2D game engine written in D is in progress

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll tell you how.  First off, all the external OSS projects 
>> that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, 
>> get much more usage and patches because they're being 
>> commercially used.
> can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more 
> patches")
> almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see 
> how x86
> code generator got better due to android, for example.

Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an 
OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%?  There are 
patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, 
that's all that matters.  As for the x86 code generator, Android 
has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were 
some patches sent back for that.

> ah, didn't i told you that i don't care about arm at all?
> somehow people telling me
> about how android boosts something are sure that i do or should 
> care
> about that "something". so i feel that i can do the same and 
> argue that
> i don't care.
>
>> Android has had their linux kernel patches merged back 
>> upstream into the mainline linux kernel.
> that patches are of no use for me. why should i be excited?
>
>> Once companies saw Android taking off, they started a 
>> non-profit called Linaro to develop the linux/ARM OSS stack, 
>> mostly for Android but also for regular desktop distros, and 
>> share resources with each other, employing several dozen paid 
>> developers who only put out OSS work, which benefits everyone, 
>> ie both OSS projects and commercial vendors:
> you did understand what i want to say, did you? ;-)
>
>> I keep making this point to you, that pure OSS has never and 
>> will never do well, that it can only succeed in a mixed 
>> fashion.
> why should i care if "OSS will do well"? i don't even know what 
> that
> means. it is *already* well for me and suit my needs. making 
> another
> proprietary crap "do well" changes nothing. more than that, it 
> makes
> people forget about "F" is FOSS. so i'm not interested in 
> "success of
> OSS projects".

You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, 
because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to 
care about FOSS doing well.  Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" 
your needs and has any usage today is precisely because 
commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development, 
whether IBM and Red Hat's contributions stemming from their 
consulting/support model or the Android vendors' support paid for 
by their mixed model.

You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still 
exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead 
without it.  If that were the case, there would be almost no "F," 
just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS.  
Your "F" may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but 
that world will never exist.

>> > Linux, by the way, is not a real FOSS for me. not until it 
>> > will adopt
>> > GPLv3, which will never happen.
>> 
>> What will never happen is the GPLv3 ever taking off.
> yes, corporate bussiness will fight for it's right to do 
> tivoisation
> and to hide the code till the end. that's why i'm not trying 
> hard to
> help non-GPLv3 projects, only occasional patches here and there 
> if a
> given issue is annoying me.

What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 
not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and 
more projects choosing permissive licenses these days.  The viral 
licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off.