Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Myth 2 Server Goes Open Source 157

Posted by michael from the mything-link dept.
iMacGuy writes: "As announced on Bungie.net, the Myth 2 Internet Server will be shutting down on February 15. However, they have released the source code. It runs on Linux currently, and can be ported to Windows, *BSD, and Mac OS X."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Myth 2 Server Goes Open Source More

Myth 2 Server Goes Open Source

Comments Filter:

  • Good job... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saeculorum ( 547931 ) on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:01AM (#2978159)
    I'm rather ambiguous about the open source "movement", but I have to appreciate any company that gives out their products when they no longer are being supported. I've been screwed too many times with products that were truly good, but just a year out of date.

    Hopefully other companies will take bungie.net's lead and release server software as well. In my mind, it can't hurt the company (although some way will probably be pointed out to me :) ), it simply allows their software to be even better supported. It extends the "shelf-life" of the software - maybe they'll make some money from the $5 bargain bin, even if the company is no longer running the server for the product. It also allows for very quick security fixes, and for playability fixes that usually take weeks to months for companies to implement. I can already invision custom designed servers for different groups.

    Or this might just be my ever idealistic mind... Til later.
    • Well I wish vie had opensourced subspace. Gladly though it has been reverse engineered and has two counterparts snrrrubspace for linux [sheepcloning.com] and continuum for windows [subspace.net] the windows client [www.subspacedownloads] being far more advanced. In fact besides needing windows for brushing up on my office support and exchange admin skills this is one of the only things that I boot into windows daily for.
    • I'm rather ambiguous about the open source "movement", but I have to appreciate any company that gives out their products when they no longer are being supported.

      do you think microsoft will release the code for win95? just a thought
    • Or companies still supporting the platforms... although it may not be open-source (I don't believe so, anyway), Blizzard sanctioned the FSGS to clone battle.net a while ago.... I think this might be a trend for online games like the crafts, just to give people more flexibility (and if they don't want to put up with IBM's free, albeit lag-tastic servers).
    • ... but I have to appreciate any company that gives out their products when they no longer are being supported ...

      Microsoft bought Bungie. Look at the copyright notice at the bottom of the article on bungie.net:

      © 2002 Bungie Studios / Microsoft Corporation

      Glad to see Microsoft getting the appreciation they deserve when they do something right. :-)
      • Technically you are right, but when Bungie was bought they retained control over their work... If Microsoft (you know, the complete entity) had say so I would bet they wouldn't have be able to release the code.
    • I have to appreciate any company that gives out their products when they no longer are being supported.

      I agree. This was a very generous decision and their customers will respect them more for it.

    • I'm rather ambiguous about the open source "movement" ...
      am-big-u-ous
      adjOpen to more than one interpretation

      I hate to act like the Grammar Nazi, but I can't help feeling the word you wanted was
      am-biv-a-lent
      adjCharacterized by a mixture of opposite feelings or attitudes

      It's always worth checking with www.dictionary.com [dictionary.com]

  • Myth == Gaming System, for those of you who wonder (Score:5, Informative)

    by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:08AM (#2978180) Journal
    Like so many /. stories, this one's abstract assumes you know what FooBarBazz is,which all the FooBarBazz insiders know and some but often nowhere near all of the non-insiders have no clue because the name doesn't tell you. Is a "Myth Internet Server" a gamer thing, or a new operating system kernel, or a graphics widget, or a new coding project on Freshmeat?


    Anyway, Myth II is a gaming environment. Here's the story from the Myth Vault on bungie.net web site, in case it gets /.ed. [bungie.net]

    Myth Game Server Open Source
    February 7, 2002
    By Mordia

    Nothing in this world is permanent, and this must also be said of gaming servers. Over the past five years many of you have enjoyed the thrill of playing the Myth games online, as well as experienced the pains of a downed server or a rank reset. Ah! Memories! The time has come, however, to bid farewell to the old and tired Myth II game server.

    We are finally and officially closing the doors on the Myth gaming servers for all time. Myth II online's last day will be Friday, February 15.

    However, we realize that by doing so we leave a lot of people without a place to call home. So, what we intend to do is give it to you. Any of you who want it. The server that is. On this site you will find downloadable the Myth II metaserver source code. Do with it what you will!

    Want to be an admin? Go for it! Want to make your own ranking system? Everything you need to do so is here. Have a yen for a custom WW2 server? You can make it!

    This is the raw Myth II metaserver source code, stripped of a few proprietary bits of code, but still run-able. You can modify it in any way you want and use it for most anything you want. The only real conditions are that you don't then try to sell it and that you leave all the copyright and other legal notices with the code. Be sure to read the short, but very legal license agreement that comes with it before going nuts, but afterwards, go nuts.


    The Myth Vault site will serve as a central location for the Myth game server development community, with a forum for people interested in discussing the code and the possibilities. In the future this site may also offer links to fan run servers, leader boards, order databases, whatever--that's all up to you.

    • I hope this results in people running their own dedicated servers for the less popular mods. Some of the most fun I've had playing online games was with the Pirate mod and Civil War mod for Myth 2, but unfortunately the games mostly being played on the bungie server were simple WW2-recon ones.
    • "The only real conditions are that you don't then try to sell it"

      Then it's not open source. It's in the category which the FSF calls "semi-free", and admits is better than not-at-all-free, which Debian calls "non-free" but still puts on their servers for download, and which the fanatics at OSI simply reject as not-open-source, period.

  • License is not OSD compatible (Score:4, Informative)

    by David Jao ( 2759 ) <djao@dominia.org> on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:08AM (#2978181) Homepage
    A quick check of the software license [bungie.net] indicates that the source code is licensed for "non-commercial purposes only". This violates clause 6 of the Open Source Definition [opensource.org].

    It's really too bad the Open Source trademark was rejected, because tactics like this lead to a lot of genuine confusion about what open source software really means.

    • They don't claim that it's Open Source. It's the Slashdot author, iMacGuy, who was careless in his choice of headlines.

      Unfortunately, "Open Source" was a crappy certification mark in the first place, because it's too descriptive.
      -russ
      • First of all, as I and others are trying to point out, the bungie.net [bungie.net] page does indeed assert (incorrectly) in the headline that the software is open source.

        Second of all, even if the mislabeling is only in the slashdot headline, I still have a legitimate case that labeling this software "open source" is incorrect. This is not like hacker vs. cracker where a minority is trying to redefine a term from the majority. The term open source was popularized by OSI and most people, when they see "open source", do think of the OSI meaning.

        So, for anyone, slashdot editor or Microsoft, to mislabel this software as "open source" is misleading, whether intentional or not.

        • On the choice of headline:

          There is a limit to the news headlines on our web system for formatting reasons. So, the author put it in brief terms. The intent was to announce that the source code to the Myth 2 metaserver was available, i.e., the source that was closed is now open.

          At any rate, most people outside of the Open Source community don't seem to associate the same meaning that slashdot users usually do to the phrase. And I don't think it is misleading, since the news article specifically directs you to the license to get the exact terms of the source. It isn't like it is some big consipiracy to hide the terms of the license.

          -Tom
          Bungie.net System Overlord

          • And I don't think it is misleading, since the news article specifically directs you to the license to get the exact terms of the source. It isn't like it is some big consipiracy to hide the terms of the license.

            No, you're not trying to hide the terms of the license. But by describing it as "Open Source" you are lying. I won't ascribe motive, I don't really believe you had any motive other than the one you give, but nonetheless the effect of tolerating such untruths is not to hide the terms of licenses like yours, but rather to dilute and obscure the meaning of the term Open Source.


            I've never played your game, but I think it's great that you're releasing the code, even under such a restrictive license. You are to be applauded for that act. But you are certainly not to be applauded for diluting or obscuring the meaning of the term you are misusing.


            Allow me to, respectfully, suggest that you should correct the error forthwith. I might suggest "Myth Server Code Released" or something similar. There are plenty of headlines that will fit in that space and still be true - unfortunately the one that was chosen is not.

          • achronos AT bungie.com speculates:
            ... most people outside of the Open Source community don't seem to associate the same meaning...
            But most people in the inside the legal communitty do...
            "open source" is trademarked, with the intent of protecting the term against the sort of misuse exemplified in Bungie's announcement.
          • Tom, the term you're looking for is "Source Available", not "Open Source". Your source isn't open because I can't use it for commercial purposes.
            -russ
        • I think it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think that YOU get to decide what "Open Source" is. It's source code. It once was closed. It now is open. Therefore, it's open source. If RMS had his silly trademark you'd have room to bitch, but you don't, so shut up.

          • Arkanes (why do you post without using your real name?), He did not arbitrarily decide what "open source" is. Open source is a trademarked term, and there is a definition [opensource.org], as defined by the trademark owners, of what does and does not entail "open source" software. As it turns out, bungie.net software release can not properlly be called "open source".

            - Sam

            • Arkanes (why do you post without using your real name?), He did not arbitrarily decide what "open source" is. Open source is a trademarked term, and there is a definition [opensource.org], as defined by the trademark owners, of what does and does not entail "open source" software. As it turns out, bungie.net software release can not properlly be called "open source".

              IIRC, the trademark was refused, and even if it wasn't, no one here at /. believe in being able to trade mark common usage words anyway..

              It never fails to amuse me how one minute people here are complaining that they can't call something killustrator, because adobe has trademarked the common word illustrator, but then they insist that people can't call source code that is open open source without pissing off the OpenSource nazi's..
            • Other people have replied about the open source thing - I post using Arkanes because thats the name I use in every online forum and it identifies me at least as well as my "real" name does.
          • If it's "open" then why can't I sell it, or services based on it? Not very "open" is it? Instead, I tell people to use the term "Source Available" for software where the source is available but not completely open.
            -russ
        • The term open source was popularized by OSI and most people, when they see "open source", do think of the OSI meaning.

          So, for anyone, slashdot editor or Microsoft, to mislabel this software as "open source" is misleading, whether intentional or not.

          I don't let the OSI tell me what to think. Open Source means, pure and simple, code to which you are able to get your hands on the source. The license applied to the software tells you what to do with it. Since the beginning of commercial software there have been software programs which were distributed only in binary form, some which were distributed only as source (the nature of certain mainframe operating systems blurred the distinction anyway.) There have also been many many non-free packages to which you could get the source if you paid for the software.

          The fact that the majority of Unix admins are admins first and coders second (due to the fact that Unix systems have grown increasingly both more complex and prevalent, and software has become more complicated as well) has reduced this tendency. Most of the people who could really code are just coding now, and many non-programmers (like myself) have been doing the Admin jobs.

          While being a hardcore programmer will help any administrator of an open source platform (keep in mind that it was once possible to get source code to SunOS, in the early 4.x days and before) because you can take a stab at figuring out why the OS is failing, or why your (open source) program is conflicting with chunks of your (open source) OS. These days, though, most people don't even know how to get useful information out of core files, let alone read the kernel sources in a meaningful fashion. The fact that the modern kernels do more, and thus have a more complex codebase, doesn't help.

          So before you get all pissed at /. for misleading you by calling this thing open source, consider that it IS open source, but it has a restrictive license.

          • Open Source means that the source is open for use by anyone for anything. Source-Available means that you can get the source, but you are limited by the license as to what you can do with it. Please use the correct term, and do not confuse people.
            -russ
      • If the source is open, then the program is open source, regardless of what the Open Source(note the caps) movement would have you believe..
    • I do wonder sometimes about the term "Open source". While under the open source definition, this does not count due to restrictive clauses, if I were a non /. techie, I would say: "Hey, I get to see the source for free and modify it. I'd say the source is open for the world to see and maybe use"

      Putting OSI aside, I wonder if it would be more helpful to say that the source is Open (as in transparent) but not Free (as in speech since it is restricted).
    • The OSI folks reject such licenses absolutely. The FSF calls them "semi-free", and admits that they're better than proprietary licenses. Yet, somehow, it's the FSF that gets called "fanatic". :-)

  • why stop there? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Satai ( 111172 ) on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:12AM (#2978189)
    ...and can be ported to Windows, *BSD, and Mac OS X.

    hell, why stop there? i've always wanted a Myth 2 server that'd run through my hotsync cradle, or, alternatively, through my official sega broadband adaptor.

  • The fellows who run Mythwa.com have received permission to start their own Myth 3 server. The community is working to fix any bugs that may have cropped up as a result of the short period of time the game was produced in. We may save this gem just yet. You will buy Myth 3.. it involves strategy.. unlike Warcraft..

  • In other words... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft has released the souce code to the Myth 2 Server.

    Bungie is owned by Microsoft, this must mean that Microsoft is finally embracing Open Source!

    • actually, they use the "MICROSOFT BROAD SOURCE LICENSE". Hmm...MS's own open source license... this could be interesting....
    • It's not Open Source. Instead, it's Source-Available software. That's the kind of software where the source is available but its use is restricted. For example, BitKeeper is Source-Available software.
      -russ
    • Actually Im pretty sure Take-2 interactive got the rights for the Myth series when bungie was bought by Microsoft. If this is true then technically MS isn't embracing open source, close call though.
    • In an attempt to ensure that microsoft didn't own everything about Bungie they released the source code. I know a lot of people who were pissed when M$ took bungie. I guess this is Bungie's final gift to the world before falling under complete M$ dominence.
  • I'll agree that I've been hit by the infamous "Opps we are out of business and you are F**KED" thing.

    If nothing else, maybe someone can create a game that is compatiable with it that is true open source.

    From what I've seen in game development, the server is alot harder than the client in most cases.

    And it is still more open source than alot of things are...:)

    BWP

  • I Wonder What the Higher-Ups will think.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BlackGriffen ( 521856 ) on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:19AM (#2978202)
    Isn't Bungie a fully owned subsidiary of M$? I wonder if the Bungie folks consulted their masters, and if they did, does this portend a possible softening of M$'s hard line against Open Source? There's more to this, I feel it (whether this is a nod to Open Source from M$, or if this will be followed by a reigning in of Bungie's autonomy, I don't know).

    BlackGriffen
    • You, like many others, have been misled by the headlines at both slashdot and bungie.net, which both incorrectly label this release "open source".

      If you read the license [bungie.net] you'll find that the code is licensed for "non-commercial purposes only", so it's not open source in the sense of the OSD [opensource.org].

      I'd rather have them publish the source code than not, but I'm disappointed that it's mislabeled as an "open source" release, when it's not.

      • Dude lay off the rock candy, no one gives a shit about this.. How many posts have you made so far about it
    • Even though Bungie is owned by Microsoft, Microsoft has allowed Bungie free reign in many areas, and allowed them to keep their different culture. I really doubt this had any impact on M$

  • linux? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Warped-Reality ( 125140 )
    it runs on linux?
    isn't Bungie a MS-owned company (i belive they were bought out so that Halo would go on X-Box)
    • Yes, it runs on Linux (Mandrake 8.1, I believe).
      See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/21/154925 1
    • After all, Bungie if I remember correctly, did start out with Marathon on the Mac OS. And of course, I mean _only_ on the Mac OS despite how things are now. It's good to see that they're maintaining a decent cross-platform presence though.
    • Bungie was bought because:

      a) They were going bankrupt and looking to sell
      b) MS wanted a top flight gaming company to produce exclusives.

      That's pretty much it.
    • M$ uses linux for many tasks (like new vision for future versions of Windows). Bungie created this server before they got acquired by M$, not to mention that M$ has tried to allow Bungie to be the company they were before they got acquired (yeah, right) - although the Mac releases have almost disappeared completely from Bungie's previously Mac-only past.

  • Alternate Myth/Myth II server... (Score:3, Informative)

    by MattHaffner ( 101554 ) on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:22AM (#2978211)
    An alternative to bungie.net for both Myth and Myth II has existed for a few months now via mariusnet [mariusnet.com]. Marius did a great job reverse engineering the b.net protocol during the days of closed source while b.net began to falter. The site has quick and easy instructions on how to redirect your Myth app to the marius.net server.

    mh
  • At the Myth Village [mythvillage.org] fan site, there was a post to their forums [mythvillage.org] detailing the termination of the entire Myth III team back in November. Part of the following discussion has posters pondering the possibility of turning it loose to the open source community. None of it involves any sort of official stance on the subject, but it's a quick interesting read anyway.

    I image that it would be highly unlikely. Given that there are proprietary bits of code not being released with the Myth II server, and work is still continuing on Warcraft III, there may be some overlaping in the engines that they don't want to spill.
    • Two completely different companies, two completely different engines. Though it does seem Blizzard is doing stuff that Myth did a few years ago.

      Is the confusion because they both abbreviate their online services b.net?

    • I KNOW. I screwed up. Myth is from Bungie and Warcraft is from Blizzard. I've just finished playing an epic 8 player Warcraft II game and had the name frickin' stuck in my head. Now that I've finished my Doritos I can think.

      I meant to say Halo. Bits of code from Myth III may have found their way over to Halo. I know they're different in many respects, but there's a good chance that two projects being worked on side by side can share a lot of code. And since Micro$oft is the parent...
      • Myth III was made by a completely different company. The Myth franchise was sold to Take 2 during the MS/Bungie deal.
        • The guy, Santa's Head, who was responsable for the WWII mod for MythII, which by some people's opinion saved MythII, worked on Myth 3. He also happens to be a Clan mate of Marius of Mariusnet.

          Clan Plaid [clanplaid.net] started as a Myth Clan way back and are spread across the US.

  • Myth II? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Rayonic ( 462789 )
    I thought is was supposed to be "Rifen: The Sequel to Myth".
    (Ba-Dum. Dum. Ksssh!)

    Bah, mod me down for that. I deserve it.

  • A Great Game, then AND now (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tony.Tang ( 164961 ) <slashdot&sleek,hn,org> on Saturday February 09, 2002 @01:53AM (#2978292) Homepage Journal
    Myth 2 (and it's predecessor Myth 1) is a great game. I make sure to use "is" as opposed to "was" simply because it was groundbreaking in truly unique way. Tactical battle in Myth 2 is something that has never been equaled in another game, IMHO. Myth brought the idea that unit positioning matters, and that's something that's rare to see in RTS games.

    If your soldier is right up against an enemy, and you have another soldier behind him, he can't do squat in terms of attack -- he's got to walk around. Team formation is something that is thus extremely important for success in this game. Most RTS that I've played haven't exactly figured this out yet, and just how much fun it is. True, it's kind of a pain, but once you've gotten over the learning curve, it starts to make sense "which general should win" given the tactics s/he uses.

    The use of land formations was revolutionary for its time. "High ground" really meant something in terms of firing range. Your dwarves can fire almost the entire screen length if they're tossing into a valley. Your archers start to look pretty good, too.

    And then there was the idea of veterans. This was pretty cool. Essentially, you'd get "your team" from the last battle (if you'd won), and they'd get shields for each of their kills. The more shields, the more accurate they'd be when killing again. Of course, the "newbies" are hilarious (and frustrating, too): sometimes, you'd get a dwarf that would desimate (sp) his entire team by chucking a grenade straight up! LOL

    I never got particularly good at multiplayer Myth, because I came into the scene about a year after the game had been released; instead, I contented myself by beating other newbies. :D

    I haven't tried Myth 3 either, so I can't speak for it. Myth 2 is a great game. If you can find it for $10, give it a go -- it's worth it.

    (I don't work for Bungie, I'm just a big fan.)
    • mod this up. it is so true. Myth is a totally different kid of rts. no unit building, no making buildings and armaments... it is pure battle strategy, rather than micromanagement.
      • Actually yeah, I missed that VERY important aspect in my post. NO unit building and no worries about "resource management". I disliked that a lot -- it took away from the actual "warfare" which I thought was MUCH more interesting. Not to take away from those kinds of games (and people that play them) -- that's strategy too.

        But my passion has always been "how is it that one team wins in a battle." In Red ALert, we'd try this by just having a mano-a-mano kind of match (no buildings or anything), but what ends up happening is that whoever has more units wins. In Myth, that's totally not the case. It's whoever knows how to control their units best that wins.

        You learn to use the terrain, the strengths of your units, and formations to win.

        People coming straight from Starcraft often get pummeled in Myth -- simply because they've learned how to throw all their men in at once. That works in SC, because it's all about "overwhelming force." In Myth, that kind of thing is suicide.
    • Bungie makes fun games.

      I've played Starcraft a bit, but I lost interest. I am just not a fast enough clicker to do well. Myth has tactics. In Starcraft the general idea is to develop as many units and as powerful as possible... you out number your opponent(or out tech him) and beat him. In Myth every player has the same amount of units. But a good player(not really me) can beat a new player without taking much losses. When you play on Myth you will recognize other players after playing a few games with them. Sometimes, especially if you play with certain groups of people, you may spent a half hour chatting before the game.. when a typical game is only 12 minutes or so.
      Myth also has a lot of plugins and new scenarios that people have made. A recent one "The 7th God" was 18 new co-op levels(the original game have only 25). People modify the physics and do strange and interesting things... the game has not got old for me.

      As much as a fan boi of bungie that I am, I admit they aren't perfect. Companies like Blizzard have ported some older games to Mac OS X. I look forward to playing Halo on the mac, but I also think that after Halo no titles will be coming to the PC/Mac. I get the impression Bungie has learned that developing for 1 console is a lot easier than figuring out the bugs that occur on thousands of different PC configurations.

  • Myth 2 (Score:1)

    by bman ( 84104 )
    "Gameover man!"

  • So what if Microsoft owns Bungie? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by panthro ( 552708 ) <mavrinacNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 09, 2002 @02:04AM (#2978323) Homepage

    Yes, Microsoft owns Bungie. No, Micorosoft does not normally release their source code. Yes, Myth II's server runs on Linux.

    Am I missing something? I ask because I fail to see the dilemma, or surprise, or whatever it is that has people hot and bothered in this situation.

    First off, Microsoft does not immediately impose a Win32 regime on companies it acquires. They do not operate on their image, or on a basis of "we hate Open Source and Linux." They operate for profit, and killing software that's already been implemented simply to show off that they don't need Linux or Open Source is not profitable. MS acquired Hotmail a long time ago IIRC, and they're still dependent on FreeBSD servers for some of it. Bungie wrote their server for Linux (whether before or after they were acquired by MS) and there is no point in forcing them to develop it for Windows instead. Also, the fact that Bungie has given away the code to that server does not imply that Microsoft is "embracing" Open Source, it simply means that someone decided keeping the official servers up was too expensive, but that it would be shitty to just cut people off, and that releasing the source code could only make profits go up (see the bargain bin thing in another post). I'm sure Microsoft has no problem with anything that does not cut into profit and could potentially increase it.

    The argument that could be made is that image does indeed affect people's esteem of and confidence in MS, but in this case we're not dealing with MS directly but a subsidiary company. Bungie releasing source code does not hurt MS's ego. If MS released the code to FrontPage or WinXP, that would be different... but they haven't.

    • Just some info from someone who actually works for Bungie...

      - The Myth games are actually owned by Take 2 Interactive... Take 2 got Myth and Oni because then owned 20% of Bungie at the time of the buyout. Bungie's Online team runs the bungie.net metaserver still, though. The point, though, is that Bungie/MS makes no money off of Myth sales... that would all go to Take 2 Interactive.

      - The license for the code is rather simplistic, basically just saying you can't use it commercially, and keeping copyright notices, etc. Other than that, I'm pretty sure it is fair game. Some of you here will no doubt point out it isn't "Open Source" in the truest sense. However, one of the primary goals of the license is allowing people to improve the code while not forcing sharing of such changes. One of the big reasons for this is because if you try to put a ranking system in there, it is desirable in most cases to hide the specifics of that system so that users can't stack the deck to artifically inflate their rankings. There are other issues of course, but that is one that I remember being brought up. The point is that a license forcing sharing of every change is not appropriate for this software.

      - As for the "no commerical purposes" clause, well, let me just say this: bungie.net was always offered for free. Every copy of Myth 2 got you a bungie.net account. To me, it seems wrong to allow people to use something that was offered for free by us and now charge for it.

      Well, I guess if any of you are Myth 2 players, or are just curious, I recommend checking out bungie.net's Myth Vault [bungie.net]. Ask questions on the forum, or post them in our FUQ (frequently unanswered questions) database.

      -Tom
      Bungie.net System Overlord

    • First off, Microsoft does not immediately impose a Win32 regime on companies it acquires.

      Maybe that's because if they did the servers would collapse under the load?

      Only in the last year has Hotmail started using Microsoft software for mail transfer (at about the same time as messages started taking longer to be delivered).

  • Bungie long ago released the Marathon 2/Infinity engine under the GPL (this was pre buyout/sellout, remember). If you haven't played this groundbreaking and largely unequaled game, do yourself a favor and head over to http://source.bungie.org/ [bungie.org]. They have binaries available for Mac OS X, Mac OS, Windows, Linux, and BeOS. Then go on eBay and the Marathon Trilogy Box Set for the data files :).

    If you haven't tried the new Aleph One builds of Marathon, they allow you to play the original game with full OpenGL goodness and add many things that makers of new scenarios (yes, many people are still building Marathon scenarios) can take advantage of such as real 3D models (remember, the original is sprite based) and scripting, as well as a few hundred other improvements; check the Engine Development section of their site. There is also the M1A1 project at http://bighouse.bungie.org/m1/ [bungie.org]which allows you to play Marathon 1 on the A1 engine (Mac OS X and Mac OS only, and closed source due to the use of Bungie art, sorry)

    • As a developer for Aleph One (and a mapmaker for M1A1) , I think I'll add some stuff...

      1. The Mac OS X version doesn't work very well; however, the stuff in CVS works great.

      2. M1A1 is now available for the SDL version of Aleph, too.
  • Just so everyone has it straight:
    • This is the Bungie.net metaserver. It is basically a matching service that tracks player stats.
    • Myth II was made by Bungie. Myth III was made by Mumbo Jumbo. Warcraft III is being made by Blizzard, and has no relationship to the above companies.
  • It makes a lot of sense and seems really responsible for these online games to be abandonned rather than axed. Bungie deserves really high markes for setting the example here.

    While you can't force a company to work for nothing they shouldnt impede people who want to continue a product beyond its profitable life time.

    Even though the computer market is competative, the speed of innovation and the ability of your competitors must make old abandonned code of little threat and great public relations. I'm more likely to buy from a company that has a longer life cycle for their games. In reality, if I own a modern computer, I'm more than likely going to be tempted into modern games -- but I will buy from a production house that remembers its costomers first.

    bo

  • It may be shocking to see an MS-owned subsidiary release "open source" code, but it is not a new development from Bungie, per se. Just before they were purchased by MS, Bungie released the source code to their previous software dynasty called Marathon (see, Marathon Open Source [bungie.org] for news on how that has worked out).

    Since Bungie started out as more or less a Mac-only developer, there was a lot of vocal panic in the Mac community when Bungie was bought by Microsoft. Bungie's CEO and other employees insisted that MS had bought them with an understanding that they would not change Bungie's working culture, and would give Bungie a good deal of latitude to do things how they'd always done them--just do them for MS first. ;-)

    Bungie open sourced a legacy game before being absorbed by MS, now they've open sourced a legacy game afterwards. So, it's probably not a radical change in MS policy, like some people are wondering. What this does do is lend more credibility to the Halo on PC/Mac promises that Bungie has made--after the X-Boxes have shipped enough units. :-)

  • The incredible Myth game and the online community that sprung up around it was one of those happy occasions where I realized that the $30 I just plunked down for the game had actually bought me an entrance into a world.

    I quit playing about the time M$ bought them out, and there was this incredible feeling in the community of betrayal, since Bungie had always been a Mac-first game developer (they had developed Marathon, a pretty damn good FPS when there was none available for the Mac).

    It feels a bit like my old high school is being torn down. (sniff, sniff)

    Hats off to all the players, mapmakers, webmasters, mod creators(especially Santa's Head), and anyone else who made that goofy game a great experience.

    -adso (known on b.net as.... adso)
  • I do not mean to get flamed by this. And I do not mean to invoke an argument. But here is something that I am boggled about.

    On the Open Source site there is the Apple Public License source Agreement. Please look at sections 1.8 and 2.1. It is stated explicitly that the Apple sources cannot be used in a commercial setting. Comparing that to the Microsoft Broad Source license the same is said.

    Now why is the Apple Public License considered Open Source and not the Microsoft? I am seriously asked because I am release some Open Source myself and found this aspect boggling.
  • "We provide a service. It's not worth our while anymore, but it might be to you, so have fun."

    They violate the letter, perhaps, but that is the spirit. Thanks Bungie!

    /Brian
  • It was very poorly written and does not compile as is. It's a wonder it ran at all.

    I dislike the comercial clause, but I wonder how legal a clause like that really is.

    As far as I know, copyright is what covers source code, and copyright merely restricts duplication, not use. You can't write a book and put a clause that restricts how the information in the book is used. If Coke published a manual of operation for it's business then someone could start another Cola company based on those procedures, as long as they legally bought the number of copies of the book they needed. They could even publish a seperate book with changes that apply to the first book, as long as the second book didn't violate fair use.

    This is why no one has ever taken the GPL to court, because if you won the case and broke the GPL, then you would lose the right to redistribute GPL code. It is a form of legal kung foo, using the oppenents strength against them.

    What I am going to do is do the first step of a black box implementation. I will take this code and write up a full spec in the next 2 months. It will fully explain every aspect of operation of a Myth II server. Someone else can then use my work to implement a myth II server that is fully open.

    I am wondering if we need to add a new clause to the GPL to make sure that any client that is connected to a GPL'ed server is allowed to access that servers code as well. It seems to me that these .NET services could steal GPL code and run them internally inside the .NET framework with proprietary extensions. Then not release those extensions because they are not distributing the code, only using the code internally.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close