Unity3d Linux Editor - C'mon, Leadwerks is one step ahead!

Certainly I don't think Unity should be worrying about a Linux Editor, however it is gaining ground as a corporate desktop solution. IBM (at least here, and my understanding is that it is world-wide) is transitioning everyone to Linux desktop. They are also pushing their customers to do so as well (not too hard, don't want to upset those customers).

 

Edit: Actually, I changed my mind. I don't really want to contribute to that debate. Suffice to say that Linux doesn't have a small share because of anything unfair that other people did, it's got a tiny share because of things that the Linux dev community didn't do or wasn't interested in. I don't say that to knock them at all, I just think that the Microsoft-blame (which probably isn't coming from those people themselves) is misguided.

It doesn't matter if it was Microsoft of Apple or someone else. Those people are customer focused where Linux is tech focused. There's nothing wrong with that, but if market share is your goal then it's not a particularly effective approach.

 

I bought Windows 8.1 only recently, not sure why piracy is being discussed. Most people run legit windows. Pirates do not (obviously). Legit people outnumber pirates by a vast majority in all things. I don't think it has any bearing on if Linux is accepted by mainstream or not, but that is neither here nor there.

As it doesn't look like Unity will be getting a Linux editor, perhaps a better idea is to be proactive and work with wine in getting Unity's editor into an acceptable state of being, where it performs well.

 

I've bought this next question up in a number of these threads now and have never got a meaningful response: Why would you do that?

This question isn't meant as an attack on Linux. It's purely practical and pragmatic. It also doesn't apply to people who do this stuff for fun, because then the cost analysis is irrelevant. But if you genuinely want to get some work done, when you can spend ~$150 (here in Aus) and get a Windows license what practical benefit is there in spending many hours dicking around with this stuff to try and make it work? If you're pragmatic about getting whatever you want to do done then isn't it a fairly straightforward realisation that the fastest and least risky way to do it is to use it how it's meant to be used and how it's supported?

I understand that there are circumstances where the $150 could be a severe drawback if you're genuinely strapped for cash, so that would make sense, but it's never been given as an answer. That situation aside, I can't see any other pragmatic outcome to weighing up the cost of the hours making Unity work where it's not intended to vs. spending a little money and 90 minutes to set up a dual boot and getting on with your life.

 

Some people don't like the practices of companies like Microsoft or Apple. Personally I don't have such a problem but I respect that some people may want to take a stand by "voting with their wallets".

 

It could be that linux hasn't been generally accepted because of the free and open source belief. Personally I find linux to be much better and more stable than microsoft windows due to how I use both. Then again, I use both for IT reasons and not everyone can network or fix computers. Linux and windows specific game dev (developing a game directly in that OS) is kind of double edged sword anyway, or however you want to word it. Both have plenty of strengths and weaknesses.

 

That precise point is what I was getting at before I edited my first post earlier. Linux is great for people who can use it, but aside from some relatively recent developments it does nothing to get non-computer-experts on board. That's not a bad thing, but it more or less leaves the mainstream audience to others without contest.

 

Teaching someone how to use a computer with a linux os is very frustrating on both ends due to the fact that a lot of tasks in there you pretty much have to perform in a terminal. If you don't know how, you have to rely on someone that does versus in windows a lot of people can usually figure things out themselves. Terminal work can be very good and very bad depending on user ability, one of those double edged swords. I don't see a Linux editor ever happening.

 

Depends, there are plenty of distros setup so you don't need to use the terminal, there are package managers with a GUI, and updates can be done without terminals. I don't see what terminal usage has to do with a linux editor, you don't have to use it ;0. I can see a linux editor happen, just maybe not now...

 

Regardless, it will cost 250k to port Unity properly to Linux at minimum. I'm betting that 166 Linux users aren't willing to pay 1500 to make it happen. On top of that, there's running costs: support, bug fixes, feature additions and new versions of Unity.

They can guarantee enough mac and pc owners will buy it to cover. If they couldn't, well... they wouldn't. No company is going to pour cash down the drain supporting what isn't profitable. It's insanity.

How big a task is the port?

1. Middleware. That means fmod, beast, physx, box2d, umbra, recast, mono - all have to work. Some have Linux builds. Some don't. Those that don't need porting and sorting manually.

2. The UI. Everything needs to work here, on multiple distros, including file handling, and editor based scripting, asset server integration, team licenses, asset store, everything.

3. Input, and Graphics. Unity rolls this themselves, and it's a big issue involving a lot of staff from different parts of unity.

And that's really just the start, there's all this distro stuff to get supported. Yeah I think I lowballed way too much with 250k estimate.

 

You also haven't touched on the ongoing cost of whatever it adds to the QA, maintenance and support areas. That's a whole other platform that needs to be covered in each, even if there's no new platform-specific work going on at the time.

 

Also it might slow down releases. I'd feel sorry for the guys that have to worry about deal with a whole other platform.

 

Hey, Guys,our new script installs Unity3D on Linux with no problems but using Asset Story (people are thinking of solving that). You can use it as under Windows. You can use the built in MonoDevelop for creating and editing scripts. You can debug your scripts. Many people have used this script up to now and are happy. We don't need Unity Editor for Linux any more. Windows version is enough. But we wish Unity Team helped us somewhat and made direct links for downloading assets from Asset Store. It will be very helpful,because their protocol doesn't work. I hope it will be fixed soon, and all will be working just like under Windows.

 

Ok that's the best way forward - to enhance and improve support in linux. Hopefully Unity will listen in this respect. If any Unity staff are listening - how about a few tweaks to better aid Unity running under Wine - this isn't really a big task but would dramatically improve quality of life for Linux users.

 

I wish Unity would listen to us, but I am fear they wouldn't. Unity3D runs on Linux perfectly. Really, just like under Windows. So does MonoDevelop. Many people - I think thousands - are using our solution now. Yes, they run Unity3D on Linux. It's our victory. Unity Team should help us use Asset Store only. It's not a big work. Only direct links as an alternative for their protocol. If there are direct links, we can download assets and then use them in Unity3D under Linux. And all people will be happy.

And the feedback where people demand Unity Editor for Linux will be satisfied. Unity should say them: "Guys, we can't make Unity3D Editor for Linux, but you can run Windows version on Wine and PlayOnLinux. It runs really good. We tested it. And you can download assets using direct links."

But is there a person in Unity who have the courage to do that? I doubt. And this is a problem. Linux users are completely ignored by Unity Team. No cooperation. It's a very sad. I really understand that Unity Team are afraid of costs resulting from making Unity3D Editor for Linux, but I can't accept their attitude towards Linux users.

Unity, we need cooperation!!!

 

It sounds to me as if Unity could maintain and improve this bundle under wine though - something that is surely more robust and effective given the low cost compared to a full port...

Being able to manage the process at unity's end would also allow them to sell, market and offer Unity to linux users officially - albeit with a note that it's based off wine.

 

It sounds great. However, Unity have no intention to do that. Linux users are simply ignored. They don't exist for Unity. Maybe there's an agreement with Microsoft I don't know. Microsoft do all to make obstacles for Linux. Money, money, and money... I don't like that. Alas, it's reality. We can only accept that and do something to run Unity3D on Linux ourselves.

 

Linux is like heavy metal, it always ignored, but is fun to be outside and is fantastic how the community always find found some way.

"Nvidia drivers? Netflix? Security boot? Ha! Just give me a week"
- A linux user that never see the sun

Hehe

PS: now with some more steam games port to linux and I will be free

 

Heavy metal and Linux... hahaha! Very good! You are right. I'm not a computer game player (I have played three games in my whole life ), but I know that computer games are the most import for system popularity. Linux isn't popular because people think it isn't friendly to games. Most games are made for Windows. Yes, steam and all such projects can change that. i hope it would be so. Thanks to games, Linux will become more popular. Just download Linux and run a game. No pay! It's very attractive for many young people.

Linux is a very good system. In spite of those all obstacles. It's a really good work of many people in the world. Tons of tools ready to use in Linux. For me, it's something I can't live without. I'm a computer programmer. I love all what I see in Linux. As to Windows, only .NET and PowerShell are good solutions. Fortunately, we have Mono.

OpenGL is better than DirectX now, so I think more and more games will be made in the future.

 

Good news for developers. More and more stuff is made for Linux. It's important people have a choice.

 

Unity also needs to stop ignoring Linux-ARM and Linux-Mipsel developers. Ignoring ARM and MIPS in favor of x86/x86-64 is totally unfair and elitist.

We should have right to a Unity Editor working flawlessly on Linux ARM devices such as Raspberry Pi or BeagleBone.

 

People, when will you understand? Not much good will come out of a linux editor. Too small a group who want the port, and alot more headaches

 

I don't think it's as black and white as some other posters here present it.

• UT is also making money from the Unity Asset Store, so increasing the number of free users will result in more sales.
• The GNU/Linux toolchain and APIs are largely identical to those used by OS X (which is BSD-based), with the only big deviation probably being the GUI system (Cocoa vs. Qt / GTK). I'd expect the initial port to be not quite so expensive. Support cost remains an unknown for me (more knowledgeable users but Linux is a moving target more so than is Windows).
• Many Linux distributions are as easy to install and use as Windows and have been for years. Blender and Maya have native Linux versions, as do GiMP and Paint.NET. Same goes for Audacity and of course MonoDevelop.

Regarding the wants of the majority, let this screenshot of the Top 3 items currently in Unity's own feedback system speak for itself:

​

I myself am a Unity Pro customer and would love to use Linux as my primary development platform.

I've ran Windows 8 since the developer preview (and did the same with 7 and Vista), but Microsoft is rapidly moving in a direction I won't follow. First the "SmartScreen Filter" kills business for small and freeware developers, then "secure boot" ensures normal users can't install alternative OSes, next Windows 8 Metro only runs Microsoft-sanctioned apps from the Windows Store and soon Windows 9, as a "Cloud OS," will not even give me complete applications that work without some server somewhere running part of them - essentially deciding whether I can do my work or not.

Valve is trying to establish an alternative to this scenario (see Steam Client for Linux, SteamOS and SteamBox) and I believe they've got the right idea.

 

If I want Unity running on MS-DOS or Windows 98, it's my right. Why should Linux x86 developers have more privileges?

 

You have no rights whatsoever, this isn't a government orchestrated public service. This is a product you purchase from a company knowing full well what you're buying in to, in fact most people don't purchase this product they use the free version. UT release what they see fit to release, if said individual doesn't like it use an alternative product. It's impossible to bend and cater to the masses on every small feature set!

Elitist? Unfair for whom? How about you make your game in whatever you want, release it. Earn enough money to make a competitive engine for Linux distro's?

Everyone has their own preferences which is great, being said if a Linux Editor actually hampered people from making games I could understand but it doesn't stop anyone so I've no clue why it's such a big issue?.

P.S I gather you was being sarcastic

I'd much rather Unity fix what they have now, I'm not saying Unity shouldn't come to Linux just at the moment it makes little sense and is at the bottom of the pile.

 

Guys! Guys! Guys!

OMG! Unity has the right no to make Unity Editor for Linux. We won't make them. We have no power! Fortunately, we can run Windows version on Linux that works perfectly but using Asset Store. Please try our new script out! Many people have tried out and are happy. We have done much. It was done for free. We have spent much time and have no profits. Just for you. Use it! Now! You will see the power of Linux.

I have one claim to Unity Team - a friendly cooperation. For example, the direct links for Asset Store. Because Linux users can't use assets from Asset Store. So far, we can't solve that. maybe, we will do that in the future.

I can't test our solution on ARM. Just test that and share results. Help us develop this solution. There are many wise people in the world. If you wish to use Linux, be united in creating Unity3D for Linux. Unity3D won't do that for us. We have to do that ourselves.

 

Really what Unity should do is approach Valve to put down the funding to make a version of Unity Editor that runs on linux for the sake of it running on SteamOS. Which would then support all distros. Valve is really the only company that sits in any position to have increased cash flow from Linux becoming a more viable game platform, for users and developers.

 

But a viable gaming platform isn't the same as a viable development platform. I don't develop software for my iPhone on my iPhone. Why would I want to develop couch gaming content from my couch?

 

Only the uneducated say that. Currently Linux stands at 4.9% of market share, while Mac is 9.2%.

Now lets put that into perspective so that the uneducated can grasp it. In 2007, Mac/OSX was 3.9% market share.

So by all the same logic, UT should have dumped Mac's back in 2007 because it was "too small a group who want it".


Linux use is only going to go up. People are sick and tired of Microsoft's crap, like the crappy Windows 8. People are getting sick and tired of paying too much money for Macs.

I'll be switching to Linux fully when Win7 support gets dropped. Suckers are paying an arm and leg for Macs when they can get a far better computer for a fraction of the price, and its clear MS is lacking common sense with its OS's and are wanting to turn into a marketing/advertising tool..

 

There is actually no reason for you to critique anyone.
The Unity Editor used to be Mac only. Windows was added later on. Many existing Unity customers are using Macs. Even if the market share is low, there are enough of those paying users to keep it alive. You can't compare the two, because one of them would be new, while the other already exists and is actively used.
Since the first years of Linux, the amount of people who are using it is going up. And each year you hear rumors that it will have a relevant market share within the next few years.

No matter what you write, it is our decision, the decision of the suckers, to use a crap operating system.

 

I'd be interested to know the market share of OS use based on industry use, i suspect the art based used would have mac % alot higher, so it really depends on what your doing to what you use. Most offices i've worked in, had Windows PC for Dev, Mac's for art work....with a linux server. General usage breakdown doesn't really apply in the dev world.

 

And while you're at it, email this to unity and see if they agree.

 

You have to compare the two. You cant say see theres not even users/interests, then say oh dont look at the past support of a system/OS with low users that were at levels even less ..... you cant have it both ways. You cant ignore the past to take into account what might happen. To do so is foolish.

Its not "their" decision any more. Its the decision of their investors and board of directors/advisors. They will only do what makes money and guarantees return on their investment .... its the way of companies that are under investors.

 

Maybe, I'm crazy but Linux is the future. 5%? Well, Microsoft do all so that Linux can't gain the market. They have money, much money. Many companies are corrupted by Microsoft. They have to sell products that work with Windows only. ONLY!!! That's why, you see only 5%. Today, Linux is a mature operating system. I changed XP to openSuse 13.1 and I don't regret. I was using Windows 7 for some time. Well, I think Microsoft made a step back. But Linux is developing very quickly. I'm following the process. Some years ago, Linux rendered 3D graphics in a poor way. But now, I see that 3D rendering is very good. WTF, you can use Unity3D on Linux in making games. You don't need Linux Editor.

 

For us it probably about 80-90% Mac. Artists and producers and support can use which ever they prefer (sometimes both), usually Mac, but several of our artists prefer Winders. Devs in my studio must all use a Mac.

 

I don't know about that one. I'm still interested in Unity's opinion on this whole thing.

 

What I do is to take the situation as it is. The Unity editor was only for Mac and to get more users on board, they ported or reimplemented the editor to support Windows. We don't have to discuss that, because that's the way it is. That's why it is pointless to discuss the past, as we can't change it anymore. Comparing the Mac and the Linux version of the Unity editor makes no sense. One exists the other doesn't. It makes no sense to compare them.
The actual question is whether it makes sense to port the Unity editor to Linux or not. Heading the discussion many different directions just to find new arguments and mixing them for your needs is not really helpful for the topic.

Take this as my last comment, because it I am almost sure this would go on and on.

 

Haha, and you call others uneducated? Total user counts are irrelevant. What matters is how many of those users do / would use Unity.

And since it's in Unity's best interest to identify and invest in new markets I really can't understand why they wouldn't if it really was to their advantage, which it would be if it had the numbers.

 

Source2 will run on Linux. If Valve's efforts to make Linux a viable gaming platform are showing even slight hints at becoming a success Epic will port UE4 to Linux. This is just not the kind of thing Unity leads on.

 

It's been said a bunch of times: "running on linux" is not the same as having the editor on Linux. Unity already runs on Linux.

 

naughty dog uses linux for game development.. if its good enough for naughty dog..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8XdvIO8JxE&feature=player_embedded
just shows how relevant linux is in console development.

 

There won't be Unity Editor for Linux because Unity don't want that. Period. Many companies don't make Linux versions because of many reasons. We have no influence over them. We can only accept this situation and do something to workaround it.

On the other hand, good companies have Linux versions. Not always they are well tested and good enough, but they have. For example, Teamviewer 9 - the Linux version has a bug that prevent it from connecting to Teamviewer servers. Teamviewer 8 works on Linux perfectly. Usually, Linux versions are simply worse than Windows ones. You like it or not, Windows is a king among desktops. And this situation isn't caused because Windows is the best. No, but fortunately more and more people in the world are interested in Linux. And they can see Linux is simply better. But this process is too slow.

 

Also, the more platforms they support, the more people they will likely have to hire to keep up with the bugs that will eventually creep up.

 

You are right. In other words, we, Linux users, won't get Unity Editor for Linux. You like it or not, you are forced to forget about Unity Editor for Linux. That's why, our solution should be developed. Do not be sad. You can develop your games with Unity3D on Linux. Maybe, we will see Asset Store working with our solution soon. Guys, just try our solution out. Maybe, you will improve it somewhat. All your ideas are welcomed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

Well, maybe you are right, but I myself don't need Unity3D version for Linux . However, there are people who use Linux and we don't change this situation. Linux users have thousands reasons why they use Linux. Most of them are true.

If I make software and I wish to have a good opinion among operating systems users, I'll try to make versions for the three basic operating systems: Windows, Mac, and Linux. Not all operating systems can be supported, but these three should I think. It's enough.

5% of operating systems users for Linux seems really not much, but according to LinuxCounter (http://linuxcounter.net/) there are over 70,000,000 Linux users. It's not much in comparison with Windows users, but in reality there are many people who use Linux in the world. We can't ignore this number. That's why, we do all so that some of these people can run Unity3D on their systems.

In reality, most software is made for Windows only. There are a lot of complaints. Many users feel ignored. We can't change this situation, but fortunately there are people who can do something what can give a chance to run Windows software on Mac and Linux. That's why, we have Wine and PlayOnLinux to run Windows apps on Mac and Linux. So everything is OK! All the people who write the feedback about Linux Editor for Linux just should try our solution out. Or use other game engine. That's all.

 

I wouldn't put much weight on this, I was working as an artist for a Leadwerks 2.0 project- that version of the engine was left dead in the water with many errors but we were promised Leadwerks 3. That version came along and the company I was working for were told to pay up $350 in 30 days or they would have to pay $1000 after. None of the promised updates were present, the level editor looked like an antiquated BSP editor and the engines demo looked like it was from 1999. Wrote to Josh Klint about a year or so ago, was given a list of promised updates- it looks like now barely any have made the present release.

I remember something about a PR guy being hired who assessed the market and gave Leadwerks business decisions which probably led many to leave the engine, I'm not sure if that's still the case but there seems to be a new feature added to a long list every week.

 

There are many good initiatives, but they can be dead if users aren't be interested in them. I don't know Leadwerks, but I can say that Unity3D can be a leader for game engines, but Unity Team waste opportunities. They ignore Linux users completely. More and more, I take into consideration of using Blender instead of Unity3D. I'm waiting for Blender 2.70. Best 3D Tool and Game Engine in one software. It's more powerful than Unity3D is and 3D rendering is better. And Blender run on Linux natively.

Both Unity3D and Blender are very good tools, well supported and maintained. Both of them run on Linux. Blender is more difficult and so far isn't popular among game developers. Fortunately, it can be changed soon because Bledner developers are interested in making Blender more game developing friendly. Now, we, Linux users, can choose or use both of them.

 

Need I say more?

 

No. I can use Blender and Unity3D, but using Blender seems too difficult for some people. That's why, we made our solution for running Unity3D on Linux. Blender is for true professionals. When I saw Blender for the first time, I simply gave up. The interface is really weird for many people. i spent many days learning Blender. Unity3D is much easier. I learned it very quickly. Some my jobs need Blender and some - Unity3D. There are a lot of jobs for Unity3D game developers.

Everything would be good if Unity Team helped us somewhat. I don't mean porting Unity3D Editor to Linux, of course. It makes no sens for Unity Team. However, those fu... links of Asset Store. Unity Team, we need only direct links, at least for free assets.