5 ms·

>http://broxxar.itch.io/flappy48 http://broxxar.itch.io/flappy48 Really? I have to install a plugin just to play a simple webgame?

sergiotapia 12y ago
"Aw man, I need to install Java to run this applet?" "Aw man, I need to install .NET to run this windows forms app?" "Aw man, I need to install QT framework to run gimp? "
- rplnt 12y ago
  More recent: "Aw man, I need to install Chrome to run this website?"
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    "Aw man, I need to update my browser more than once a year to run this website?"
- SixSigma 12y ago
  "Aw man, I need to install X11 to run this application?"
- ndeine 12y ago
  For all it's worth: the Gimp devs were originally the creators of GTK+, which stood for "GIMP Toolkit" - so GIMP doesn't rely on QT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK+
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    While this is true, still many package managers will insist on pulling in Qt when installing Gimp anyway, one of the suggested dependencies will require it. Lots of GTK apps will, because the OS team isn't thinking in the same terms you are. And unless you feel like telling your package manager no, an inordinately painful experience involving tracking down the errant dep and blocking it, and having to be forever vigilant going forward against future insistent prods from your OS, you'll just grumble a bit and put up with that nonsense. Life's too short to spend it keeping Qt off your system.
    - scawe 12y ago
      Gimp requires QT installed? I don't see how that can be the case, wouldn't it just get the dlls if it was deployed as a shared library
- Maakuth 12y ago
  Maybe the intent of this posting was to poke fun at the thinking behind the quotes, but at least I think that web plugins are something that shouldn't be encouraged. Java and ActiveX applets as well as Flash and Silverlight content sucked with various levels of intensity, but they never ceased to suck. There was always at least some level of impedance mismatch between the plugin content and the surrounding web site. With Unity web player, there's rarely any attempt to integrate it to web pages, it's just a convenient way to deliver applications through web browser. Still I don't feel good about it, as it doesn't work on this Linux laptop for example, nor it would on a range of tablets, chromebooks, etc. I'm disappointed every time when I see something that looks like a browser game, but requires some awful plugin to run.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
I do think platforms like that are easier to use from a developer point of view. That, and you have a more standardized platform to run on - after all, HTML5 and all the technologies surrounding it aren't finalised or fully supported yet.

sergiotapia 12y ago

"Aw man, I need to install Java to run this applet?" "Aw man, I need to install .NET to run this windows forms app?" "Aw man, I need to install QT framework to run gimp? "

rplnt 12y ago
More recent: "Aw man, I need to install Chrome to run this website?"
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  "Aw man, I need to update my browser more than once a year to run this website?"
SixSigma 12y ago
"Aw man, I need to install X11 to run this application?"
ndeine 12y ago
For all it's worth: the Gimp devs were originally the creators of GTK+, which stood for "GIMP Toolkit" - so GIMP doesn't rely on QT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTK+
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  While this is true, still many package managers will insist on pulling in Qt when installing Gimp anyway, one of the suggested dependencies will require it. Lots of GTK apps will, because the OS team isn't thinking in the same terms you are. And unless you feel like telling your package manager no, an inordinately painful experience involving tracking down the errant dep and blocking it, and having to be forever vigilant going forward against future insistent prods from your OS, you'll just grumble a bit and put up with that nonsense. Life's too short to spend it keeping Qt off your system.
  - scawe 12y ago
    Gimp requires QT installed? I don't see how that can be the case, wouldn't it just get the dlls if it was deployed as a shared library
Maakuth 12y ago
Maybe the intent of this posting was to poke fun at the thinking behind the quotes, but at least I think that web plugins are something that shouldn't be encouraged. Java and ActiveX applets as well as Flash and Silverlight content sucked with various levels of intensity, but they never ceased to suck. There was always at least some level of impedance mismatch between the plugin content and the surrounding web site. With Unity web player, there's rarely any attempt to integrate it to web pages, it's just a convenient way to deliver applications through web browser. Still I don't feel good about it, as it doesn't work on this Linux laptop for example, nor it would on a range of tablets, chromebooks, etc. I'm disappointed every time when I see something that looks like a browser game, but requires some awful plugin to run.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

I do think platforms like that are easier to use from a developer point of view. That, and you have a more standardized platform to run on - after all, HTML5 and all the technologies surrounding it aren't finalised or fully supported yet.