Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | MBCook's commentslogin

Budgets generally make it impossible. Any “commercial” game costs enough no one seems to be willing to risk it unless they think it will pay back big. Often seemingly by making the game bigger (thus more expensive) to appeal to more people.

Much like Hollywood.

Combine on the trend mentality and rent seeking (live service shooters?) and it sucks.

I really liked the PS1 and 2 eras.

PS1 was cheap to develop for relative to cartridges, and Sony just wanted games. They published so many cool and experimental things. Even brought over stuff like that from Japan.

PS2 moved away from that some but we still got fun stuff. No one would ever publish Guitaroo Man today.

Once you hit the HD era budgets started skyrocketing, team size, and it never got better.

I agree indie is where much of the fun is. Some big games are still great. But so much cool stuff is in the indie scene.

They could be publishing that. Not every PS5 game needs to look jaw dropping.

MS helped the rise of indies big time with XBLA. Don’t know why they threw that away. But their business plan hasn’t made sense since the 360 era.


I remember being taught in my COBOL class (early 2000s, needed an elective, thought it would be fun) that that was the point.

The stupid engineers could write the code like the grunts they are, and then the manager could read it and verify that it was correct without having to know how a program.

That wasn’t exactly how it was put. And there are obviously some assumptions in they are on how good a job a manager who doesn’t know how to code could ever do.

Certainly an interesting idea though.


It’s odd it’s not linked in the repo but the author made a your video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzpZQe7JT-o


As OP: I _didn’t_ write it. I’m not the author. I just thought it was neat.

But thanks for the accusation.


I don’t think it’s performative. That seems really uncharitable. Seems like most “performative“ accusations are.

I think a ton of people were REALLY misinformed about how much water AI data centers use. I know I was at one point.

Now there may be people pushing that narrative still on purpose because it clearly works. But I don’t think the average person who uses that talking point is doing anything other than expressing a concern based on the (terrible) information they got somewhere.


I stand by it. If you only care about the climate for things that are socially rewarded (being anti-AI is, telling your friends to about the impact of eating beef or taking flights or other day to day activities is boooo you're being a buzzkill), you are being performative.

There's a reason certain types of misinformation become popular and others fizzle. The environmental concerns around AI are starting from the goal 'disliking AI' and going in search of a reason for many people. The environment is a convenient reason because it links to an existing left-wing cause & doesn't require conceding the frame of AI rapidly becoming extremely capable (scary! don't like to think about that!) so it's all comfort and outrage without stakes.


You can already run older versions of macOS inside a VM on macOS.

So it seems like in theory that should be doable if someone just made the container images right?


Yep. For a few years. And they keep enhancing it too.

It’s the only legal way to do so, due to the software license on MacOS.


That is a far more useful reply than the GP comment. If they had stated something similar I don’t think they would’ve been downvoted.

Poe's Law and all that, but I was trolling/shitposting.

Containers are REALLY REALLY popular. This is a a great value add for developers on Mac who need to deal with Linux containers.

Which is a ton of ‘em.


Yeah. But in exchange it’s a lot of work to keep up with. For GUI stuff you’re now having to have some sort of Wayland layer/driver.

Running VMs is really really easy and low maintenance demand on Apple. And it’s guaranteed compatibility.

Wasn’t compatibility what really sunk WSL1?


> Wasn’t compatibility what really sunk WSL1?

Yes, but a big part of the problem with WSL1 was the size of the conceptual gap between POSIX and Windows NT that WSL1 had to bridge. An “MSL1” would likely have fewer problems because the gap between macOS and Linux is smaller, given they are both POSIX

The other thing Apple could potentially do, is add Linux-compatible APIs to macOS. IBM wanted to support Kubernetes on their z/OS mainframe operating system, so they implemented on it a clone of Linux namespace APIs, e.g. unshare. Then we could have macOS nodes in a K8S cluster-which might actually be useful for some people, e.g. if you have a Jenkins CI farm, the Linux nodes can run on K8S, but currently macOS nodes (which you need if you are targeting iOS or macOS) can’t, they have to be bare metal or VMs.

More Linux-macOS source compatibility would also benefit macOS by making it less work to port software to it from Linux


Linux and the BSDs take APIs one from the other all of the time. The issue with having a Linux ABI is that you don't need just the few APIs you're missing, you need to implement the WHOLE Linux API and it has to be _perfect_, otherwise stuff will randomly break. I loved the original WSL, I had to use it for a time period back in the day when I was stuck on a Windows PC, but it can't be denied it was full of random bugs

The original WSL proves that you actually don't need to be perfect or to have the entire ABI to be pretty useful.

It's true that missing ABIs will cause random crashes and problems. However, a lot of apps can run with a minimal set of ABIs.


>for GUI stuff you’re now having to have some sort of Wayland layer/driver.

The target for this isn't GUI stuff.


Generally I’d agree but the comment I replied to mentioned people running Linux applications and in my mind that means GUI.

Maybe that’s not what they intended.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: