I don’t open source because the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles.
When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’ essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”
These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users’ sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.
Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.
Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software’s practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement’s ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here’s a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don’t.
The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users’ freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand.
Stop not open sourcing your stuff because you think it’s embarrassing. Some of the best products are made by junior devs, since they come with the fresh ideas and energy to change the status quo.
In internet terms: It’s just a soyjak holding a box with data who is pointing at another soyjak holding a box with data who is pointing at another {insert N-3 of the same soyjaks} soyjak with a box with data without an arm to point with
each commit points to the one before. additionally a commit stores which lines in which files changed compared to the previous commit. a branch points to a particular commit.
There’s a guy out there who made a reversible NES emulator, meaning it can run games backwards and come to the correct state. He made a brilliant post on Reddit /r/programming linking his ideas for the emulator to quantum mechanics.
Then he was asked why he didn’t distribute his program in git. He said that he didn’t know git.
To me, that’s a pretty good example of the difference between computer science and software engineering.
This is why modding games is great. Most of the hard engine and framework stuff is already done for you, so you get to focus on content creation (the “fun” part).
Still difficult, but it requires a fraction of the time and effort that making a game from scratch would take.
I’m so glad I made games as a hobby before I got anywhere close to graduating. Killed that dream real fast. It felt like shit having to play your own game so many times the game lost all meaning and it was hard to gauge if it was even fun anymore.
I tried to teach myself piano. I actually enjoyed it when I was learning it, however I was really enjoying the progress I was making and less about the music I was playing. I wonder though if you get really good with music, you can probably learn and play new pieces much more quickly so maybe the magic won’t fade as quickly.
Game making professionally is more like going all the way to playing a full piano concerto to a paying audience.
Sure you start by learning to play the piano, which is fun, but you also have to compose several pieces that people will like enough that they’ll pay to hear them, organise the concert, learn the specifics of public performance and so on.
The cycles were the pieces you compose are shit because they’re limited by your limited piano playing knowledge so you go back to learning some more only to find out you learned it all wrong hence your current technique will never be good enough so you have to relearn a lot of what you thought you already knew, is not fun and the having to learn everything else needed to organise the concert because you have to make the whole thing generate $$$ even though all that you really wanted was to play the piano, is also not fun.
For somebody working in a large game company, it’s the difference between a hobby and a job, whilst for somebody doing indie game development it’s the difference between a hobby and a business.
I think it’s even stronger, because sometimes you’ll repeat the same 10 seconds a thousand time to master it until you feel like jumping out of the window.
Just release unfinished DLC for $35, release a "definitive version" even though that was only the first half of the DLC, release the even more unfinished second half of the DLC and still leave a bunch of shit from the base game unexplained. Yeah I'm still salty about something, how'd you know?
“Due the global economic circumstances, we were forced to make the incredibly tough decision to say good bye to one of our staff members, cutting down the work force by 100%”
Just make sure the ingame store is functional so you can sell more add-ons to your vaporware - star citizen is the most profitable video game to ever not be released.
Every job will have some sort of crunch time. Even just staying in a programming position, the definition of “crunch time” will vary wildly. I’m lucky enough that “crunch time” just means that I set aside all my other tasks until I fix whatever is on fire, but I still get to go home on time unless I really want the overtime pay.
I don’t envy positions with forced 80-hour workweek crunch times. That’s a sign of bad management.
In the video game industry, crunch (or crunch culture) is compulsory overtime during the development of a game. Crunch is common in the industry and can lead to work weeks of 65–80 hours for extended periods of time, often uncompensated beyond the normal working hours.
This is the crunch time I’m talking about. Not a few hours overtime or being oncall.
“crunch time” just means that I set aside all my other tasks until I fix whatever is on fire, but I still get to go home on time unless I really want the overtime pay
I get the feeling that this is what the industry is moving toward. Most crunches are due to poor planning, so it’s stupid to pin them on devs.
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.