Jump to content

A sad time for Linux gaming.


Menchise
 Share

Recommended Posts

Heh, oh boy. When I started reading this thread I swore I wouldn't reply. I've been away from the forums for over a month, I've just started checking again, I should just keep my nose out of this...

...but there's no way in hell it's gonna happen. There's a bunch of stuff I want to reply to and I don't want to do it in multiple posts so there's going to be a lot of quotes here. Sorry if I misquote someone. Here goes:

quote:

Originally posted by Dredd

Down with Linux! Long live Windows! HORRAH!


There's really no reason for me to reply to this other than to say... "Wha...?" I didn't know people felt this way and I can't even fathom why anyone could possibly want to see Linux go down.

quote:

Originally posted by Xierxior

linux is not a gamming platform it was origionaly unix which was a (server) os


Linux _is not_ Unix. Linux is a powerful, stable, fast, multi-purpose operating system that is equally up to the task of being used on home, workstation, or server computers. Most people picture the bash shell when they think Linux and this leads to the two most common misconceptions that I hear..

1) "Linux? Oh, that's old. It looks like DOS. I have Windows now."

(from the not so tech-savvy)

or

2) "Linux? That's too hard to use for home computers."

Both are wrong. First of all, in most distros you can set Linux up with xfree86 using a graphical interface that was better than the M$ setup program andmore user friendlyup until the XP installer which is fairly user friendly. I just got finished installing SuSE on my laptop (I like trying out different distros and my laptop always end up as a guinea pig) and after about a half hour I was done. Booted it up, brought to a nice graphical log-in shell, and a second later I was in GNOME. Without any other setup work I was playing around with some of the apps that came with the distro. It wasn't any more difficult or time consuming than when I upgraded to XP on this computer.

It goes without the saying that, other than on boot-up, I didn't see the bash shell once and I never had to mess with. Nor would I have to if I only intended to use it as my home computer.

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr

There are VERY few hardcore gamers running Linux, who don't already have a Windoze box (or even a dual-boot one), so, WHATS the point?!?


If you're arguing that Linux gaming won't ever become popular (which I think you are... but I could be wrong) then you're probably right. If you're saying that there's no reason to game on Linux, however, then you're wrong. First of all, if Linux had the same driver support as Windows it should, theoretically, provide better game performance. More importantly, though, it lets me play games on the platform _I_ want to use. And, of course, people who actually want to use Winblows should be allowed to play games there. Anyway, I'm not going to get off onto a tangent about open standards...

...as far as Linux gaming ever coming of age, I doubt it. It won't happen right now, that's for sure. It's not Linux's fault, though, and it has nothing to do with its worth as a desktop or gaming OS. The reason's simple, I think...

Linux-savvy gamer: "I'd use Linux all the time, if only my games ran on it and it was easier to install them."

Game developer: "I'd develop my games for Linux if more gamers used Linux."

Linux developer: "We'd find easier installation methods if only more games were developed for Linux."

I could be wrong, but this seems to be the general idea with members of the above groups that I actually encounter.

quote:

Any OS that makes you set the vertical refresh rate of your monitor before you can install it is a WASTE of time and resources.

Red Hat actually does require this. I don't know about the newest versions, but my 7-ish version did. Most of the time it finds the right refresh right on its own, though. Overall, though, I'd say Red Hat is the worst choice for a desktop operating system. Try SuSE or Mandrake.

quote:

MAC enviorments. (mac is not all that great either)


(off-topic, but it's late and I don't care. Sorry, SC )

Just felt like randomly saying that I hate Apple and everything Steve Jobs and his company stands for. That said, OSX is great and I'd use it in a second if it were available for my PC. I still find it hard to believe that people call Microsoft evil because they want to have a strangle-hold on the OS market when not only is Apple trying to gain control of the OS market, but they want you to buy their hardware too. Eugh....

quote:

Personally I am glad its dying.

Linux is far from dying. It's home user-base is actually growing. It's business user-base is growing at an even greater rate. Not an "over-take M$ and conquer the world" rate, but enough that most of my friends, even the less computer-savvy ones, know what Linux is and have probably seen or used it at least once. My mom even knows about, since she works with a program to put it on low-end computers that are given to low-income families.

quote:

Exactly how could you improve on say Windows 2000/XP?? In an x86 enviorment there is simply no other way to approach an OS IMO. Sure you could make it more stable, more secure ETc. AS far as the core concetps behind windows or the MAC OS they cannot be improved upon with todays technology.

As a quick note, Apple's don't use x86 architecture. Kind of seems like you're grouping Mac and x86 together. Anyway, there are plenty of ways to approach an OS. As Menchise pointed out, Windows is pretty bloated and that's bad. And yes, you can make an OS more stable and more secure. As a matter of fact, there's no reason not to. If you admit that M$ isn't doing enough to make Windows more stable/secure than you're admitting exactly why Linux is a worthy competitor (by the way, I'm still in shock there are people outside of MS who think it isn't).

Ugh. I'm really sorry about this long post, I didn't think I'd have to reply to so much. I'll admit, this is the first time I've ever had to defend Linux (usually it's the other way around). I'm kind of happy that Linux has reached the point where people aren't just saying "Yeah, whatever, use Linux.". There's more stuff I want to say, but Menchise has it all covered.

Except for one thing: what the hell are you talking about that windows is more stable than Linux/xfree86? I don't know who said it originally so I won't quote, but Windows (even XP/2k) is both more crash prone than xfree86 and less able to recover from program crashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally Posted By: Simparadox

Both are wrong. First of all, in most distros you can set Linux up with xfree86 using a graphical interface that was better than the M$ setup program andmore user friendlyup until the XP installer which is fairly user friendly. I just got finished installing SuSE on my laptop (I like trying out different distros and my laptop always end up as a guinea pig) and after about a half hour I was done. Booted it up, brought to a nice graphical log-in shell, and a second later I was in GNOME. Without any other setup work I was playing around with some of the apps that came with the distro. It wasn't any more difficult or time consuming than when I upgraded to XP on this computer.

It goes without the saying that, other than on boot-up, I didn't see the bash shell once and I never had to mess with. Nor would I have to if I only intended to use it as my home computer.


The thing is most users shouldn't have to do this. I love linux, I really do, but now days for most people leisure time is something not to waste.(And I'm saying this in the BCM forum, heh ) One of the reasons I feel windows is popular is that you DON'T have to do this, and even now, unless you have a almost BRAND new computer, versions of most of your drivers are in XP. I agree that using xfree86 to set up Linux is very user friendly, most average home users would probably feel that it is a headache, more so than Windows.

[ 02-12-2002, 07:52: Message edited by: Cmdr. WeeGee ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it all comes down to what you need.

My brother was an avid Linux fan for the past several years, but now we're both using Win2K on both of our main computers.

While I was running Win98SE for about 2 years, I swear it gave me so much trouble. I spent about a year just fooling around with linux, and reading all the man-pages.

Then after a while, I said to myself: "Ok, what do I use my computer for?" Well, in my case, it's mostly gaming, web-work,and writting papers.

I had spent a long time trying to figure out Linux, and while I admit I still have alot to lear, I can tell you that I would be wasting my time to try because I have no need for it at the moment.

I want to play games, and since I've been using Win2K I'm telling you that all the times I wanted to get a Gates Punching bag have pretty much gone away. The stability is there and it's so straight forward to use and there's a lot of well documented information out there for me to get around the OS quickly and efficiently.

On the other hand, my brother is running our systems behind a PII266 with 64MB or ram functioning as a NAT runing mandrake.

There's a use for Linux that came in really handy for us. My bro spends a lot of time, however, on IRC groups talking and learning about how to constantly improve and use linux to it's full potential. He really likes Linux, but he uses Win2K because all the programs he needs are designed for that system. He's happy with the performance of his system and while he's not a Microsoft fan, he won't say that Win2K is a bad OS [Mind you, we both have a long list of grievances].

Sure, you loose funtionality, you get a load of programs installing that you don't want or need, and you have to deal with their product as a very "uncustomizable" package. But the masses don't necessarily need, want or are able to handle the kind of power linux can give you if setting up a computer that is ideal for your needs.

I'm not doing any development work, and I'm not planning on setting up huge Beowulf clusters [this came to mind because of that recent /. article comparing the set up of Mac vs Beowulf Clusters] , and I sure know that I don't want to spend a couple hours reading all the man pages and discussing how to compile my own kernel with the drivers and modules I need etc. etc.

I say that linux is great for those who need it, and are willing to spend the time to set it up the system. It's also time consuming for people who don't have the inclination to learn exactly how an OS works and all the nitty gritty details about computers.

ALthough, you can use Linux and not have any more clue about how it works than Windows (like if you want to live in one of mandrake's GUI's for all eternity and never touch a comand prompt), and the stability will be there, and it's easy to use.

But, if you don't know anything about Linux, and you install mandrake, and use it like the average Joe uses Windows, you are not gaining many advantages. Joe will not ever think of figuring out what modules he needs to run his comp, what packages he doesn't need, what programs are just wasting space. In a sense, if a Linux guru looked at his system he would probably tell the average Joe to go back and use windows because he probably has a million friends he can ask on how to save a file.

So on one hand there is the problem is one of people misconceptions, and one of unfamiliarity. I think the unfamiliarity part is the real drawback. But also, after having been using Win2K, I can tell you that I have no inclination to switch. Sure there are a lot of issues that go along with using this OS, but the plain fact is that it works well from the USERS' point of view.

When I need Linux, I know it's there. If you need linux, go ahead and use it, all the more power to you.

I'll stay in my ignorance shell for a little while longer. It's a lot more convenient for me at present

Cheers!

[ 02-12-2002, 09:23: Message edited by: Fractux ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't Fractux... it's his brother Yoink... he left his computer logged in so I'm going to post a rebutal to his comment.

Folks... the linux kernel is great: for certain things. I am still an avid linux fan. I know how to use it well enough to "almost" get it to do what I want. I would, to this day, still be using linux if it weren't for one small detail Fractux left out, but by mistake I'm sure.

You see I built a project studio (that is audio recording) in our basement. Unfortunately the best software for professional recording comes only on the Windows platform and, additionally, there are no drivers for my sound card and the linux kernel; meaning that if I did want to record using some of the pre-alpha (and I mean like version pre0.04) multitracking software... well I just wouldn't be able to.

Additionally, and this is in defence of my dear brother's post... linux distributions still have not reached the levels of usability that are required by most people on an average day. By this I mean mainly Compatibility. There is also a certain instability in Linux as a Windowing GUI. As a server running off a console install, as our router/firewall is, it is stable (uptime is over 100 days now.) It's definitely not a great gamming platform yet, and unless everyone you know is using Linux software, or you have your own personal Linux guru around, it's going to take you a while to get it off the ground. Let me add this one last comment though: Linux taught me more about networking and software interaction than any other application or operating system. Except for distributions like Mandrake (which I recommend to first get started with Linux), Linux systems require (though less and less lately) you to get to know what's going on. It is a great way to become familiar with routing tables, server software and the core components of an operating system. Before I go I do need to correct one thing. Nobody installs Linux. Linux is just the name of the kernel. People install distributions, which are the sets of applications that come with a linux kernel in order to make a fully functional operating system. "Now I know... and knowing is half the battle. GI JOE!!"

yoink!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was waiting for someone to point this out...

quote:


First of all, Linux already has an openly adopted desktop environment standard: XFree86. KDE and GNOME are X-based, thus any software package that works in X will work in KDE and GNOME.

My rebuttal: what good is it? X11 is a GUI/windowing/drawing standard. Sure, it has windows, drawing, etc., and everything that runs on X11 will run on KDE or GNOME.

But X11 is not a desktop. And it is the desktop that needs to be unified. Pick one and toss the other. Why?

Because although a GUI system like X11 is great for drawing and windows, you need a ton more than just drawing to write an app. A typical application requires additional services like a clipboard (which it can share with other applications), standard dialog boxes (like display property control and printer configuration), and other higher-level beyond-just-drawing services that make sense to include in the "desktop" API layer versus the pure windowing/drawing/GUI API layer.

X11 is like a collection of parts you find in a hardware store. A desktop offers useful pre-assembled components built from those parts.

Sure, you can write an app that only uses X11 calls. But you then have to end up re-inventing the wheel for all those nice "standard" goodies. Therefore to minimize the amount of redundant functionality and to maintain a common look and feel across all applications running on a desktop, an application should use desktop-level functionality wherever appropriate. Hence, the need for ONE desktop, with ONE API.

Standardize on GNOME or KDE, and toss out the other. Once done, applications can consistantly take advantages of these higher-level functions (that logically do not belong in the basic GUI sevices API layer) and begin to look, feel and behave the same. Which is ultimately good for the end user by reducing the learning curve (e.g. if a user knows how to use the tree control in Windows Explorer, he can depend on near-identical behavior in other apps).

Of course, in all fairness games usually don't use a lot of these higher-level functions anyway (when's the last time you played a game that used the clipboard or needed to print something? ). But the lack thereof is definitely a discouragement towards general development, and it could reasonably be argued that this could also discourage game development.

(Hmm... I think I've drifted off topic towards Linux applications from Linux gaming. Sorry.)

[ 02-12-2002, 18:23: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

quote:

Originally Posted By: Simparadox

Both are wrong. First of all, in most distros you can set Linux up with xfree86 using a graphical interface that was better than the M$ setup program andmore user friendlyup until the XP installer which is fairly user friendly. I just got finished installing SuSE on my laptop (I like trying out different distros and my laptop always end up as a guinea pig) and after about a half hour I was done. Booted it up, brought to a nice graphical log-in shell, and a second later I was in GNOME. Without any other setup work I was playing around with some of the apps that came with the distro. It wasn't any more difficult or time consuming than when I upgraded to XP on this computer.

It goes without the saying that, other than on boot-up, I didn't see the bash shell once and I never had to mess with. Nor would I have to if I only intended to use it as my home computer.


The thing is most users shouldn't have to do this. I love linux, I really do, but now days for most people leisure time is something not to waste.(And I'm saying this in the BCM forum, heh ) One of the reasons I feel windows is popular is that you DON'T have to do this, and even now, unless you have a almost BRAND new computer, versions of most of your drivers are in XP. I agree that using xfree86 to set up Linux is very user friendly, most average home users would probably feel that it is a headache, more so than Windows.


I'm not sure I follow. In most distributions the setup is actually simpler than the Windows setup. Like Windows, most distros will automatically setup your hdd partitions for you, set LILO up automatically, and then install. In most cases you won't even need to pick what packages, just choose something along the lines of "desktop installation". Unless you're referring to the login screen, but most people I know use the Windows login anyway...

EDIT: I should probably clarify that what I meant is the xfree86 installation is seamlessly integrated with the Linux installation in most distros. The combined set-up for Linux/X follows almost exactly the same procedure as the windows setup program.

[ 02-13-2002, 22:02: Message edited by: Simparadox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Joel Schultz:

But X11
is not a desktop
. And it is the desktop that needs to be unified. Pick one and toss the other. Why?

I'm not going to extend this topic or argue about this any further after this (since I'm drifting off-topic too), but I just wanted to say...

Making one standard desktop for Linux is a bad idea. No matter how much I'd like Linux to become more mainstream I do not want it to become Winclone. I'd rather see some kind of standard for X11 windowing systems developed. That way users aren't forced into using GNOME or KDE (why? well, I run Linux on an older box and like to use blackbox on it - KDE and GNOME are both too slow), but whatever system they do use will have to be based on this standard while still offering its own features. And, of course, it'd make things easier on developers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

(mac is not all that great either)

In defense of Mac (I know this is a linux thread), I would like to state that Mac IS great...but not for the things you do, most likely. Apple has it's problems, no doubt. So does Microsloth. However, Macintosh has, from the beginning, been a graphics platform. If you ask 100 graphic artists which platform they prefer...you'll likely get Macintosh out of 75% of them. And here's why:

WYSIWYG

I have had this problem with PCs many times myself, and I'm doing only simplistic printing (or was, my printer is broken now). Macintosh is 100% WYSIWYG. All applications (that print). Heck, IIRC, SC said that he had problems with the company that printed up the manual, because they use QuarkExpress (a Mac program), and he used MS Word (on his PC). Not to mention, the manual was (according to Word) going to be 110+ pages, but Quark took the same text, at the same type face, with the same graphics, and printed it in 76. Another fine example of WYSIWYG. Word isn't.

Another small reason why Mac is a great machine. Last I checked, Mac processors have not breached the 1GHz level. Yet if you run the exact same process on Adobe Photoshop on a 2.2 GHz PC, vs a top of the line Mac. The Mac will complete it first, hands down. MHz isn't everything.

Macintosh is an excellent platform for this, and many other reasons. However, perhaps you anti-mac people don't use these applications. It is NOT a gaming machine, though it will run games. And that is likely why a lot of people do not like it.

Anti-Linux people are similar to anti-Mac people. They just don't realize what they're missing. They haven't used the applications that really SHINE on the other platform. Heck, some of them haven't even USED the other platform. Their opinion comes from opinions of others.

Personally, I have used all three. All three have excellent merits in certain areas. Overall, I would say that none of them is really better than any of the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Gomez:

quote:

(mac is not all that great either)

In defense of Mac (I know this is a linux thread), I would like to state that Mac IS great...but not for the things you do, most likely. Apple has it's problems, no doubt. So does Microsloth. However, Macintosh has, from the beginning, been a graphics platform. If you ask 100 graphic artists which platform they prefer...you'll likely get Macintosh out of 75% of them. And here's why:

WYSIWYG

I have had this problem with PCs many times myself, and I'm doing only simplistic printing (or was, my printer is broken now). Macintosh is 100% WYSIWYG. All applications (that print). Heck, IIRC, SC said that he had problems with the company that printed up the manual, because they use QuarkExpress (a Mac program), and he used MS Word (on his PC). Not to mention, the manual was (according to Word) going to be 110+ pages, but Quark took the same text, at the same type face, with the same graphics, and printed it in 76. Another fine example of WYSIWYG. Word isn't.

Another small reason why Mac is a great machine. Last I checked, Mac processors have not breached the 1GHz level. Yet if you run the exact same process on Adobe Photoshop on a 2.2 GHz PC, vs a top of the line Mac. The Mac will complete it first, hands down. MHz isn't everything.

Macintosh is an excellent platform for this, and many other reasons. However, perhaps you anti-mac people don't use these applications. It is NOT a gaming machine, though it will run games. And that is likely why a lot of people do not like it.

Anti-Linux people are similar to anti-Mac people. They just don't realize what they're missing. They haven't used the applications that really SHINE on the other platform. Heck, some of them haven't even USED the other platform. Their opinion comes from opinions of others.

Personally, I have used all three. All three have excellent merits in certain areas. Overall, I would say that none of them is really better than any of the others.


Bah, I guess I'm a liar. I need to keep going .

Anyway, there's not much I really need to argue with here. Just wanted to clarify a few things...

...if you take a top of the line Mac vs. a top of the line PC the PC will come out on top in almost every task you give it. This isn't a fault in Mac's processor line since they are "faster" (and by this I just mean that a cpu rated at x mhz will beat a PC cpu rated at the same "speed"). But a top of the line G4 isn't going to be a 2ghz Pentium 4 CPU. Anyway, I'm not completely familiar with how the Mac architecture works, but I believe there is some kind of optimization that graphical applications like Photoshop take advantage of.

That said, most designers use Macs out of habit. A few years ago they were superior in a way that mattered, but when you figure cost vs. effectiveness a PC with a high-end graphics card (and I don't mean a gaming one ala GF3/4) will perform just as well as the Mac and still end up cheaper. I do think OS X kicks some serious ass, though, and that makes it great as a desktop system. Unfortunetly, I have no desire to be forced into using Apple's proprietary hardware. I'm still waiting for the day when I can run the hardware I want while still getting the best operating system.

And to bring this back on topic... has anyone mentioned that Darwin (OS X's GUI) is built on top of BSD, which is a flavor of UNIX? And if BSD is suitable to be used as a desktop environment then you better believe that Linux is as well. Here's the problem: for that to happen a company has to be willing to invest insane amounts of time and resources into doing it. Apple was willing to, but Apple knows that they've got their current userbase to buy it. Anyone who has to compete with Micro$oft is almost guaranteed to fail, so I can't imagine it seems very appealing to them.

This is my theory why none of the major Linux distributions are up to the task. They may want to make their setup programs nice and user-friendly and allow you to get into Linux (along with xfree86) with a minimum of fuss, but in the end they're still just doing this to a) save the time of people who already know Linux or B) make it easier for tech-savvy people who want to learn Linux and know what they're getting into. I don't think those (relatively small, even combined) groups justify spending the time and energy to build a Windows killer on top of Linux.

Just my opinion.

[ 02-14-2002, 20:10: Message edited by: Simparadox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'm still waiting for the day when I can run the hardware I want while still getting the best operating system

Apple almost designed something like that. Not quite. CHRP - Common Hardware Reference Platform. It's kind of the reverse of what you said. You could run whatever OS you wanted to run on it. It would run everything and anything. It would have been 100% PC compatible (and fast), as well as 100% Mac compatible. I think how they were going to accomplish this feat was to have co-CPUs. 1 Intel (pentium class), 1 IBM (rs-2000 RISC architecture). Back when they were working on this, it would have been a P1 and a 603 or 604. Anyway, it never happend because Mr. Jobs came back to the company and felt they had already spent too much money on it.

Also, speaking of Apple and their need for you to buy their system. My current Macintosh is one of the last Mac OS clones. It is NOT an apple. Sadly, it's also not a G3 or better. Which means no OS X for me.

Speaking of OS X. What you said about BSD is very true. In fact, you can get to BSD and use it, in one of the advanced modes. Supposedly, you can also run anything that is designed to run on BSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just though I'd add my comments as I have been a user of both Linux and Windows(in it's various iterations) for years. I currently have a dual boot system with Windows XP on my 40 gig drive and Linux(Mandrake 8.1) on my 20 gig drive.

I first started experimenting with linux back in college when I was taking linux scripting and was using Mandrake 6.0, and throughout the years have developed a love/hate relationship with the OS.

For those above who have cateogorized Linux as not being user friendly, and a headache, unfortuanately have not used one of the later versions. Mandrake 8.1 is fabulous, and the user-friendly installation routine, is a wonderfully easy as setting up Windows xp. All my hardware from my MS scroll mouse to my Gforce 2 GTS installed flawlessly, including the drivers for 3d accleration.

Quake3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Terminus run smoothly, and the framerates are as good as they are in Windoze (btw, both single and multi-player binaries have been released for RtCW). I have a fairly large library of Loki games, and they all run well, and play great online. I can't really explain it, but running games in Linux give me that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Now Linux is not for everybody, and part of the satisfaction is tinkering with the OS, and I can understand why some may not like it --> anyone who has experienced the dread "Kernel Panic" will know what I mean.

Now in terms of Loki, I a truly saddened, as they were truly pioneers, but I must say I am not surprised, in August when they declared Chapter 11, the signs were already blowing in the wind.

Derek, you mentioned Transgaming a little earlier in the thread, and while I wish them luck, I don't think thier route is the way to go. Their software is truly in it's infancy, and most windows games do not run well under Winex. Currently I got Starcraft and Half-Life to work, as well as the windows version of Wolfenstien, but there is just too much fiddling, and corruption with 2d menus to make any of it fun. I truly think that they should be focussing on working with developers on specific Linux ports, and not creating some "all in one" software (which I think is impossible)

I truly hope that Linux gaming takes off, but I think the key to this the development of in-house Linux binaries in tandem with the Windows binaries for new software titles. Wolfenstien is a great expample, albeit the linux binaries where released at a later date. Id has always been supportive of Linux, and I hope they continue to be in the future. To my knowledge, Neverwinter Nights being developed by Black Isle will release with both Windows, and Linux versions on the same CD. Hope so.

I think the problem with Loki, is that they were way behind the release curve. While the games to ported where outstanding, Myth II, HOMMII, et. al. the windows versions were out well in advance of thier Linux ports. I usually picked up their versions, even though I already had the Windows versions, just to support them.

To conclude, part of the appeal of Linux is obviosly free open-sourced software. The very nature the OS in this regard, doesn't bode well for developers who wish to sell software to people, who for the most part abhor paying for anything related to Linux. This fundamental aspect of Linux and Linux users, in my opinion will relegate the hobby as a small niche market, which is part of a bigger niche market. Anyway I am blabbering now.

Cheers, Myth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...