To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation.
To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Yes, and I usually agree with you and think the whole WINE Is Not an Emulator acronym is a bit too much because a windows Emulator is the easiest way to explain Wine… That being said emulators have a technical definition, and Wine does not fit it because it doesn’t emulate hardware nor does it translate binaries. Linux is perfectly capable of understanding windows binaries and vice-versa, because they both run on the same platform the binaries are the same, which is to say a specific sequence of bits that instructs the processor to do something is the same for both Windows and Linux binaries. The reason you can’t run windows binaries on Linux (again, or vice-versa) is because they make calls to external libraries that are not available, be it the windows API or the Linux Kernel API. So if you write a library that implements the windows API using Linux APIs you suddenly are able to run windows binaries on Linux, and that’s all that wine does.
I don't think any of their stuff doesn't work now. Even stuff like Halo with anticheat has been allowed to work via proton already.
This doesn't provide any promise that you can use gamepass or windows store games on Linux, and it doesn't provide any promise that they don't use anticheat in a restrictive way on Linux machines. They can trivially provide a bypass in the cloud environment that doesn't get shipped to end users.
Hopefully they don't do that, but this doesn't really mean a lot to individuals buying their games.
Just to echo what Marc said, we are so sorry for our earlier actions.
We are so sorry you took our earlier actions so poorly.
Genuinely disappointed at how our removal of the ToS has been framed across the internet.
Genuinely disappointed that our removal of the TOS was noticed and publicized across the internet.
This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity shipping in 2024 and beyond. And Marc’s response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.
This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity, whereafter we will do everything we can to invalidate prior versions of Unity, and force upgrades on users.
We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer some Q’s live
We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer whichever Qs live we find convenient to our narrative, and ignore any that are not.
Please forget about our attempted greed, so we can try again in a stealthier manner in the near future, at our earliest convenience.
Marc’s response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.
Oh shit, our lawyers have just informed us (again, but this time I listened) that trying to change terms of service after they’ve already been agreed is actually not legal and could get us in trouble.
Gamers have demonstrated the ability to accept and regurgitate absolute nonsense explanations from giant corporations so he probably figured game developers would be the same.
We removed it way before the pricing change was announced because the views were so low, not because we didn’t want people to see it.
(emphasis theirs)
I don’t believe that in the slightest. While yes, they did do that quite a while before the change took place, it was hosted there as an easy way to track changes to the ToS. I bet it was more of a “Any changes we make will stand out a lot more”, not realizing that any big change they make was going to stand out regardless (this whole thing being an example).
I mean come on, they could’ve at least tried with a better lie. I would’ve gone “Eh, maybe” if they’d said something like “Our legal team suggested that we keep it hosted in a central location, on our website”. But really, “not enough people looked at it”?? What a joke.
To be honest, in the face of how dumb that lie would be and how I have come to view stats-based decision-making (where companies favour decisions they can point to some KPI for because it makes them seem scientifically grounded over ones made “just” with human reasoning), I’ll invoke Hanlon’s Razor and say:
I absolutely think it’s possible some middle-manager looked at the view stats and decided they’d look better if they cut some chaff, never mind just what that chaff may be. Protests - if issued ar all - went unheard or unheeded, and the change went through because the numbers told them to make it.
It’s awful optics, in any case, but I’m willing to concede it may be dumb coincidence paired with dumb decisions, probably made by someone wholly uninvolved with the pricing change decision, rather than actual dumb malice.
(Doesn’t excuse the rest of their bullshit, of course)
I definitely wouldn’t completely discount that as a possibility for sure, but Unity sure is bad at damage control (as are most companies that make dumb decisions like this) - even if this is true, it would’ve been better to just not mention it, as it could only ever just douse fuel onto the already out-of-control PR fire that has erupted due to all of this.
No dispute on that front, it’s a dumb move to excuse a dumb move with a dumb excuse at a dumb time where nobody will believe that it was genuinely just dumb instead of malicious. And who knows, I might be totally wrong too.
My giving them this much credit is really just out of (possibly misplaced) idealistic desire to find alternate explanations before jumping right to accusations of malice. I’m not even entirety sure I believe it myself, to be honest.
Literally no one but legal should have the authority to remove a contract from the website, and allowing any other human being to do so is gross negligence at absolute best.
It should have sent a cascade of giant red flags the second it was touched.
Oh it definitely would be grossly negligent, but the amount of technical systems I’ve seen that somebody should have a stake in but wasn’t actually involved with… well, if Legal’s purview ends at writing up those terms, Compliance made sure they’re up in an appropriate place and nobody thought to put “make sure they are automatically involved of any change affecting this” on the checklist, all the boxes have been ticked and they won’t notice until the fallout starts hitting.
In an ideal world, any change to the master branch of that repo or to the repo itself should require the approval of a technically versed member of Legal/Compliance (or one of each, if they’re separate teams). In reality, that approval process may well exist only on paper, with no technical safeguards to enforce it.
lol at choosing to present it in a way that implied there was no way to avoid the retroactive license change (which you explicitly said you wanted to apply retroactively, charging fees based on activity prior to your license change), then blaming the community for interpreting it how you told us it works.
Words have meaning. If they want to convince people removing the ToS was an honest mistake (almost unbelievable bad timing, but whatever), they shouldn’t make a non-apology beginning with “genuinely disappointed” and saying they’ve been “framed”.
Because they get to never say in whom they’re disappointed, and I choose to interpret it as “disappointed in all of you people for being meanies and assuming the worst”.
Unity: Disappointed to discover denying access to a document with legal standing to the affected parties could have legal implications, and now trying to make up a cover story.
twitter.com
Najstarsze