It's been over a decade since Swift came out, and cross-platform Swift remains extremely niche. I think that ship has sailed and that Swift is in the same situation Objective-C was, perceived as being an Apple language for Apple platforms, controlled by Apple.
I think a lot of the cross-platform interest from other companies diminished after features like result builders were quietly dropped in to support SwiftUI, with the usual community review process happening after it was already revealed at WWDC and shipping in Xcode (!). It's clear that Apple runs the show, and like Objective-C, it seems destined to be primarily an Apple language for Apple platforms and tools.
Check out MacPorts. It was the original package manager, still going strong, and it supports Macs going all the way back to the Leopard era. It also always used /opt instead of taking over /usr/bin like Homebrew.
Years, honestly. After all, Intel Macs just received a major macOS release from Apple only 12 months ago. MacPorts manages to support all the way back to Leopard!
Yes, the pride in aggressively dropping support for Macs that just received a major OS release from Apple only 12 months ago (and they were selling just three years ago) is a little off-putting.
Respectfully, what a stubborn position to take. You don't want to listen to anyone else, and you don't want to be taught any new information about it that might change your mind.
Debian supports swap files and has information about setting them up in the Debian wiki, so I don't know why you're implying they've taken a stand on the issue.
Repackaging existing technologies is nothing new for Apple. The introduction of ads into their services, with considerations for adding more such as in Visual Intelligence, are the real concern, in my opinion. It's enough to make me think they've already started down an irreversible path as a company.
> I mean every time that Kojima made a game it turned out to be something that people talk about for years on. But the second it gets slightly more ambitious investors get their panties in the knot about it even though throughout history Kojima's products made a massive return.
Death Stranding 2 didn't do all that well. I don't think his games after MGS3 are as highly regarded.
Kojima is infamous for being difficult to work with as well as expensive, and Death Stranding 2 didn't do that well after the already-divisive Death Stranding. I think describing him as a generation-defining artist is a bit much, something a devoted fan might say. His mistreatment of David Hayter because David isn't an A-list Hollywood actor really soured my view of him. By all accounts, Kojima has a fantasy of being a Hollywood director and hanging out with movie stars, and he wants to make gigantic expensive Hollywood movie-esque projects. I'm not surprised Sony would get cold feet.
NMS actually does ship "start here, finish here" content, but my main issue is that the game is terribly easy. All that extra content you're implying is there, I find to be very shallow, unchallenging, and unrewarding. In the end, I'm simply not interested in LARPing around on procedurally generated planets and going through the motions.
It appears that the go-to response from certain fans is to accuse anyone critical of having only played it at launch. I assure you that's not the case. I find the game just as shallow today every time I try a new content update. What do you want me to do? Convince myself I don't feel that way about it? I can't make myself like something.
What hate? What dogpiling? People are simply talking about how they aren't into the game and find it shallow.
I sense a lot of unwarranted defensiveness from certain fans of the game. Having sustained concurrent players on Steam isn't going to transform the game into something it's not for the people who just aren't into it.
I've relaunched it multiple times over the years when a new content update comes out, and I get the same feeling of shallow blandness every time and move on. The core gameplay simply does not do it for me.
> I don't know where the negative comments are coming from. Maybe players who played early.
A lot of people simply aren't as enamored with the shallow gameplay, even in the current version. I'm not surprised that they've sold a lot over the years since they've been putting out free content updates year after year to lure people into reinstalling it every six months or so.
The comment you're linking actually says that the game "feels like nothing" and that there's nothing substantial to the gameplay. It doesn't even use the word "empty."
> If the game isn't for you, that's one thing, but it's a factually untrue thing to say "there's nothing to do, game is sparse after a few hours and novelty wears off" like many comments say.
Every time I come back to the game and try a new update, the game is indeed sparse after a few hours, and the novelty wears off...
Oh, I don't think so. The systems in the game are very shallow, and overall, everything is too easy, which makes the game feel bland. There are almost no stakes. That leads to a feeling of nothing to do because none of it feels worth doing.
This is such an aggressive move. Intel Macs were still being sold by Apple only a few years ago. They just released a major version of macOS for Intel Macs not even 12 months prior to today.