Looks like Linux is built for games after all

I really, really...hrmm...really do not like Ubuntu Unity.

I did not have much luck with Kubuntu. Mint Maya's not experiencing the hardware issues I was having with openSUSE.

Bringing up the various software centers is pretty key - in deploying to Linux, the ease of that deployment. There is little doubt that some flavors have much "prettier" software centers...

 

Why so much rage against Linux for the first few pages?

Ok, first thing is first. People need to understand the difference between Free software and free software. OpenSource software is 'Free' as in freedom. Meaning it's licensed that you can get the code look at it, modify it and redistribute it however you want(usually providing the source and your modifications to others). The other kind of free is free as in cost's no money. You can indeed charge for openSource software and most openSource licenses do not exclude you from the sale of it. I could download a fully openSource linux distro to CD/DVD and sell it to anyone without violating the license. You can also sell support for openSource software. Those are two ways you can make money on the platform, albeit they are not the traditional business model.

What does this really mean? Well, to most not much, but it does mean that even though Linux is openSource and Free(as in freedom), it does not mean that everyone expects things to be free or that all software needs to be free(as in no $$). Just take a look at the Humble Indie Bundle sales. Linux average purchase price is consistently higher than Windows or Mac. Sure I bet the stats of those sales are skewed by the large prices that people pay for their name to show up on the list of top paying customers, but I doubt that all of them are choosing Linux as their platform for those purchases.

Linux and a large chunk of its software are formed out of the idea of sharing code to better software and not reinvent the wheel, along with a slew of other ideals. This along with the price of free (as in $$) is what has allowed Linux and it's software to flourish and not disappear over the years. This does not necessarily mean that you could NEVER sell software for Linux. The idea that all Linux users would never pay for software is just a long standing stereotype that has been perpetuated. It is really unknown what the "average" Linux user would and would not pay for. I am glad Valve is exploring this and I am sure they will share their findings.

Another thing that is holding back an actual market of profitable (as in money) software on Linux is its meager market share and poor support from other software vendors and hardware vendors. It becomes a vicious cycle. No software on Linux keeps its user base small. A small user base doesn't speak to the corporations making software/hardware and the trend continues.

So why is it a bad thing that Valve is working to help get vendor support for Linux to make better drivers? Why is possibly adding Linux as a full competitor to Windows and Mac a bad thing? Is the resentment for Gabe doing the legwork as a big company to garner support for the platform really necessary? I really don't see why people would claim "oh well hes getting optimizations from AMD/NVidia only for his games". Well, yes and no I can see that happening. I mean, have you used the Steam store? Is every game sold on steam using the Source Engine? NO. It would be in Valves best interest to ensure better hardware support(GPU/sound card etc) as a WHOLE instead of just Source. Steam on Linux only offering "optimized versions of 4 year old games" make ZERO business sense. Especially when their store sells more than their own games. But this is all my speculation. However it would be suicide for them to only ensure better drivers that cater to their games rather than the whole platform.

 

Think it was more a case of saying what a "coinkydink" on the timing more than any form of Linux bashing...

edit: As an update, it does not look like I'm going to be making that move to Linux primary with Windows VMs from Windows primary to Linux VMs. There's no way to get around the issue that I'm having with my wifi adapter that works fine in Windows (and thus works fine in bridged mode for Linux) but works like garbage in each distro I've tried so far. It's funny how many threads there are for the various distros with issues and this particular adapter. Oh well...

 

Oddly enough, as I was still looking around out there - I saw this:

http://spins.fedoraproject.org/games/

This is a list of the games: http://spins.fedoraproject.org/games/#games

It's something to consider in trying to market to Linux gamers as well as an example of what's already available out there.

 

Absolutely. But that's kind of missing the point. Other games might also work well on Linux (indeed, the few I got to run natively back in the day all ran really well), but posting stats from one single game is always useless because it's not indicative of anything in the grander scheme of things.

But as far as I'm concerned, that's not even barking up the right tree. Since when was performance even the issue? I don't not play games on Linux because they're too slow, it's entirely because as things stand it's a major pain in the ass to get even supported games working compared to either Mac or Windows. Back when I was a teenager I'd occasionally boot a Linux distro and play around for a while and make a game work, and I'd consider it to be fun. These days I have significantly less time on my hands so I don't consider it fun, so I default to systems where my games "just work".

If Valve showed me a demo where I (and more importantly, an audience I can't otherwise reach) can install and run games arbitrarily from a significant catalogue with no configuration issues on a wide range of hardware, then I'm interested. But I couldn't care less about a performance increase that has no impact on how much I'll enjoy the game.

But... back to Gabe's tree. You don't get the attention of a PC enthusiast by offering "easy installation" and "automatic configuration". That might even sound like console territory. On the other hand, many of them are so into custom performance tweaks and hardware/software tuning that the idea of installing a "hardcore" operating system to get a performance boost might just be a drawcard.

 

BAZINGA...that would have been an entirely different thing.

 

@ZeroByteDNA
And an OS can be done in a bad, in a soso and in a great way. And looking at the status quo, OSs could be designed better, a lot better in terms of efficiency and simplicity. Let's just agree that we have different opinions on proper design for an OS, software or tools generally.

It's easy not to care about performance increases when you're not living on the edge and experiencing issues otherwise. Interestingly the first thing people complain about, also with tools like Unity, is that tool XYZ is faster in this and that respect, speed matters, the same as size matters as well as design matters.

 

Yes, we've heard the lecture a million times already...

Sorry to break this to you, but the notion of getting the source code to applications I buy is not new, nor was it invented by Richard Stallman, or the GNU community, or the FOSS community. Microsoft will give you access to the source code for their software if you pay them enough.

Hell, even Unity has a source code license available. Although if you have to ask how much it costs, you probably can't afford it.

Many magazines in the 1980s used to include source code listings. Some even included machine code tables for you to POKE into RAM directly. This was "open source" long before the term was turned into a political movement.

But what really annoys me is this constant attempt to equate a mere distribution method with the concept of "Freedom". Nobody is prevented from giving away the source code to any application: it's my choice whether I do so or not, not YOUR inalienable right, despite your attempts to suggest otherwise. Comparing freedom of speech to the mere technical ability to access a bunch of source code files and a makefile is shockingly ignorant, or incredibly arrogant.

"Freedom", with that capital 'F', is something millions of people died for. To pretend that a bunch of software developers having flamewars on internet forums are even remotely comparable is just insulting.


Giving away your source code for consumers is also a solution looking for a problem: most consumers today wouldn't have the faintest clue what to do with it. (In the early 1980s, the argument could be made that many "consumers" had to be pretty IT-literate and could reasonably be expected to know what the source code was for, but this is clearly not the case now.)

The "Software Libre" philosophy is actually only of any value to larger corporations (and governments) because only they can afford to hire the people with the necessary programming skills to do anything useful with that source code.

Consumers benefit far more from Open Standards, not Open Source.


Finally, the Public Domain already provides everything the FOSS movement does, but without any tiresome EULAs, licenses or the endless, endless political bickering.

And, before anyone trots out the usual canard about nasty people using your work for their own ends and giving nothing back: who cares? It's not "theft". They aren't going to be able to remove your work from the internet.

Public Domain also doesn't appear to have killed the market for Shakespeare or Dickens reprints, despite the existence of the Gutenberg Project.

I don't believe in attaching terms and conditions to my gifts. Why do you?

 

Those could be so frustrating. Occasionally they would have typos. The ones in basic weren't that difficult to debug if they didn't work, but the stuff in ML was a pain. You would have to wait a whole month for the next issue for the corrections to be printed. There was no web/newsgroup/email to go and find the right away.

 

I was not lecturing, and only counted 3 whole sentences where I tried to summarize the openSource licenses that are tied in some way to Linux. You are reading way beyond what I wrote. If I meant more I would have written more.

Did I say that it was invented by Stallman, GNU or FOSS? No. I am not sure where this assumption of yours is coming from. I am not even sure how this is relevant to my quick explanation of openSource software(as it is commonly known) to others who may not have heard of it before. Again, I was only talking about openSource and its definition. Not about any politics or whos involved or who did what. Just what the common understanding of the word means to people when they hear it.

That's great. I am glad that people are willing to share code without burdensome licenses or only making people pay extra for it. However we were talking about Linux which is licensed by all sorts of GNU/FOSS licenses. Because we were talking about Linux and it being "free" vs "free" I thought it might be important to mention just how it is "free" in all senses of the words. Not sure why you are mentioning political movements.

Nobody is prevented from giving away the source code to any application? Most countries have laws that make the EULA's you agree to worth something. So if the software has a license attached to it, you are NOT free to do whatever you want with it.

I think license agreements are classified under contract law. There are plenty of court cases that show this. Movies are a good example because they are licensed. The MPAA here in the US has won many cases where the users did not follow the license by distributing their copy over the internet to others. That is against the license that is attached to their DVD. Open up the manual to your favorite video game. Check the first or last page(maybe even in between), and I bet you find a page that specifies that you are licensed the software. At least all my game manuals from the SNES to the Wii and PC have this spelled out. Copying those and distributing the source/whole item has gotten many people into trouble as well as it is against their license. So yes, licenses do matter.

Why did you mention free speech? We are talking about contract law and licenses.

Let's revisit what I wrote:

I used capitols to differentiate the two words in my post so it would be less confusing. I then explained what I meant by each term. I have highlighted in bold the section where I clearly explained my use of the word "freedom".

How did I make any connection between "free" software and human freedom? I didn't say anything as such. Are you insinuating these things because I tried to use capitols for emphasis? Did I not explain the use of the word right after using it?


You are entitled to your opinions but please be sure you understand my post before trying to lecture me. Frankly its insulting to me that you are so quick to judge and stereotype me from a simple 3 sentence explanation of the definition of openSource as it is commonly defined. I am unsure of how that comes across as pushing any agenda.

I am sorry my post offended you and brought up a subject that is rather sore for you it seems. However, I felt that those 3 sentences to try to give a brief explanation between the terms would be beneficial to those who are unfamiliar with them. Especially since they are forever tied to Linux as it uses GNU licenses.

It seems that my use of "openSource"/"OpenSource" is incorrect spelling and should have a space between the words with or without capitalizing the word "open". I did type my post late and am very familiar with openSuse(a distribution of Linux) which may have been why I did not realize the error immediately. I am sorry for the consistent typo but will leave it be as to keep my posts consistent.

 

How can I agree with that when you still have not stated your opinion on it?

If anything, everything you've said so far agrees with what I've said about people wanting personalization and customization in the OS/software/GUI/etc. You want something that would be more efficient and simple for you - that doesn't mean that it would be more efficient and simple for everybody. You want to customize/personalize...admittedly, you want what you want as the default and everybody else would have to personalize/customize...but in the end it's the same thing.

 

To be honest, from what I've skimmed of what you two have discussed (which isn't all of it) it seems to mostly revolve around the user interface, not the underlying operating system itself.

 

It started with the discussion of the UI for various operating systems in regard to the interface for various Linux distros and the potential marketshare for Linux - whether it was worth deploying, etc, etc, etc.

It's not a OS X vs Windows vs Linux discussion by any means - since for the most part, they all share common UI elements - since they all are basically the same thing (it's the details where they differ).

taumel believes they're doing it wrong and there is a better way to do it...but I guess what's better is a secret.

Also, a "better way" for Tom's not necessarily the "better way" for Jerry. Consider GNOME, KDE, et al... consider how people customize their Windows interface... etc, etc, etc.

In the end, most folks just want to be able to do what they want to do without having to jump through all sorts of hoops to do it. For the most part, you can do that on any OS - it will be easier on some than others, but even Linux has come a long way in that respect.

I boot up. I want to type something. I launch my application that allows me to type. It's pretty much the same regardless of the OS. I want to surf the internet. I launch my application that allows me to surf. Again, pretty much the same. I want to play a game. I launch the game. I want to chat...tada. I want to X, Y, or Z...tada.

So I'm confounded by the suggestion that the OS UI design is bad.

When it comes to the ability to customize/personalize, well - things can vary a great deal. Something as simple as changing a desktop theme - comparing KDE and Ubuntu Unity. Changing file associations for default applications. Managing IIS vs Apache. File locations/organizations. How much is command line vs. how much has a nifty GUI, etc, etc. There will be a lot of variety there.

The I want to type a letter though...oh well.

 

I think i made my point clear enough that i prefer well thought through design instead of coming up with many options instead which doesn't add a benefit. I picked out an example with the Chrome's search field. I also told you that you can find this better way of thinking things through in every other aspect of your life and with tools people use. From there on you should be able to understand on your own what i was describing. If you aren't, then, well. ... and if you think different about the subject that's fine as well.

 

So if you fail to communicate - elaborate - say anything - then I'm an idiot?

With the Safari/Chrome thing, it became clear what you want in a sense - and we saw that.

You want X to be Y. To Hell with the people that want X to be X much less the people that want X to be Z. You want X to be Y.

For some inane reason, you cannot accept somebody giving you the option for X to be X, or X to be Y, or X to be Z. That solution which should satisfy those that want X to be X, X to be Y, and X to be Z...appeasing the most people. You do not want that. You want X to be Y and to Hell with anybody that doesn't want X to be Y.

You can get a Swiss Army knife that is chock full of various tools. Are they as good as each individual tool might be? Does the little screwdriver in the Swiss Army knife provide you all the options that you might have with a screwdriver bit set? No, it doesn't. It provides many tools in a compact package though - it's easy to carry with you, etc. It's a well designed tool - in context. The same with the screwdriver that uses bits. That's very handy. Unless you're the kind of person that's always losing the bits. Then a regular set of screwdrivers would work better. Magnetic screwdrivers can be very handy too...but not in situations where you're working with components that can be damaged by those magnetic screwdrivers. There is a vast selection of screwdrivers out there...depending on the situation. There is not a one-size-fits-all screwdriver that suits every purpose and every person.

Welcome to the world of OS UI design...

 

And in regard to general customization: http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-features/65284-valves-steam-is-going-mainstream

Folks modding software apps like games...via Valve, eh?

Will be interesting to see how much of that cuts over into Linux. Will they be trying to compete with the various distro stores?

 

The more you write, the more weird it gets. In case you haven't noticed, i'm out already.

 

For an OS to go mainstream, yes linux desktops are very much doing it wrong. The reason they're doing it "wrong" is because there's so many different desktop types and none of them really provide a very cool experience. They provide a techy / nerdy hands on experience. Or they look tacky like a crappy flash experience.

Linux, if it wants to one day be a viable alternative to windows has to be a bastard of Windows 7 and Mac OS X, with the same dumbed down ness. There's a good reason os x and windows behave like they do, it has evolved from feedback from millions and millions of everyday consumers.

So a desktop that is embraced by all distros which offers a true mainstream linux experience, and has basically got a self-updating wine which is hidden from most users. We should also see about getting linux compatible with mac apps as well, if its possible. Since linux is the underdog it needs serious efforts to make it compatible with windows and mac os. Imagine being able to run any software on it?

There would be an android like explosion of linux use - why would any budget PC ever ship with windows again if it was done right on a consumer level?

The trouble with open source is, nobody wants to stick their neck out.

 

It's kind of funny, because it feels like KDE's trying to stick to the Windows feel while Ubuntu with their Unity are going after OS X.

edit: My biggest beef with various distros and Linux in general, is how much simply does not work or requires sacrificing virgin hamsters to get it to work.

I spent almost three days on a hardware issue in four different distros and scouring their forums before a fluke search turned up the solution...in a wiki for a fifth distro. Even after getting that resolved and thinking I was on my way, I still ran into issues because I run dual monitors - had issues with various customizations which would not save or simply did not work. Issues with codecs and versions of apps, jury rigged implementations of other apps, and the eventual overwhelming sense of how much better things are in Windows.

It kind of made me chuckle. What's the best commercial for why you should use Windows? Linux.

No doubt, somebody could easily turn that around to suggest the best reason to use a Mac would be the combination of Windows and Linux.

If a person has just the right hardware, is not expecting to do too much, and doesn't care about customization...I could see them being happy with Ubuntu...maybe.

edit2: I'm going to stick to running it in a VM - my frustration factor with it in a VM is far less than it is trying to run it as a main OS...Hell, it's even an enjoyable experience in a VM.

 

I never said they didn't. Nor did I ever imply that end users have the right to give away other people's work This is a straw-man argument. You deliberately misunderstood what I wrote.

My point was simple and easy to understand: there is NOTHING to prevent a DEVELOPER from providing access to their application's source code! Not. One. Thing. So why do the GNU and FSF communities insist that all software should be offered ONLY under their onerous licensing agreements? For the GPL series IS just another EULA.

Your definition is irrelevant. You don't get to decide how words are defined, nor do you get to revise history and pretend that the GNU Project doesn't use the term exactly as arrogantly and insultingly as I described. That link takes you right to the horse's mouth:

That's the very organisation that is responsible for the GNU / Linux distributions you see. ALL of them. No exceptions. If you use a Linux-based OS, you're buying into that ridiculous devaluation of the meaning of "freedom".

The vast majority of users don't give a gnat's fart about access to the damned source code of their applications. Most users of programs have far better things to do than tinker with their tools to customise them. Especially when those tools are extremely complicated and require a degree just to understand how they work, let alone rip them apart and make actual changes to them.

The GNU Project—and its underlying philosophy—is a massive anachronism. It is based on a false premise that was never particularly valid at the time, let alone today.

GNU / Linux, as a platform, is a complete and utter waste of time in the consumer space. It has its uses, but, as a consumer gaming platform, it's not worth the effort. I've seen actual sales figures; 40 sales, total, of two games, over eight years. That's not a market. That's a blind man on a street corner selling used matches.

Where the platform is making some headway is when its true strength is applied: customisability, and Google have been punting a particularly popular GNU / Linux distro for some time now that's got a lot more games on it than vanilla desktop GNU / Linux distros have. THAT is the future of the platform.

OUYA, and similar projects, are likely to be a much greater success for gaming than Steam on Ubuntu.

 

Someone has compiled with the v4 beta a project that runs on Linux?

JP

 

Whether it's Ubuntu w/ the Unity desktop, Mountain Lion, or Windows 8 RTM... people are complaining about the lack of customization.

At the same time, there are people that champion how the GUIs have changed.

Again, they could have offered both...and...everybody would have been happy. It's only with the forcing something on people that the issue arises.

The removal of Aero in the Win 8 RTM's driving me back toward trying to resolve the issues that I experience with Linux. I spend entirely too much time in front of my computer to spend any of it looking at this garbage.