Warzone 2100 Forums

I have a two PCs one main is on WinXPSP2 another is a internet-server for our local network. So second one is on FreeBSD. I'm noob with Unix Systems... so Can I play wz on FreeBSD, this is the same Linux right ?

If yes where I can find information or tutorial where wrote step by step how to install wz.

If no...so too bad ;D


// FreeBSD 6.0

BSD is not Linux... You will probably find the differences via Google.
Some time ago there was someone who told us that he runs WZ on BSD. I will have a look if I find that again.

In theory it should be possible to run warzone on any POSIX compatible system, provided that the required libraries are available of course.

And since I believe FreeBSD is a POSIX implementation (as is GNU, and the Linux part of it as well for the few parts it needs to comply with) it should be possible, although not necessarily easy, to use warzone on FreeBSD.

PS I'm personally to much of a GNU advocate (or at least copyleft in general as is the sole licensing structure of GNU) to invest huge amounts of time in using BSD operating systems, so I can't test anything of this.

DevUrandom wrote: BSD is not Linux...

lol -- first "GNU's not UNIX", and not "BSD is not Linux"... we're on a roll...

Giel wrote: PS I'm personally to much of a GNU advocate (or at least copyleft in general as is the sole licensing structure of GNU) to invest huge amounts of time in using BSD operating systems, so I can't test anything of this.

er... technically bsd-licensed software is both more liberal, and more copyleft than the gpl. the only real difference between the two licenses is that the bsd license doesn't require that the source be available with binaries upon distribution. pretty much the only thing more "copyleft" than bsd is "public domain"

and beyond all that, technically the gpl only requires the availability of source code when copies or derivations of the binaries are distributed -- as per the license, i could take the linux source code, as well as the gnu build chain, somehow tweak and warp it to the level of efficiency that i could get ut2k7 to play with equal graphics and higher frame rates on the original 8086 processor than it could on a modern machine, and create a large chain of pay-to-game outlets running modern games on 20 year old machines, and, as long as i never sold or gave any of these machines to anyone, i would never be under any obligation to share my unbelievably superior enhancements with the rest of the world, despite their obvious benefits to mankind. as companies finally begin to realize that software licensing is not effectively enforcible, and that there are far better ways to make money in the software industry, we'll probably see many practical examples of legal violation of the spirit of the gpl.

yea kage is correct,the BSD lisence is almost identical to MIT lisence,the software lisenced by BSD is provided 'as is' and you can freely use/modify/distribute as long as you dont use it to commit crime or become a threat for human being(quite obviously),whether commercially or not.You can include the source of BSD into your closed source project,even without giving credits to the original authors.Overally,BSD is more commercial-use/close-source friendly than either GPL or LGPL(you can dynamically link against it,though it's sort of advertisement/self-promotion imo...),since you dont need to create a 'GPL layer' in your closed project to evade terms of GPL legally,which forces you to release a large portion of your project's source code if you dont do so.

kage wrote: pretty much the only thing more "copyleft" than bsd is "public domain"

Erm, sorry, what I meant is "strong copyleft" (that which some people like to refer to as viral copyleft).

However I think public domain is very good as well , the only thing I dislike about that (i.e. public domain or licenses near to it) is that it enables parties (e.g. microsoft using BSD's TCP/IP stack) to take a piece of code, modify it slightly and then claiming copyright on it. That however could be solved by dropping copyright law altogether (you'd have my vote for that).

What I'm trying to say is that copyright was initially created because large book publishers at the time where massively copying books made by small authors without paying them anything for it, but earning huge profit from it themselves. Now however copyright mostly seems to be used in the reverse, large companies, claiming to need, protection from individuals. And that is really my largest issue with copyright. I think it should either be dropped altogether or be modified to serve its initial purpose, namely protecting individuals from companies (rather than the reverse).

point taken, and i agree in full with your revised statement, with an addendum: without copyright, the only possible way to sell software would be in gpl-similar way (sell it once, after which it's not possible to control, just hoping that more people will buy it anyways, or that each buyer will hoard their purchase), in which case, windows would certainly not exist as a majority operating system... ??? oh, wait... you have my vote too.

in regards to ms's use of bsd's tcp stack, we must look at it without bias: if ms wrote their own implementation from scratch, they would still claim it as their own, windows networking would still suck, and the bsd people who wrote it still couldn't care less. the people who do care about such things (users of gpl-ish licenses) have made sure that their software is very unlikely to fall within their definition of abuse, so in the end, all sides are fairly happy on the subject.

in an attempt to revive the thread, here are some links to bsd-related warzone posts:
http://wz2100.net/forum/http://localhos ... p=120#p120
http://wz2100.net/forum/http://localhos ... 1165#p1165
http://wz2100.net/forum/http://localhos ... p=208#p208
http://wz2100.net/forum/http://localhos ... p=822#p822

in short, it would seem that bsd-derivs are decently enough supported.