes to tell you a compelling arc, then you know each episode is going to be packed with content. Same thing with Breaking Bad, or Mad Men. The source of entertainment is the drama and the 12 episode season is very conducive to having drama dripping from every episode. But drama is not what Trek is about, at least not all the time.

Imagine cutting TNG down to twelve episodes a season. You have to ditch a full 92 episodes. Sure, you could start easily enough, forgetting bad episodes like Sub Rosa (my personal least favorite) but pretty soon you’re going to be cutting into episodes that are great, but not great enough. For example, The Measure of a Man. That episode would never get made if all 12 episodes had to be action packed drama fests. It’s too wordy and plodding. Yet it’s a great exploration into the topic of whether Data is human or deserves rights and, more generally, whether a human creation can ever have the same rights as humans themselves. Trek philosophy via sci-fi at its greatest would’ve never made it in a short season.

Now, I’m not saying that it has to be a full 26 episode season either, but whatever number, there needs to be plenty of time to ponder alongside the time for tension and drama. This is especially true if the new Trek follows the modern drama formula where each episode relies on the last. A Trek show has never been done like this (DS9 comes the closest toward the end), but this is not incompatible with having occasional one-offs and philosophical episodes that are woven into that framework.

This is roughly what I’d like to see, not only because it would please me, but also because I think it would provide a solid base for subsequent series and, therefore, another era of Trek on the airwaves. This is just a base however. I mentioned above that TNG upped the ante on virtually every aspect of TOS. While a modern series would obviously have the effects and make-up in the bag (even over 2005 Enterprise), it’d be tough to up the ante on TNG/DS9 era Trek. The story is going to be the deciding factor and that’s wide open for interpretation. This is why I can be patient. Anyone can make a show that fulfills the above criteria but it’s going to take a special someone to really make it awesome.

gaming July 10, 2012 Jack One comment

On Diablo

I really didn’t intend for this to be a gaming blog, but it’s all I want to talk about at the moment. Life is rough recently, so escapism is always on my mind =P.

I played D2 when I was in high school. I played it to death. Single player and on realms. I played it vanilla, LoD, and then, over the subsequent decade, I played it a number of times on the higher (1.10 – 1.13) patches with my wife because it was an easy game to play on laptops on wireless and have a blast.

It’s no secret that I was excited for Diablo 3. I had it pre-ordered, I followed the news on /r/diablo for months before release. I tried every trick in the book to get into the beta, and participated gladly in the open beta weekend. I ate it up. I leveled every class, tried for every achievement.

Two months out I feel disappointed like so many gamers out there. Everyone from D2 wanted D3 to be a lifestyle rather than just a game (as one redditor put it). We wanted a game that we could dump hours into and be rewarded handsomely with that great feeling of finding a truly awesome item. We wanted that feeling of being decked out in the best gear and after such a struggle, cakewalking through the hardest difficulty or the toughest PvPers.

I was frothing at the mouth because I remember having so much fun with D2, but it was a different time for me and for gaming in general. AAA titles, indie games, mobile gaming, lo-fi hits mean that there is a steady stream of fun games out there that we don’t need to rely on mindless repetition to continue to have fun.

In 2000 there were a large number of really great games, AAA titles like Baldur’s Gate 2, Thief 2, and my absolute favorite game of all time Deus Ex. But these were finite affairs to me, you played them, you beat them (sometimes multiple times) and none of them were very multiplayer friendly (DX multiplayer added later notwithstanding). D2 was a strong game in its own right and its repetitive although rewarding formula with PvP and a real economy were perfect to fill the gaps. 5 character classes, 99 character levels, three difficulties and, to top it off a major expansion almost exactly a year later. This combined with the fact that I was 14, with a whole summer stretching out before me, no car and few friends meant that I could not only plow through the other titles, but also dump hours and hours in to D2 to fill the time. It was the perfect storm.

Fast forward 12 years. I’ve got a wife, a kid, a job, a mountain of bills and I still manage to put in more hours on gaming than the average 9-5er. But the difference isn’t just age, or means, the difference is that there are no longer any gaps. As gamers our attention is highly sought after. For reference, look at the wikipedia page for 2000 in videogaming versus the page for 2011. The criteria for inclusion on this list isn’t clear but if we condense the multi-platform titles and use them as a list of notable releases, it’s obvious that there are at least twice as many notable titles vying for our attention and that’s ignoring the vast amount of cheap but fun indie games that would further weight 2011 in comparison. The point is that now, in 2012, no gamer can honestly complain about having nothing to play. AAA titles abound. $2-$5 fun games show up on Steam every day and don’t even require decent PCs to play. Free to play MMORPGs are everywhere. That’s not even counting the huge backlog of video games from the past decade that you can pick up for a song (although in 2000 you had the entire 90s canon to fallback on too). Together with the fact we’re all older and have less time, there’s no need for a Diablo game to fill in your time between releases because there is no time between releases anymore

Without the need for an endless game to return to there is one thing that would hold a player’s attention in this cascade of games and that’s community. The reason that MMOs are so popular and have such a devoted player base is that you join and play with hundreds of other people, form guilds/factions/organizations as well as digital friendships. The same applies for FPS games with their clans. This social aspect is what makes players consider returning even after getting tempted away to another game for awhile. Ironically, social features – the very thing that might’ve redeemed D3 in face of a rocky start and its many other problems – are practically non-existent. The entire experience is isolating and many player actually complain that working with a group makes the game more of a boring grind rather than less because of the tendency for public players to be undergeared and uncoordinated. MMOs are now where people go to socialize, meet up, quest and battle. D3 offers none of those things compellingly. In fact, the lack of social features blows a hole in the end game that’s larger than just poor itemization. Without the ability to show off, get ranked, or PvP, what’s the point in continuing to optimize your gear? After all, you beat all of the story content before you even hit the half-way mark to level 60. Even if you want to beat it on the highest difficulty, that doesn’t take the best items with the best rolls in the game. Nobody grinds for hours and hours solely to beat end mobs just a little bit faster.

So, stripped of the role as a fallback game (because we don’t need them anymore), and stripped of the social features that entice players to return, what’s left? The answer is a pretty mediocre game. The gameplay and graphics are brilliant, but the story is a joke and the auction house has replaced the greatest feeling in Diablo (finding a great item) with the chore of gathering gold and going shopping.

gaming, scifi, trek March 16, 2012 Jack No comments

On Star Trek Online

I’m a huge Trek fan, if you didn’t know. I’ve watched every episode and movie. I know trivia. I have posters in my office, models, and even toys. Yep, I’m a trekkie and proud of it.

I’m also a gamer, but I’m resistant to the idea of playing an MMORPG. I played WoW back in the 2005-2006 timeframe when I had buckets of freetime in college and even then I started playing to the exclusion of all else. I was going through some tough times, what with becoming a father at 20, so I was more than happy to escape my regular existence (I feel I should note that I still managed to get middling good grades and graduate before all of my friends, but I could’ve done better). Anyway, a year or so of WoW addiction has put me off of MMORPGs because in the end I found the experience hollow, not to mention expensive.

So when Star Trek Online came out, my reluctance to give it a shot as an MMORPG vastly outweighed my desire to play a game in the Star Trek universe. I need another monthly bill like I need a hole in my head, really. Not to mention I had (and still have) a girlfriend and I had only one game-capable computer at the time. Juliette’s down with some game playing, but only if she gets equal time, or can play with me.

All of that changed. I built another desktop, and upgraded my first so they’re capable of gaming (we played Skyrim with high detail simultaneously). Then, two months ago, ST:O went free to play.

I’m still resistant. The idea of Korean MMORPG players letting their children starve to death in another room is a powerful reminder of the depth of game addiction and I definitely don’t have the time to devote to it now that I have a career and a family. But at the same time, the life of a parent can get pretty boring when you don’t have the time (or the money) to go out on a regular basis. Finding escape in media (Juliette and I have watched a large amount of Trek, as well as loads of other stuff), or at the gym is all well and good but both of those things can feel repetitive and unrewarding. Games are a good way to get around that, even if their rewards are fake. So, last night, Juliette and I installed ST:O and gave it a shot.

I can already feel the grip of it. I had trouble sleeping last night because of it. It was a lot of fun, and even though I’m only a couple of missions out of the tutorial and still only have a basic grip on the gameplay or strategy, I’m obsessing over it.

I never understood the free-to-play business model, but I do now. The reminders are all over in the game, from the people commanding massive starships, to the unlockable character customization that costs real money, to the Cardassian Lockboxes that require purchased keys to open. It would be so easy to lose track of how much real money you’ve spent. And yet, looking through the store, the items seem interesting and compelling and the prices don’t seem unreasonable when you consider what you’re getting. Most of the nitshit improvements are less than the price of a fancy coffee. Some of the smaller ships are $10-$15. The capital ships are $25 (or $50 for a pack of them, one for each class). They’re all transferrable to different characters on the account. And even though I’m wary of spending $25 on virtual property that’s only good as long as I play the game, I remember that I’m playing the entire game, legally, for free. That’s half of what I paid just to buy WoW 6-7 years ago, not even including the subscription fees. Now, clearly, this could spiral out of control. There are some things they charge for that I’d never consider, like customizing your bridge crew characters, or opening those Lockboxes, or expanding my inventory etc.. I’m not here to micropay myself into oblivion, but if I reach a high enough rank and I’ve gotten $25 of entertainment from the game (which seems likely after one night’s playing), I’ll probably be rolling in an Odyssey.

Overall, I think the game has channeled Trek fairly well. The space vs. ground event / skill set is pretty much how a Trek RPG should work I think and the style is dead on. The ships and environment look great, even two years out from launch. The ship controls take a little to get used to, but it’s managed to relate the universe well with stuff like setting the impulse level, the different attacks, and parlaying crew expertise into special techniques – all things we’ve seen on screen. It’s easy to pretend I’m Kirk or Picard at the helm of my ship with my trusty bridge crew.

That said, I’ve yet to get very far into the game and I obviously haven’t even touched the Klingon side of the universe, so I’ll have to reserve final judgment until I know how much fun I can have with it. I’m hoping that the separation between core gameplay and extra content is as well defined as it appears to me now, but I could be wrong as I get farther from basic levels.

Massive Edit

I now have a deeper understanding of the game, and have stopped playing. Some things I wanted to touch on since this is my space for reviewing things that cross my mind.

The Duty Officer dynamic (you obtain sets of duty officers like items, each one has certain attributes, you then send a number of these officers on offscreen missions that take a duration of real time to get various rewards and special XP) was really cool. It rounded out the game as a simulation of being a real captain because in the series you always see characters going to or returning from various competitions and conferences, or having special duty to optimize the warp core, or going on leave to Risa. It was a nice way for your characters to be working even while you weren’t playing the game and it was a draw to return so you could check on how your duty officers performed. It’s perverse how much I enjoyed sending my little figurine duty officers to settle trade disputes or help colonists, just like in the series. However, it could definitely use a tweak. I was disappointed that the duty officers never progress. They’re like a deck of trading cards, you can play them different ways but they never change, you have to trade up or find better ones to improve. I understand that this makes them a commodity for the player trading system (the Exchange), but I would’ve really liked it if the missions you sent them on changed their effectiveness somehow. Each task has certain requirements to even attempt and each comes with a chance of critical success, success, failure, or disaster. If the officers you assign have certain traits, you can improve your changes for any of the four. For example, if you send a Diplomat with the Telepathic trait, you increase your chance of critical success. Alternatively, if you send your crew on leave with just a bunch of stick in the mud Starfleet types you increase your chance of failure (apparently the rigid officers don’t have much fun alone – imagine a crew full of Worfs on leave). Now, that’s pretty neat alone, but I wish that some of these traits were more flexible. For example, you already gain a bonus for sending “Tactful” security officers with your Diplomats, because they don’t offend the relevant parties. It would be nice if you sent an officer without “Tactful” on the mission and, if it was a critical success (or some other criterion) he would learn something about tact and return with the trait. Of course there are some caveats, you could never gain the trait “Telepathic”, that wouldn’t make sense, and you’d have to add some chance of getting negative traits too. Overall it would shift the focus from passing around officers like trade commodities to molding an untested fresh crew into a great crew. That’s where you get your satisfaction. That’s when you’re officially role-playing Picard.

Another thing worth mentioning is the crafting system that seems to be compulsory in modern RPGs. I don’t envy the task having to somehow wedge a crafting system into a universe that’s built around mutual advancement and practically limitless energy, but the STO guys did a great job. The fundamental element of crafting in STO is exploration. To craft items you spend things like “Unknown Alloys” and “Tetryon Particles” that you gather from scanning unknown anomalies. To make a really great item you need a rare particle trace. You have Research Points that represent your skill at building these various craftables (ship weapons, ground weapons, hypos, deflectors, etc.). None of this really makes sense in the broader universe in which sharing research and effort for mutual gain is basically the cornerstone but what they accomplished is rewarding the sort of curiosity that you see in all Trek captains. Now when Kirk scans an anomaly he’s not trying to build a phaser array, but in the MMO world where no *real* exploration can exist, it’s a nice way to incentivize giving a nod to Starfleet’s scientific mandate by at least feigning curiosity. That said the whole thing is a fucking grindfest, which is basically what all crafting systems boil down to if there’s a need to farm reagents. You can certainly just do missions and scan any anomalies that you come across but that’s never going to be enough. You need 10 Radiation Samples (or other items) alone just to build the schematic for your end goal. Random chance isn’t enough to make all of the craftable items you want to make, and trading low level commodities is pretty much miserable. That means that you’re going to head to one of the unexplored sectors of the galaxy and sit around scanning anomalies for ages until you have enough of data sample XYZ and that’s flat out boring. Even getting your research points is a grind as you end up having to make items you don’t want or need just to get enough points to start making items of your class (this might be avoidable if you start crafting everything and scanning anomalies from day one).

That’s the problem I have with STO. It’s all to repetitive. I cranked up the difficulty to Elite and the ships and enemies successfully posed a threat to me, but the missions just blurred together into a paste. In the initial Klingon storyline there are some nice piece of writing – like meeting McCoy and Scotty in a past starbase that’s rendered just like TOS to defeat phase shifting beings that are exploiting a passing comet to prey on us – but the end result is that basically all the missions are [Space Combat][Ground Combat][Space Combat] with a wall of samey enemies and a linear set of objects to interact with between you and the end. It’s all phrased differently, the settings are all trivially different, but there wasn’t enough differentiation to hold my attention. Grinding mobs is where I think MMOs in general fall down, but MMOs like WoW have the advantage that if you’re going to churn through enemies they’re usually different from the last place. You move from undead to snake people to evil gnomes to ghosts to trolls etc. all in their own different setting, and all with their own skills and threats to your character. In STO, it was an interminable stream of Birds of Prey with basically the same attack, maybe a bigger one with Plasma Torpedoes or another minor variation. On the ground it was a stream of the same Klingon characters in worlds that looked too much alike. I will give STO points for the fact that combat is fun, and that it’s much more based on abilities you get from bridge officers or weapons than from your character alone (which gives you more leeway to experiment), but when I’m on the surface clearing out my hundredth group of identical Klingons, I’m looking for a little more variety.

This is especially true with the exploration quests. These are almost mandatory because you can get 1440 dilithium (which is a fair sum, not a fortune) every real-time day doing them and there aren’t that many opportunities to get dilithium (at least not at my level). The quest is easy, you go to one of the fringe places (the same places you grind for craftables) and you explore or aid three systems. The problem is that you only have to do it a couple of times before you see the pattern that exists in every one of these quests. There are the clear out missions, the missions where you replicate 10 of some commodity the planet needs, the collect 5 data samples missions, and the final and most tedious type: the away team aid mission. These away team aid missions sound like they’d be fun, they come with various different stories, like helping to investigate a murder, or dispelling a ghost story, but in the end it comes down to the same fucking thing. You land, you interact with a set of objects, possibly fighting off others in the way. Now you might think I’m being overly abstract because games are really just interacting with various things in various ways but when I say “interact with a set of objects” I mean you literally walk from one point to another scanning. Some missions that’s literally it. You walk from one giant mushroom plant to another until you’ve scanned 5. Done. Others are you walk from one monolith to another killing Klingons in between. There’s no drama. No dialogue. It’s just another theme on the same goddam template. Look, I’m not trying to say that STO has to procedurally generate actual alien worlds with civilizations and stories, but at least add some more entries to the cycle.

I’m not trying to condemn all of the writing content. I particularly enjoyed the DS9 arc (the Dominion fleet diverted in the end of the series shows up 30 years late and takes DS9), but even that was tainted but one too many step and fetch quests on Bajor to get the base running and suffered from a rather weak ending (getting a Founder out of Federation prison when – surprise – there’s a prison break). The TOS cameos were delightful as well, but that’s pretty low hanging fruit to impress a Trekkie.

In the end, I stopped playing. The thrill of space combat, the Trek references, the well done game mechanics and even the great job they did styling the game couldn’t make up for the repetitive nature of the game. Maybe there’s an explosion of good content later as the writers explored the boundaries of the engine, and maybe the PvP that I frankly couldn’t care less about redeems it for some players, but at level 21 I have lost the compulsion to continue. Perhaps MMOs really just aren’t for me in the end, and I’ve been permanently spoiled by rich single player games like Fallout and Deus Ex that are basically impossible to replicate in an MMO.

software February 9, 2012 Jack 2 comments

On Wayland, systemd and Convergence

One of the reasons the Linux desktop is making strides is that we are beginning to converge. One might look at the Unity/gnome-shell split, or the vast differences between GNOME/KDE/Xfce/Xmonad/etc. and think that that statement is a complete load. But look at the tech running our Linux desktops today:

  • IPC: DBus, very important as the foundation
  • Sound output management: PulseAudio, love it or hate it
  • Chat/messaging: Telepathy
  • Network management: NetworkManager
  • Notifications: DBus notifications

This isn’t even counting the defacto libraries that handle a lot of the less glamorous tasks on virtually every desktop Linux machine, like poppler for PDF display, or freetype2 for fonts, or components of the non-graphical GNU userland. And also not counting the various standards we almost universally adhere to, like EWMH (where possible).

Convergence provides us with great benefits. You might not like NetworkManager, you may prefer another, but it’s because of NetworkManager that major distribution installs all operate identically. Loading Ubuntu / Mint / Debian / Arch / Fedora with GNOME or KDE and immediately you’ll see what I mean. It fires up an applet, and the user just knows what to do. It’s got permissions, it just works. Compare this to the days before when each distro had its own crazy script crap with varying levels of interfaces and it’s the difference between night and day. Today I can hand my girlfriend – not a Linux expert by any stretch – her laptop with a default install of Arch w/ GNOME and she can hit the network. Not so long ago, I had a collection of bash scripts I tried to teach her to use.

Same with PulseAudio. You may believe that using straight ALSA is a better solution, but only until you have multiple sound devices you want to use. Or bluetooth headphones. Or want to do network sound. Or UPnP. Because the major desktop environments have converged around PulseAudio, they all operate similarly and have the same features. Settings in GNOME affect settings in KDE. Media applications can take advantage of PulseAudio’s features and not have to worry about fallbacks.

You may argue that Telepathy applications aren’t as mature or full featured as Pidgin, the classic IM client, but it’s getting there and has several interfaces across toolkits (or lack thereof), and integrated with greater flexibility. Clients written to use it get so much for free that it’s compelling.

Applications can be more featureful, stable, and interoperable when most of their functionality is shared in a backend. This was enshrined in the Unix Philosophy and forgotten somewhere along the way: separation of capabilities and presentation. These technologies aren’t perfect, they may not eclipse alternatives yet, but the important thing is that they’re agnostic of toolkit, window manager, or desktop environment. If you were to start another desktop environment today, there would be far less work to have a functional system today than 10 years ago because of them and that’s a win for every person that’s ever been unhappy with the state of their desktop.

The controversial part

I haven’t yet mentioned the two pieces of software in the title of this piece for good reason. Wayland and systemd are, almost by definition, not about convergence. If anything they’re about divergence as we, the open source community, have already converged on Xorg and sysvinit pretty definitively. However, these components are outdated and flawed. They form the basis of all the open source desktops, but we cannot allow that to force us into using them forever.

In the larger scheme of things, replacing these two pieces of software are part of what I perceive as a new push to converge on another component. The Linux kernel. These pieces are software are tightly coupled to it. This is the philosophy of their authors:

Kristian Høgsberg, creator of Wayland

FOSDEM 2012 Interview, February 2012
FOSDEM: Wayland requires Linux-specific features such as KMS and udev. Would it be much work to port Wayland to other free operating systems such as the BSDs? Do you know of any efforts or interest in this domain?

Kristian: It’s certainly possible to port Wayland to other operating systems, but they’ll have to provide the same level of infrastructure as Linux does. One of the things that went wrong with X was that we tried to pull too much of the OS into X so that we could run on every old platform out there. Or to put it more bluntly, bending over backwards for fringe platforms. There’s a real cost to that; the code gets encrusted in #ifdefs, codepaths that never get tested and bad architecture decisions such as userspace PCI bus enumeration and writing your own dynamic linker.

I also find that the Linux kernel has a lot of cool features that can make applications faster, safer and simpler, and we often don’t use those in the name of portability. There is an accept4 syscall that lets you accept a connection on a socket and sets O_CLOEXEC atomically. The epoll mechanism with timerfd and signalfd does most of what many complex userspace event loops do in many thousands of lines of code. We need to embrace all the new features the kernel offers and not insist on some outdated lowest common denominator.

Lennart Poettering, creator of systemd Interview, June 2011 : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are irrelevant ?

Lennart : Yes, I don’t think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a burden, and holds us back for little benefit.

I am pretty sure those other systems are not irrelevant for everbody, after all there are people hacking on them. I just don’t think it’s really in our interest to let us being held back by them if we want to make sure Linux enters the mainstream all across the board (and not just on servers and mobile phones, and not in reduced ways like Android). They are irrelevant to get Free Software into everybody’s hand, and I think that is and should be our goal.

But hey, that’s just me saying this. I am sure people do Free Software for a number of reasons. I have mine, and others have others.

To me, this is exactly the attitude we need. FreeBSD and same-kernel variants are the only open kernels with any sort of desktop presence other than Linux[1] and it has a tiny fraction the number of desktop users. OpenBSD is still relevant in its own ultra-secure niche, but the desktop is a completely secondary goal. NetBSD is… well, NetBSD. The point is that the Linux kernel has quite a lot of relevant features, and many times the number of users such that it doesn’t make sense to warp the codebase of two of our most important components to function on them.

Wayland is a major win for the open desktop because it’s dead simple, performant, and in it’s 4 year life has already acquired features that are completely lacking in Xorg. It’s shed years of X11 cruft in favor of a solution that makes sense on modern open source desktops. We no longer live in a world in which it makes sense to optimize your entire display server for the off chance that the window is going to be remotely connected over a network when 99.99% of the time the application is going to be a local window [2]. The simplicity of this approach lends itself to leaner, faster software built on top of it. But the simplicity Wayland has achieved is from leveraging technology that isn’t present in non-Linux kernels. Apart from the tech that Kristian mentions in the quote above, FreeBSD (again – the most advanced w/r/t desktop capabilities BSD) lacks even rudimentary support for kernel mode setting (KMS) and other technology for this lightweight rendering in released code (although there are out-of-tree patches for Intel chips only).

Systemd too, taking advantage of the more featureful Linux-only u* tools and interfaces, shouldn’t have to be warped to support tiny tiny fractions of the community. If it did, and the device hotplug or cgroup functionality it provided couldn’t be relied upon, the higher level graphical applications would have to compensate, most likely by ignoring features or using messy fallbacks.

Pieces of the modern open source stack should be written to take full advantage of current technology (Linux[3]) and damn the rest. Not because I don’t like BSD, not just because it has so few desktop users, but because open source, at its heart, is a do-it-ocracy. In no other software ecosystem in the world do independent developers feel beholden to support ancient and rare configurations of infrastructure or to hold of on adoption until support can be universal. In no other software ecosystem in the world does it make less sense to do so. If BSD users want Wayland and systemd, the code is right there, waiting for them to start a patch set against them.

And for those that would say that I’m impugning the open source grail, the freedom of choice, I ask you what you are choosing? Why choose one piece of software over another? Because one does what you want how you want it done, and another does not[4]. I want to live in a world where the way my software works is completely separate from the way I work with my software. How it works (sending messages, emails, making sounds, connecting to networks, displaying images or webpages etc.) should be solid, featureful and, most importantly, independent from how I work with it (CLI, graphical, integrated into this or that, windows here, buttons there, flashing icons, popups and notifications etc.). I think that you’ll find that most of your choice has nothing to do with underlying technology and only with capabilities and presentation. Lets agree on capabilities and then we are free to choose presentation.

The time has come to take the final steps of convergence at the low level and the high level. To choose the best tech to standardize the underpinning technologies of our systems. Let’s drop the harmful pretense of equality and instead usher in an age in which we can all count on a modern kernel, a modern init, a modern display server and functionality that is separated from interface. Then, and only then, will we have created not just the Year of the Linux Desktop, but the Year of the Ultimate Desktop.

– Jack

[1] (Open)Solaris and kin could be considered challengers here, I see murmurs of better graphical support on the internet, but they’re incomplete in terms of driver support, and the number of desktop users is minscule even compared to BSD.

[2] Which isn’t to say that we don’t want or need the capability of using graphical apps over a network, just that we don’t need to cause crippling performance or design problems to accomodate it. That sort of functionality belongs in a plugin or a library. If anything, having it separated from the display manager just means it would be easier to tweak and perfect.

[3] And yes, this includes moving elsewhere in the exceedingly rare likelihood that Linux would ever be supplanted. It’s the year 2012, Linux has the greatest number of developers and users, has faced down all of its (prospective though bullshit) legal problems and has gained widespread support in markets outside of the desktop. As of yet there are no open contenders other than OpenSolaris and BSD, unless you want to count HURD, hahahahaha.

[4] Licensing is also a factor, but I consider that part of “how I want it done.”