Just venting

[ExSuSEusr]

I've been using Ubuntu for quite a while... It really is an amazing OS despite the difficulties we have with getting *some* things to work.

Maybe I'm just seeing things through the eyes of a gamer more so than a typical user... but for as long as I can remember the inability of getting games to work (I'm not talking about lame games such that come with our install, but real games) has been the biggest gripe amongst the community - in fact it seems to the one remaining object that keeps thousands of people from leaving Windows forever.

Maybe I'm missing something here - again I'm just blowing off steam from having nothing but problems getting the ONE thing I want to work the most in Ubuntu working... games.

So, is it me or is there a complete lack of action being taken to resolve these issues? I'm not a C programmer or I'd be working hard on resolutions. And, yes I get that a lot of it has to do with game manufactures refusing to port over a Linux version of their product.

So why does it seem that one of the most important issues facing Linux is being utterly ignored?

/venting off

[The Funkbomb]

Ubuntu is not a gaming OS and I think it's far from "one of the most important issues". Honestly, that's not even on my agenda.

It's an OS that has some games that work and some games that can be made to work, but it's not a gaming OS. Stick with windows or get a console.

[Frak]

The market wants DirectX games, Ubuntu has OpenGL.

There, Ubuntu isn't a gaming OS. Use Windows or a Console if you want.

[Paqman]

So, is it me or is there a complete lack of action being taken to resolve these issues?

What action would you suggest?

The small number of Linux users alone makes it pretty unattractive for software houses to develop games for Linux, notwithstanding any technical issues. Games are expensive these days, so they get developed for the platforms that have lots of users.

[ExSuSEusr]

It *can* be a gaming OS with a little work. There's no reason it can't.

Again, if you read my post I said "Maybe I'm just looking at it through the eyes of a gamer."

I got Everquest II installed, the game runs, for about 60 seconds before crashing. The very fact that I CAN even install and log into the game tells me that that OS is quite capable of handling high end, graphics intense games. People have gotten WOW to run. People have gotten Call of Duty to run, hell people have gotten most games to run. The issue isn't that Ubuntu isn't a *gaming OS* - the issue is that after all this time no one seems to be willing to invest into producing packages that assist in people in getting these games to work.

Look at Envy. Used to be (at least for me) the biggest nightmare of an install was getting video working. Someone saw a need and out of that need they created Envy - now getting your graphics card up and running to its full potential is one of the easiest tasks of installing.

If it can be done for graphics cards, why can't it be done for games? A program that identifies the components of your system, identifies the deficiencies of your WINE install and your system for running X, Y, Z game and then "like Envy" makes all the necessary adjustments.

Again, I'm just venting but I don't buy that Ubuntu (even in it's current state) can't serve as an effective gaming platform.

[vagrantrooper]

A PC will not have truly dedicated gaming processor like a console does so for the trained eye the difference is huge.

[The Funkbomb]

Then the best suggestion is to find a project that wants to accomplish this.

[ExSuSEusr]

I'm not talking about XboX or PS III based games. I'm talking strictly PC based games...

Doom, Quake, Everquest, Half Life, etc.... (yes I know ID games are native in Linux, I'm just making a point).

[Paqman]

If it can be done for graphics cards, why can't it be done for games?

Because the games you're citing are all Windows games, whereas the drivers you needed for your graphics card were Linux drivers. You just needed someone to come up with a nice utility to get that Linux driver installed with no hassle.

There's huge difference between getting Linux apps to work on Linux, and getting Windows apps to work on Linux.

[ExSuSEusr]

Then the best suggestion is to find a project that wants to accomplish this.

If only I was fluent in C/C+

[The Funkbomb]

You don't need to be a programmer. Volunteer your time and machine to do testing.

[ExSuSEusr]

Not a bad idea.... I think I'll do that.

At the very least I'd like to see an app that will analyze your system and at least identify the deficiencies needing addressed for the respective games.

[phrostbyte]

So, is it me or is there a complete lack of action being taken to resolve these issues?

There is two major things happening

(1) Wine
(2) Gallium3D


The best would be if game devs actually ported games to Linux, but that's unlikely on this point. So we make Linux "pretend" to be Windows, and the games will be none the wiser. ;)

[phrostbyte]

Not a bad idea.... I think I'll do that.

At the very least I'd like to see an app that will analyze your system and at least identify the deficiencies needing addressed for the respective games.

Wine has a test suite you can run:
http://test.winehq.org/data/

Report problems with apps here:
http://appdb.winehq.org/

[blueshiftoverwatch]

If it weren't for ID Software the gaming situation on Linux would be much, much worse. Not only do they make their games Linux compatible. But after so many years they release the engines into open source so they can continue to be developed. In fact, the engine that Doom 3 and Quake 4 used is planned to be released under the GPL sometime next year.

Too bad there aren't more companies like ID.

[Frak]

In fact, the engine that Doom 3 and Quake 4 used is planned to be released under the GPL sometime next year.

I heard that last year, and the year before that. Id has given dates when they were going to Open Source the engine, and every time, they've pushed it back more. Anyways, Bad news, id software is really abandoning Linux. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1244727)

[Regenweald]

Windows has one API and one desktop environment. Not even looking at the current technical capabilities of the Linux desktop, honestly, if I were a game company CEO, I would not support linux. The desktop is too fragmented. All of the choice that we have is wonderful, but I would have absolutely no interest in hiring a legion of QC testers for supporting the hundreds of WM's DE's and the millions of different desktop experiences that they produce.

For proprietary support you can't just support 'standards' but you need A 'Standard' experience that proprietary companies can develop for and support.

[Stan_1936]

Ubuntu is not a gaming OS and I think it's far from "one of the most important issues"...

Well said! End of story!

[Frak]

Windows has one API and one desktop environment. Not even looking at the current technical capabilities of the Linux desktop, honestly, if I were a game company CEO, I would not support linux. The desktop is too fragmented. All of the choice that we have is wonderful, but I would have absolutely no interest in hiring a legion of QC testers for supporting the hundreds of WM's DE's and the millions of different desktop experiences that they produce.

For proprietary support you can't just support 'standards' but you need A 'Standard' experience that proprietary companies can develop for and support.
This.

[starcannon]

So why does it seem that one of the most important issues facing Linux is being utterly ignored?


I don't think it's being ignored, it's just that it is a tough nut to crack. Until game developers include linux in their plans, or until direct x is available natively to linux, it's going to be difficult or impossible for many games.

Currently a great deal of "real" games can be played on Linux using WINE, or Cedega; of course a great deal can not. And the ones that can be played, must often times be played using lower visual enhancement settings. If one decides to go that route, it is beneficial to put in as much ram as one can afford, and have a beefy cpu. A solid GPU will suffice, but a great deal of the action will be happening at the cpu.

In the meantime, be sure to complain when a game you want to play has no linux client, the folks that create this stuff are in it to make money to feed families and pay mortgages; if there is a market that looks big enough to make decent money, they will come. Be sure to buy the small number of games that already do have linux clients, if you don't know which ones just ask, I'm sure you'll find a few of us willing to add to a list.

GL and HF

[starcannon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Funkbomb http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8315504#post8315504)
Ubuntu is not a gaming OS and I think it's far from "one of the most important issues"..

Well said! End of story!

The most important issues vary from user to user, and for many, the lack of games is at the top of their list.
Its never the end of the story, saying that an issue is done and over will not make the issue done and over.

Gaming IS important to a modern operating system, and I believe some major steps to bring gaming to Linux have been taken, but still so far to go.

Linux is not any one kind of OS, for most of us it is the OS that lets us do whatever we do. For some it is a Word Processing OS, for others it is a Web Dev OS, for others it is a Software Dev OS, and the list goes on and on. One can not declare what the OS is for anyone else but ones self.

"Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open"

[Frak]

The most important issues vary from user to user, and for many, the lack of games is at the top of their list.
Its never the end of the story, saying that an issue is done and over will not make the issue done and over.

Gaming IS important to a modern operating system, and I believe some major steps to bring gaming to Linux have been taken, but still so far to go.

Linux is not any one kind of OS, for most of us it is the OS that lets us do whatever we do. For some it is a Word Processing OS, for others it is a Web Dev OS, for others it is a Software Dev OS, and the list goes on and on. One can not declare what the OS is for anyone else but ones self.

"Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open"
As it stands, Linux doesn't come close to posing itself as a gaming OS.

I'll take it from Wikipedia/John Carmack on this one


Some former critics of Direct3D acknowledge that now Direct3D is as good if not better than OpenGL in terms of capabilities and ease of use. In January 2007, John Carmack said that "…DX9 is really quite a good API level. Even with the D3D side of things, where I know I have a long history of people thinking I'm antagonistic against it. Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step—they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility—and it's a pretty clean API. I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I've worked with."

Google Cached Version (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ybwU8uVvoWAJ:www.gameinformer.com/Templates/News/NewsDetail.aspx%3FNRMODE%3DPublished%26NRORIGINALU RL%3D%252FNews%252FStory%252F200701%252FN07.0109.1 737.15034.htm%26NRNODEGUID%3D%257B5226AFC6-171A-483B-B348-8DF232577FD7%257D%26NRCACHEHINT%3DGuest+John+Carma ck+And+Todd+Hollenshead+Speak&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

This is the same guy that decided to stop porting id games to Linux because it was just too much work.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

I heard that last year, and the year before that. Id has given dates when they were going to Open Source the engine, and every time, they've pushed it back more. Anyways, Bad news, id software is really abandoning Linux. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1244727)
Well that stinks.

[Hyporeal]

The way games are made to target particular proprietary platforms is extremely inefficient. This inefficiency makes it a fairly large burden to support an uncommon platform such as Ubuntu or even MacOS. Solve this problem and you'll see most mainstream games running well on Ubuntu.

Ideally, there would be an open specification for a gaming platform. Then anyone could implement the platform. Developers wouldn't even need to think about Ubuntu, it would just work. There are some details to be worked out, but the result would be far better for gamers and developers alike.

[Regenweald]

True, but the open gaming platform would have to somehow survive or avoid mailing list arguments and the inevitable fork. The same inefficiency can be said about fragmented FOSS development.

[Frak]

True, but the open gaming platform would have to somehow survive or avoid mailing list arguments and the inevitable fork. The same inefficiency can be said about fragmented FOSS development.
I've also thought the same way. Every time I see a proprietary project, I see community. Every time I see an Open Source project, I see intense competition.

[Regenweald]

I've also thought the same way. Every time I see a proprietary project, I see community. Every time I see an Open Source project, I see intense competition.

But really, the kind of coder that has the stones to develop opensource, put your code up to community review and stand by it, is going to have a strong personality and self confidence. Get enough of that caliber of talent on a project and there could be sparks..... Hell, entire git queue's could get deleted from the kernel merge if it's a big enough brawl ;)

But that is also the bane of FOSS, too many hands stirring the pot. Say what you will about proprietary, the structure is a good one. One decision, one direction ( right, wrong, evil, monopolistic, gamble and fail, gamble and win....) work gets done.
FOSS can sometimes be a lot of promise in parallel directions with no major movement forward, best theoretical architecture, most efficient coding structure, but is it done ? will it be done before the next great thing is jumped on ? could it have been finished if four ridiculously talented devs did not leave after the great c++ vs python debacle of the summer of '07 ?

Ubuntu may have it's many percieved flaws, but it also has one direction and one vision. It may not be the best sometimes or the most popular at others, but thankfully it is there, moving the OS forward .

(I just went off topic didn't i.. :))

[Frak]

Ubuntu may have it's many percieved flaws, but it also has one direction and one vision. It may not be the best sometimes or the most popular at others, but thankfully it is there, moving the OS forward .

I wish I could say that, but:

I give up. (http://www.fewt.com/2009/10/i-give-up.html)

[Hyporeal]

True, but the open gaming platform would have to somehow survive or avoid mailing list arguments and the inevitable fork.

I don't see how an open standard (such as TCP or IP) can be destroyed by a mailing list or a fork. The fork would be ignored unless it had overwhelming support from the industry. Openness can only help a standard.

[xuCGC002]

Really you're complaining about WINE, not Ubuntu. Linux users usually aren't gamers, neither is the average computer user. And for us that are Linux gamers, we find ways to make those games work.

[Regenweald]

I don't see how an open standard (such as TCP or IP) can be destroyed by a mailing list or a fork. The fork would be ignored unless it had overwhelming support from the industry. Openness can only help a standard.

We start talking about games then you use foundation protocols as references ? wheras every pc user on the planet needs those, the ratio of that to gamers is starkly different. An open standard would level the playing field. No game company wants that. Since an open game standard would be nowhere near the adoption of something like tcp/ip, it could very easily be forked and fragmented , with dependency hell anew.

[Regenweald]

I wish I could say that, but:

I give up. (http://www.fewt.com/2009/10/i-give-up.html)

I don't know what to say, 'cept damn.

[Chronon]

the market wants directx games, ubuntu has opengl.

There, ubuntu isn't a gaming os. Use windows or a console if you want.

+1

[Hyporeal]

An open standard would level the playing field. No game company wants that.

It would have no effect on the competition between game developers. Each and every developer would have access to a larger market, so all would benefit.

Open industry standards are not new. I am not suggesting a radical new way of doing business. I realize that the current system is hard to change, but I maintain that the proposed system would be superior for almost everyone.

[ExSuSEusr]

I still disagree that Ubuntu users aren't "that interested" in gaming - or that the majority of us aren't really the gaming type. Just take a look at the game/leisure section of this board...

Secondly, the types of people who are "generally" going to be attracted to Linux at all are going to super-computer users, admins, tech support people, so on. These are the SAME type of people who are going to enjoy a good deal of gaming. Not saying that all linux users are gamers, but the gamer types are going to be more apt to adopt Linux than a Windows addict.

I would pay money for a company to port their games over to Linux. From a business perspective it has potential. They don't have to open source their game engines or any other aspect of their product, but what they could do is create a package that allows their products to run on linux. I would gladly pay for that. They [the company] could create a "linux installer" that can be downloaded from their respective websites to accompany their CD or even web installation of their games. Charge 20 bucks for it, or whatever, and increase their market share. The ROI of an application such as that would be much higher than having to write a "linux version" of the same product.

[howefield]

It *can* be a gaming OS with a little work. There's no reason it can't.

Perhaps you could fund this "little work" After all it obviously won't take much effort so won't be so costly....


Again, if you read my post I said "Maybe I'm just looking at it through the eyes of a gamer."

That much is obvious. But then, as you say you are only "venting", which doesn't usually produce a coherent argument.

[kpholmes]

Ubuntu isn't a gaming OS. Use Windows or a Console if you want.

ya unfortunately thats the truth :(

[Stan_1936]

The most important issues vary from user to user, and for many, the lack of games is at the top of their list.
Its never the end of the story, saying that an issue is done and over will not make the issue done and over.

Gaming IS important to a modern operating system, and I believe some major steps to bring gaming to Linux have been taken, but still so far to go.

Linux is not any one kind of OS, for most of us it is the OS that lets us do whatever we do. For some it is a Word Processing OS, for others it is a Web Dev OS, for others it is a Software Dev OS, and the list goes on and on. One can not declare what the OS is for anyone else but ones self.

"Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open"

...except gaming. And, as far as I am concerned, that's the way it should stay.

[hoppipolla]

Much as I hate to admit it, Frak has a point...

DirectX does provide a good platform for games on Windows.

However, there is no reason why OpenGL can't grow to be a thoroughly competitive framework again, I reckon gaming is one of those things that will come to Linux more as we start to gain market share, and I also feel is probably one of the LAST things we will win over. For now, I dual boot...


...except gaming. And, as far as I am concerned, that's the way it should stay.

ok... so you actually don't WANT Linux to support good games o.O

[Stan_1936]

..so you actually don't WANT Linux to support good games o.O

Ya! There are bigger problems to fix, that get shoved on to the back burner and never get resolved, ex:http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1137378

For me, lack of hardware support(from a non-gaming point of view) is more important. But, that's just me.

[hoppipolla]

Ya! There are bigger problems to fix, that get shoved on to the back burner and never get resolved, ex:http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1137378

For me, lack of hardware support(from a non-gaming point of view) is more important. But, that's just me.

Yeah but these things always go hand in hand don't they? Linux gaining support and market share will solve both those problems pretty much simultaneously I reckon.

[Stan_1936]

Those problems are being given less importance than gaming...hence they AREN'T being fixed. How long is it going to take for gaming to be fully supported? 10 years? So those problems will ALSO take 10 years to solve? 10 years? Pardon my french, but that's bu*l***t!

[hoppipolla]

Those problems are being given less importance than gaming...hence they AREN'T being fixed. How long is it going to take for gaming to be fully supported? 10 years? So those problems will ALSO take 10 years to solve? 10 years? Pardon my french, but that's bu*l***t!

It's not up to us though it's up the hardware developers. And they aren't going to do it until they see a market there. Exactly the same is true of the game developers. It's the truth I'm afraid.

[ElSlunko]

It really is up to the 3rd parties to support Linux to make it a reality. It's up to them, on the Linux side of things people work hard to find fixes and work arounds. I doubt most people see games as insignificant uses of computers, it comes down to where the money is to be made. Any games designed with opengl, or even better with linux clients, work very well! Don't complain here, complain to the developers of the games.

[ElSlunko]

In additon! Games and apps aren't created out of thin air and HOPE to work on an OS, they're created with an OS in mind and use the toolsets available to them. Direct X isn't something available in linux without work arounds so things don't look too bright in the Linux world. Direct X being owned by MS.

[vexorian]

Most video game players do not go with PC games. Most PC users are not really too interested in video games. Most PC gamers are actually casual gamers.

Casual gamers... they are actually far from having the necessary hardware to run the latest windows games... But they would be happy with those 'lame' games that come by default. And more than happy with many of the games available for ubuntu.

I am somewhat in the middle between casual and hard core gamers, and am not unhappy. Getting my favorite windows games (wc3, GTA San Andreas
, Bejeweled Twist, Peggle, Plants vs. Zombies , Freedom force) was not really hard beyond some annoyances an tweaking which are not by far anything compared to what I had to do in MSDOS times to play games (I remember having to edit config.sys to enable extended memory and a lot of hackish tweaks). I also enjoy many things that do not require WINE (ZDNes, Prboom) and am not unhappy to search stuff in happypenguin.org, every once in a while you get something very cool to waste an afternoon with... I think many of the more casual gamers just need flash and Java to work and then go and waste their lives on web games...



I think hardcore gamers can live with having to do tweaks. They are generally way above the average user in skills and probability to actually enjoy all the tweaking. A casual gamer has it very easy as there are plenty of good casual games out there for Linux . Someone in the middle (like me) has it easy as well, because WINE has little to no problems running games from 2~3 years ago.

So, one of the reason few people really does anything about it, is that the Linux gaming problem is not a big issue... Most users are fine without games. Most gamers are fine without PC games. Most PC gamers can do just fine without the latest windows games. And so and so...


Direct X isn't something available WINE is among other things an Opengl/Alsa port for directX, and it works just fine for many games.

[Shibblet]

It really is up to the 3rd parties to support Linux to make it a reality. It's up to them, on the Linux side of things people work hard to find fixes and work arounds. I doubt most people see games as insignificant uses of computers, it comes down to where the money is to be made. Any games designed with opengl, or even better with linux clients, work very well! Don't complain here, complain to the developers of the games.

You're expecting companies like Electronic Arts and Activision to bother making Linux games? They're in Microsoft and Sony's pocket. They don't like making Windows versions of the games. The cost vs. the return is horrible compared to consoles. Activision makes millions of copies of, let's just use, Guitar Hero 3, for Wii, XBox 360, PS3, and PS2. Then they make 100,000 for Windows. Activision thinks "Whoop-dee frickin' doo. That was money well spent."

So clearly, they aren't going to bother making games for Linux, because they know if you want to play the game bad enough, you'll buy an XBox or a PS3. And if you reasonably think about it, the cost of an XBox or a PS3 is cheaper than a PC. So for them, problem solved.

But here we are, sitting on giant priced Uber-High-End PC's with an Operating System that won't allow our $2000 computer to play a game like the new Resident Evil 5? And thus, we have to keep our copies of Windows just so we can play a game. Meaning we have to reboot OUT of our favorite OS, and load a new one.

Wine and Cedega are the best options we have so far, and so far, they sometimes play older games.

[Frak]

It's not up to us though it's up the hardware developers. And they aren't going to do it until they see a market there. Exactly the same is true of the game developers. It's the truth I'm afraid.

There's more than market share involved in driver development. Linux has an uncanny ability to break compatibility within versions. A patch to the kernel can break a driver. Hardware manufacturers would have to follow the umpteen popular distributions and develop suitable drivers for each. If they can get the product to as many markets as possible, they'll do that. If it costs more to monitor and constantly develop for many platforms, and the market share is too small to expect enough of a return, they'll just abandon it. I would say that by Ubuntu taking the largest chunk of the Linux market share it would be a good thing, but Ubuntu changes a lot during the release. Even bug and security fixes break compatibility. There's no form of regression handling as it stands, and that scares off a lot of driver developers.

As for games, tough luck. That's never going to happen without more Wine support. When you can release a game and hit 90% of the market in one fell swoop, what is the point of spending millions of dollars to, basically, recreate a game using another graphics layer entirely just to support 1% of the market. I'm not going to include Mac in here because, this is absolutely true, Apple doesn't make computers for the gaming market. That's not their goal, so the expectation is that the users are either going to buy a Windows loaded computer, or dual-boot Windows. Since Apple controls 91% of the post-$1000 market, there's lucrative users to be had, and they'll be expected to spend a bit more to make it work. As for OpenGL, DirectX just kills OpenGL for developing games. Not saying OpenGL is bad, because it isn't, but gaming just isn't its place. OpenGL is better for rendering, while DirectX is better for RIGs (Rich Interactive Games). This is why Modern Warfare 2 uses DirectX while 3dsMax and Maya use OpenGL. DirectX produces poorer quality, but is very efficient. OpenGL is somewhat slower, but it creates very high quality results. Direct3D was developed around the idea of games, while OpenGL was developed around the idea of being a hardware-assisted system for use in rendering. Direct3D expects the application to manage resources, lessening the work needed by the driver developer, while OpenGL expects the driver to manage it. Therefore, developing an application to render using OpenGL could be easier because the driver manages the resources, but could produce poorer performance depending on how it was implemented within the driver. Direct3D requires the developer to allocate hardware resources, which can be simpler for the driver implementations, and since not every application is created equally, can result in the most efficient use possible. Since I know the argument is going to come up about consoles, consoles use OpenGL because they don't have a DirectX equivalent like the 360 does, and it would be more expensive to develop their own. OpenGL developers exist, and they are cheaper than starting from scratch.

tl;dr Linux changes all the time, developers don't like it. Games won't be developed for Linux because it's expensive and takes longer.

[Zoot7]

Windows has one API and one desktop environment. Not even looking at the current technical capabilities of the Linux desktop, honestly, if I were a game company CEO, I would not support linux. The desktop is too fragmented. All of the choice that we have is wonderful, but I would have absolutely no interest in hiring a legion of QC testers for supporting the hundreds of WM's DE's and the millions of different desktop experiences that they produce.


As for games, tough luck. That's never going to happen without more Wine support. When you can release a game and hit 90% of the market in one fell swoop, what is the point of spending millions of dollars to, basically, recreate a game using another graphics layer entirely just to support 1% of the market. I'm not going to include Mac in here because, this is absolutely true, Apple doesn't make computers for the gaming market. That's not their goal, so the expectation is that the users are either going to buy a Windows loaded computer, or dual-boot Windows. Since Apple controls 91% of the post-$1000 market, there's lucrative users to be had, and they'll be expected to spend a bit more to make it work. As for OpenGL, DirectX just kills OpenGL for developing games.
Pretty much sums it all up.

It's one of the problems of open source sadly, the fact that anyone has access to the source code is both it's biggest strength and weakness in a way.
I must admit I do miss the games myself, but I've that XP install ticking over for when I want them.

[hoppipolla]

There's more than market share involved in driver development. Linux has an uncanny ability to break compatibility within versions. A patch to the kernel can break a driver. Hardware manufacturers would have to follow the umpteen popular distributions and develop suitable drivers for each. If they can get the product to as many markets as possible, they'll do that. If it costs more to monitor and constantly develop for many platforms, and the market share is too small to expect enough of a return, they'll just abandon it. I would say that by Ubuntu taking the largest chunk of the Linux market share it would be a good thing, but Ubuntu changes a lot during the release. Even bug and security fixes break compatibility. There's no form of regression handling as it stands, and that scares off a lot of driver developers.

As for games, tough luck. That's never going to happen without more Wine support. When you can release a game and hit 90% of the market in one fell swoop, what is the point of spending millions of dollars to, basically, recreate a game using another graphics layer entirely just to support 1% of the market. I'm not going to include Mac in here because, this is absolutely true, Apple doesn't make computers for the gaming market. That's not their goal, so the expectation is that the users are either going to buy a Windows loaded computer, or dual-boot Windows. Since Apple controls 91% of the post-$1000 market, there's lucrative users to be had, and they'll be expected to spend a bit more to make it work. As for OpenGL, DirectX just kills OpenGL for developing games. Not saying OpenGL is bad, because it isn't, but gaming just isn't its place. OpenGL is better for rendering, while DirectX is better for RIGs (Rich Interactive Games). This is why Modern Warfare 2 uses DirectX while 3dsMax and Maya use OpenGL. DirectX produces poorer quality, but is very efficient. OpenGL is somewhat slower, but it creates very high quality results. Direct3D was developed around the idea of games, while OpenGL was developed around the idea of being a hardware-assisted system for use in rendering. Direct3D expects the application to manage resources, lessening the work needed by the driver developer, while OpenGL expects the driver to manage it. Therefore, developing an application to render using OpenGL could be easier because the driver manages the resources, but could produce poorer performance depending on how it was implemented within the driver. Direct3D requires the developer to allocate hardware resources, which can be simpler for the driver implementations, and since not every application is created equally, can result in the most efficient use possible. Since I know the argument is going to come up about consoles, consoles use OpenGL because they don't have a DirectX equivalent like the 360 does, and it would be more expensive to develop their own. OpenGL developers exist, and they are cheaper than starting from scratch.

tl;dr Linux changes all the time, developers don't like it. Games won't be developed for Linux because it's expensive and takes longer.

That is such nonsense ._.

It's just not true, I don't know how you can say this stuff lol

1) Games developers quite clearly won't have to make games for all distros, just the 1 or 2 biggest ones.

2) The fact is that if Linux gains share games and hardware manufacturers will simply HAVE to support it, that or lose sales. So :P.

Sorry to be rude, it's just I think you fail to see the big picture. Something like this doesn't happen overnight, it snowballs.

Let's say Ubuntu reaches a stage mature enough to compete with Windows on every front (excluding things that can't be helped such as manufacturer driver support etc) by say... 11.04, or even possibly Lucid. Dell and IBM and other companies will start pre-installing it on their machines more than they are currently, more people will start downloading it and using it, which will lead to positive feedback and faster development. The word will get out more and the market share will increase and increase and the quality will increase and increase. By this point we are at about 5-10%.

Then gradually more and more of those users for whom gaming isn't important cross-over and then EVENTUALLY we get more attention from game developers as well, which means gradually increasing numbers of games and more attention and funding to OpenGL and games development on Linux. It is driven by CONSUMER DEMAND I'm afraid, and everything happens in small steps.

[Frak]

Pretty much sums it all up.

It's one of the problems of open source sadly, the fact that anyone has access to the source code is both it's biggest strength and weakness in a way.
I must admit I do miss the games myself, but I've that XP install ticking over for when I want them.
Absolutely. There's this fascination that the more developers you throw at a project, the better it becomes. This is never the case. Having a few core developers working on a project, with other people submitting bug reports and patches is fine. Throw hundreds or throusands of developers at a project, you'll end up code that is:

1. Buggy
2. Bloated
3. Inconsistent
4. Many times, speghetti

When people believe that they, themselves, can make a project better, you end up with a thousand different directions they want it to go. Nobody is going to work on an Open Source project full time, because, hey, we developers need to eat (see: Ardour (http://ardour.org/)). Food is good.

What breaks the camels back is when people fork projects. Hell hath no fury like a developer scorned. If you fork a project, a popular project, and your fork becomes popular, you will have succeeded at taking two groups of people that would be great to work together, and pitting them head to head in a virtual death match. It ends up as a Compiz vs. Beryl again, and frankly, that didn't end well at all. Compiz-Fusion, my opinion, is bloated. In making the situation worse, X.org, the project that CF heavilies depends against, once again in my opinion, is also bloated. Take two bloated projects, with one that basically does hacks to the other, and you have a gigantic plate of jello sitting in a microwave. It looks pretty, looks tasty, but eventually it will melt or come crashing down.

I have to hand it to pidgin. They do a good job at keeping everybody in line. In acting like they hate everybody, they actually maintain a very good project. The only other cycles I can think of that maintain good quality software are BSD and suckless. BSD is very democratic and slow to change, which isn't a bad thing per se. Suckless makes something that works. Once it works, they reform the code to be as least bloated as possible. Less code, less bugs, etc.

[Frak]

<snip>

I readily get it. Look, become a developer, and you'll see the big picture of it. If you start now, you should be there within your 20th birthday.

[hoppipolla]

I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive. You can have closed source applications and games running on open source operating systems. Indeed, I believe that much of the future will be like that, particularly for those wishing to use very specialist apps. No-one ever said that open source was "better" in ALL circumstances. Just some.


I readily get it. Look, become a developer, and you'll see the big picture of it. If you start now, you should be there within your 20th birthday.

I'm 24. And fine just push my points aside, because hey... I know I'm right! :D

[Zoot7]

Absolutely. There's this fascination that the more developers you throw at a project, the better it becomes. This is never the case. Having a few core developers working on a project, with other people submitting bug reports and patches is fine. Throw hundreds or throusands of developers at a project, you'll end up code that is:

1. Buggy
2. Bloated
3. Inconsistent
4. Many times, speghetti
Well there's nothing wrong with a massive number of developers, provided it they all play nice together which is normally not the case. You need structure, that's just not something you get with open source.
And due to the good ol' human nature technical projects with huge amounts of people don't generally turn out all rosy.

[Frak]

I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive. You can have closed source applications and games running on open source operating systems. Indeed, I believe that much of the future will be like that, particularly for those wishing to use very specialist apps. No-one ever said that open source was "better" in ALL circumstances. Just some.

With the exception of the "Linux geek" fad, and the ability to run on servers and embedded devices, Linux doesn't have anything to make people want to switch over.

Look, watch the video I post below, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

http://lunduke.com/?p=429

I'm not a troll. I don't come here to just be inflammatory to people just to stir the calm waters. I have real concerns for Linux, and much of the concerns are the same ones that are constantly ignored by the general developers and users. I would love to see Linux on store shelves as a competitor, well, sort of but that's another story entirely that I won't explain here. I used to be a fanatic, like you, who constantly stood behind Linux, and Ubuntu, in everything it did. Then I looked at the bigger picture and saw that not only was Ubuntu imperfect, it was too far away from accomplishing anything worthwhile. Canonical is doing something very daring by trying to make Ubuntu a desktop system, especially in the face of RedHat who stated that Linux was impossible to market on the desktop platform, and they'll never enter that market again. Canonical is focusing on all these technology pushes instead of focusing on what really matters: Commercial support, stable platform to develop drivers, and standardizing software distribution. They are not making a profit, and they're stuck in this illusion that doing these perpetual technology pushes will solve the problem.

[Frak]

Well there's nothing wrong with a massive number of developers, provided it they all play nice together which is normally not the case. You need structure, that's just not something you get with open source.
And due to the good ol' human nature technical projects with huge amounts of people don't generally turn out all rosy.
From working in commercial environments, there are problems with large numbers of developers. Something like Windows I can see where a large developer base comes in handy, especially when you're clearly dividing them into camps to work on the various components, but in Open Source, where people have access to whatever they want to work on, you're inviting the worst to enter. Software needs to take a finetoothed comb, dictator approach in open source software to make sure that all the code lives up to what the original developer had in mind.

[Zoot7]

Software needs to take a finetoothed comb, dictator approach in open source software to make sure that all the code lives up to what the original developer had in mind.
Precisely.

[hoppipolla]

With the exception of the "Linux geek" fad, and the ability to run on servers and embedded devices, Linux doesn't have anything to make people want to switch over.

Look, watch the video I post below, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

http://lunduke.com/?p=429

I'm not a troll. I don't come here to just be inflammatory to people just to stir the calm waters. I have real concerns for Linux, and much of the concerns are the same ones that are constantly ignored by the general developers and users. I would love to see Linux on store shelves as a competitor, well, sort of but that's another story entirely that I won't explain here. I used to be a fanatic, like you, who constantly stood behind Linux, and Ubuntu, in everything it did. Then I looked at the bigger picture and saw that not only was Ubuntu imperfect, it was too far away from accomplishing anything worthwhile. Canonical is doing something very daring by trying to make Ubuntu a desktop system, especially in the face of RedHat who stated that Linux was impossible to market on the desktop platform, and they'll never enter that market again. Canonical is focusing on all these technology pushes instead of focusing on what really matters: Commercial support, stable platform to develop drivers, and standardizing software distribution. They are not making a profit, and they're stuck in this illusion that doing these perpetual technology pushes will solve the problem.

But I also used to be negative about it like you ._.

I dunno man, we're not gonna agree. And if you can be constructive about it on here more instead of just bashing it and talking up Windows, maybe I will have more respect for your posts and not think you are a troll.

[Frak]

But I also used to be negative about it like you ._.

I dunno man, we're not gonna agree. And if you can be constructive about it on here more instead of just bashing it and talking up Windows, maybe I will have more respect for your posts and not think you are a troll.

Here we go again. This is you defending Ubuntu without taking into account the obvious faults that lie within it. This is why Ubuntu still remains a hobbyist OS.

[KiwiNZ]

Frak may not always say things in a candy coated way , but to a point what he says makes a lot of sense.

If Linux is going to get anywhere we have to let go of the excited zeal and get down to real graft . Linux including Ubuntu and Karmic illustrates this well has a lot of holes ,too many to allow it to come even close to becoming anything but a hobby OS at this point of time.

Does it have potential ? very much so , if it didnt I would not be here.

[Frak]

Does it have potential ? very much so , if it didnt I would not be here.

Absolutely. Canonical has had many chances to further push Ubuntu into the Limelight, and ignored it because they didn't feel ready. While we can't control these corporations, we can put in our good word to try and help it.

[ZankerH]

Let's see if I get this: the OP wants the developer community of a Free (as in freedom) operating system waste their time to that the Free system can run non-Free games that allow its users to waste their time while restricting their software freedom?

This is exactly the opposite of what GNU/Linux needs. More effort needs to be spent on the migration to fully Free software, not diluting ourselves further with non-Free stuff that's also entirely non-essential to computing.

[RiceMonster]

Let's see if I get this: the OP wants the developer community of a Free (as in freedom) operating system waste their time to that the Free system can run non-Free games that allow its users to waste their time while restricting their software freedom?

This is exactly the opposite of what GNU/Linux needs. More effort needs to be spent on the migration to fully Free software, not diluting ourselves further with non-Free stuff that's also entirely non-essential to computing.

If proprietary games were to be released for Linux, nobody would be forcing you to use them and "restrict your software freedom".

[ElSlunko]

Let's see if I get this: the OP wants the developer community of a Free (as in freedom) operating system waste their time to that the Free system can run non-Free games that allow its users to waste their time while restricting their software freedom?

This is exactly the opposite of what GNU/Linux needs. More effort needs to be spent on the migration to fully Free software, not diluting ourselves further with non-Free stuff that's also entirely non-essential to computing.

This may be true if computers had one purpose however there is much to the desktop computer including a multimedia experience. These have become boxes of getting things done and doing things between the things that need to get done. Sure you can have your opinion on what a PC should be used for, however there is a reality as far as what they ARE used for by most people.

[Frak]

This is exactly the opposite of what GNU/Linux needs. More effort needs to be spent on the migration to fully Free software, not diluting ourselves further with non-Free stuff that's also entirely non-essential to computing.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. More effort needs to be spent making a stable base that developers can work off of. Choose a stable branch of X and leave it. Ubuntu is the most popular distribution, and as long as updates are being pushed, people will support Ubuntu. To reach the popularity they want, they need to be a commercially viable solution. That involves having to be a very stable platform. If I can develop a driver today, and see that it still works 4 years down the road with little to no modification, I have found a platform that is viable to my business because it takes less time and capital to maintain it. I can expand my audience.

Even then, it will take a tremendous effort to convince commercial developers to come over.

I'll dab into Free software for a moment. Totally free software is a lot like Communism that it can work, but it requires all other software to also be totally free software. In this way you can't count Firefox because firefox isn't fully Free software. Total Communism works, but it requires all other nations to be totally communist as well. You can't count China because they aren't fully communist. They contain aspects of other governments.

[ElSlunko]

If proprietary games were to be released for Linux, nobody would be forcing you to use them and "restrict your software freedom". So in what way would this be of any hindrance towards open source projects?

The hindrance would be that there would be less support for open source games. You can push either Open source games or Closed source games and if you opened up closed sourced software on an open source platform, some projects may lose their following.

However! I think in terms of the multimedia experience (gaming included) there best way is closed source. Simply because games are created as an experience for a user and should follow a strict guideline created by a small amount of people to keep the project efficient & coherent. That's why a book written by 30 different people wouldn't be a very good book or a movie directed by 5 directors wouldn't be a very good movie.

It's just in the nature of the beast of multimedia and entertainment. It's a different animal than other "computing" things one might get into on a daily basis.

[Zoot7]

Does it have potential ? very much so , if it didnt I would not be here.
Linux has huge potential, Linux (as a kernel) is a truly fantastic platform.
Just to give an example (I gave this already), if I were to go about it I could actually get Linux (minus X) up and running on the Texas Instrument's DSP I'm working with at the moment. That chip is a radically different architecture to the typical x86 architecture, about as different as you can get.
Windows completely falls down here, being tied to the rather bloated x86 architecture.


Canonical has had many chances to further push Ubuntu into the Limelight, and ignored it because they didn't feel ready.
Vista was one such opportunity they missed.

[Frak]

The hindrance would be that there would be less support for open source games. You can push either Open source games or Closed source games and if you opened up closed sourced software on an open source platform, some projects may lose their following.

Well, that comes down to what the market demands. If MarketA wants X, and open source can't provide X, then they are going to go with commercial alternative X. People don't have sympathy for Open Source. Either it works for them, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you can't argue morality to change their mind.

[23dornot23d]

If what I read earlier is correct .... it was said that a lot of Games will run



Instead of venting ....



Use Stumbleupon as a bookmarking system ......

link to every solution you can find ......... for each game ...... that you think is needed



Then ...... put a link on here to your Stumbleupon Page .......

Which will get the job half done ......

then see how many people view it ..........




This will give some idea of the number interested in gaming ......




I for one am too old to bother with them ...... but when I was younger

yes they seemed to be a priority .....

but they are usually ..... just something to do to get rid of boredom .....



I started graphic designing ..... once I got away from windows .....

instead of playing games ..........

Its a different environment in Linux ..... and I think it promotes

better use of peoples time ........

[ElSlunko]

Well, that comes down to what the market demands. If MarketA wants X, and open source can't provide X, then they are going to go with commercial alternative X. People don't have sympathy for Open Source. Either it works for them, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you can't argue morality to change their mind.

That's kind of what I said. The development market demands a stable platform and cutting edge platform to create games on since things have become visually demanding by consumers.

On a side note, my girlfriend is pretty pissed because she minimized fallout 3 and it won't pop back up from the taskbar. She's on windows 7. Going to have to end task! Oh boy is my day going to be fun.

[Frak]

Linux has huge potential, Linux (as a kernel) is a truly fantastic platform.
Just to give an example (I gave this already), if I were to go about it I could actually get Linux (minus X) up and running on the Texas Instrument's DSP I'm working with at the moment. That chip is a radically different architecture to the typical x86 architecture, about as different as you can get.
Windows completely falls down here, being tied to the rather bloated x86 architecture.

This comes down to "if it ain't broke don't fix it". They aren't going to change platforms just because they think it's superior, they are going to use the one that garners a larger profit. It would cost a lot of money to port NT to other chips, and it isn't within the best interests of Microsoft to do that just yet.



Vista was one such opportunity they missed.

Yes, to a degree. Microsoft was keen to quickly put more support towards XP and show their devotion to the platform, in fact they increased the extended support date on XP around this time to something like 2014. They were very sure to show the public that they were active in ensuring support for their platforms. So, when Microsoft releases an OS, don't advertise Ubuntu. It's an uphill battle on those terms. It would be a matter of "Does Ubuntu have X capability that new OS from Microsoft has". Whether it's better or not, people will choose Microsoft.

The time that I was referring to was during the middle times when people are settling, not many announcements are being made. People are more vulnerable. I hate to say bored, but that's about the feeling that people have at the time. It becomes "just their computer". And while you can't directly market your project at that time, you can put out information that can further support your case. After a few of these information bombs, you finally market your product.

@ElSlunko
I understood what you said, I just elaborated on it a bit more.

[hoppipolla]

Here we go again. This is you defending Ubuntu without taking into account the obvious faults that lie within it. This is why Ubuntu still remains a hobbyist OS.

hey no you are putting words in my mouth, in an attempt to offset my point. I never said Ubuntu was perfect. I said I wish you would approach it in a constructive way, and spend less time talking up Microsoft and bashing Ubuntu. As it stands, I do believe you are at least partly trolling, sorry duuuude :(

[hoppipolla]

If proprietary games were to be released for Linux, nobody would be forcing you to use them and "restrict your software freedom".

exactly :)

I used to be hooked on some proprietary games for Linux - they kicked ***! :)


PS If anyone wants some good Linux gaming I would first recommend Vendetta Online, followed by Postal 2 and.. Urban Terror :)

Dofus is also awesome but I couldn't get it to work with flash on Lin recently :(

[Zoot7]

This comes down to "if it ain't broke don't fix it". They aren't going to change platforms just because they think it's superior, they are going to use the one that garners a larger profit. It would cost a lot of money to port NT to other chips, and it isn't within the best interests of Microsoft to do that just yet.
You could argue x86 is really starting to approach it's limit at the moment but to move something as complex as a state of the art CPU on a state of the art process with a rather large die to a totally different architecture is going to cost huge amounts of money.
ARM is the only one that shows promise but it's nowhere near competing with the likes of the Core 2 or the Phenom II at the moment. (Maybe the Atom, but that's a different story).
So Intel or AMD are pretty rosy on the architecture they use at the moment, and it suits Microsoft fine with Windows.

So yes, it's a classic example of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", regardless of which kernel is the better.

[Zoot7]

Also, just to add for anyone interested, here's an interview with an nVidia linux developer who talks about Linux support. Among the things that he mentions is the fragmentation of Linux on the desktop at the moment and the issues that arise supporting Linux as a result.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia_qa_linux&num=1

[Frak]

Also, just to add for anyone interested, here's an interview with an nVidia linux developer who talks about Linux support. Among the things that he mentions is the fragmentation of Linux on the desktop at the moment and the issues that arise supporting Linux as a result.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=nvidia_qa_linux&num=1
Thanks for sharing that.

[vexorian]

Absolutely. Canonical has had many chances to further push Ubuntu into the Limelight, and ignored it because they didn't feel ready. While we can't control these corporations, we can put in our good word to try and help it.
I do not think Canonical is not playing all right.

people seem to think that Linux in the desktop is an instant thing to happen, truth is that it is a slow march. If you ask me, things are progressing, slowly, but they are. And there really wouldn't be any other way. People thinking that all it will take is taking advantage of just one single event like Vista's release are dellusional.

For what I know, win7 is still as disgusting as vista, they never removed the DRM or the WGA or the anti-features. So in that regards, the opportunity is not gone.


Also, just to add for anyone interested, here's an interview with an nVidia linux developer who talks about Linux support. Among the things that he mentions is the fragmentation of Linux on the desktop at the moment and the issues that arise supporting Linux as a result. ... and he is bullshitting.

[Frak]

For what I know, win7 is still as disgusting as vista, they never removed the DRM or the WGA or the anti-features. So in that regards, the opportunity is not gone.

Here's where being a Linux geek differs from being a casual user. Users don't care about that. They care about their iPod, not that Microsoft put activators in the OS itself. That argument is bunk when used as a pro. Microsoft is compatible with more media players is a better argument to use Windows than Linux doesn't have DRM to use Linux.


... and he is bullshitting.

Absolutely. I know for a fact that Nvidia developers hate the way the Linux kernel keeps changing. The way they designed their driver wasn't made from careful thinking, it was made from necessity to work with the constantly changing API offered by the kernel, among other things.

[hoppipolla]

Absolutely. I know for a fact that Nvidia developers hate the way the Linux kernel keeps changing. The way they designed their driver wasn't made from careful thinking, it was made from necessity to work with the constantly changing API offered by the kernel, among other things.

But why not take up these criticisms with the kernel developers, why talk about it here?

Personally I think these problems will get ironed out as open source becomes more popular.

[Pogeymanz]

I'll dab into Free software for a moment. Totally free software is a lot like Communism that it can work, but it requires all other software to also be totally free software. In this way you can't count Firefox because firefox isn't fully Free software. Total Communism works, but it requires all other nations to be totally communist as well. You can't count China because they aren't fully communist. They contain aspects of other governments.

I'll have to disagree on several points. Communism forces you to contribute. Free software does not. You are perfectly allowed to mooch off of others, so long as you don't try to steal it from the community by closing it and limiting someone else's freedom.

Firefox is free software. They only ask that you don't change it and distribute it under the name Firefox, so that their name is not hurt by someone distributing a broken piece of crap and calling it the official Firefox.

And total communism can work in a capitalist world. Imagine if you and a few friends got together, lived in one area and bought one ladder per every five of you, one lawn-mower, etc and shared it. All of a sudden, each of the people in your commune is better off financially than the capitalist world around you where everyone bought their own lawn-mower even though you only need it once every week or so.

Also, I think that Linux having proprietary software support will indeed bring more people to it as an alternative. Yet, I often feel like I don't really care if more people use it, if that's what they're going for. I don't agree with the Windows EULA, nor with Apple or Microsoft in general. I prefer open software, but understand that closed software is a good model too. I just want open standards and an operating system that I can own, so that I am not at the mercy of a company every time I boot up.

[Frak]

Firefox is free software. They only ask that you don't change it and distribute it under the name Firefox, so that their name is not hurt by someone distributing a broken piece of crap and calling it the official Firefox.

Talkback is proprietary, and you're not allowed to distribute it freely. Therefore, it does qualify as open source software, but does not qualify as free software.

[Pogeymanz]

Talkback is proprietary, and you're not allowed to distribute it freely. Therefore, it does qualify as open source software, but does not qualify as free software.

I stand corrected.

[phrostbyte]

Well, that comes down to what the market demands. If MarketA wants X, and open source can't provide X, then they are going to go with commercial alternative X. People don't have sympathy for Open Source. Either it works for them, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, you can't argue morality to change their mind.

I strongly disagree with you on this.

[phrostbyte]

Before this thread goes way off course anymore, take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium3D).

"Gallium3D provides a unified API exposing standard hardware functions such as shader units found on modern hardware. Thus, 3D APIs such as OpenGL 1.x/2.x, OpenGL 3.x, OpenVG, GPGPU infrastructure or even Direct3D (as found in the Wine compatibility layer) will need only a single back-end, called state tracker, targeting Gallium3D API."

Gallium3D will decouple OpenGL from the Linux graphics stack, such graphics API like Direct3D (or even better ones, like Ogre3D) could become first class APIs.

And this isn't some kind of vaporware. There is Gallium3D based drivers already out there.

[phrostbyte]

I stand corrected.

No you don't. Mozilla Firefox does not use Talkback anymore.

[Frak]

I strongly disagree with you on this.

Sucks, because that's the way the world works. You could say "stop pollution or you'll die within a week". They'll pollute all week.


No you don't. Mozilla Firefox does not use Talkback anymore.

I see they use Breakpad now, sorry about the confusion.

[Shpongle]

try playonlinux if you wanna decent front end for wine it works for a lot of games and apps , as for learning c , plenty of places to start buy a book of just use the net and practice ,ask questions , learn and most importantly have fun

peace. . .

[phrostbyte]

Sucks, because that's the way the world works. You could say "stop pollution or you'll die within a week". They'll pollute all week.

You don't need only rely on persuasion to spread a good idea (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html). Sometimes all you need is a strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft).

The Roman Empire managed to 'civilize' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) the majority of Europe. But they didn't invent what they preached. We have our own empires in the form of some pretty powerful friends.

We are still in the stone age of computing. I am confident the world of software will be very different in time, and that all software will be free.

[Icehuck]

We are still in the stone age of computing. I am confident the world of software will be very different in time, and that all software will be free.

When there is money to be made there is no way that all software will be free.

[hoppipolla]

We are still in the stone age of computing. I am confident the world of software will be very different in time, and that all software will be free.

Yeah I don't know, I doubt if ALL software will be free, as companies do seem to have this ability to drive at least specialist projects very fast through funding. Oh well, we'll have to see what happens won't we? :)

Also of course, the way software is actually coded and developed will probably change dramatically... it really is very hard to predict this kind of stuff in the long term :)

[Shibblet]

Well, obviously Microsoft wouldn't do it, but an SDK (Software Development Kit) might make porting popular games to Ubuntu a lot easier.

[michaeldt]

OpenGL has been around as long as Direct3D. However, Microsoft have managed to get nearly every game developer to use D3D over the years. Probably using the same methods they used to try kill every other competitor they've ever had.

Whatever problems exist, we have MS to thank for getting everyone to develop for a single platform rather than using something which is cross-platform. Again, this helps MS maintain their hold on the desktop market.

Like it or not, developers will go where the money is. If Linux had 25% market share, you can bet that more and more games would appear for Linux. Likewise, more commercial involvement in Linux would help to develop better standardisation for pretty much everything people moan about.

So the way to get games for Linux, isn't to use Wine or to beg people to develop for Linux. What needs to happen is that the Linux userbase gains enough market share to make Linux an attractive platform to develop for.

When such a day happens, you can bet your last pay check we'll be moving away from single platform technologies like D3D and towards industry funded multi-platform ones.

And please, stop Bashing Canonical as if they have this duty to you. Canonical fund Ubuntu so that they have a stable platform that they know intimately for which they can sell support. It's easy to say Canonical should have done this or that. Particularly since it's their cash not yours. But if you think there's something they should have done but haven't, feel free to offer your own money and time to them so that it can be done. Otherwise, shut up.

[starcannon]

OpenGL has been around as long as Direct3D. However, Microsoft have managed to get nearly every game developer to use D3D over the years. Probably using the same methods they used to try kill every other competitor they've ever had.

Whatever problems exist, we have MS to thank for getting everyone to develop for a single platform rather than using something which is cross-platform. Again, this helps MS maintain their hold on the desktop market.

Like it or not, developers will go where the money is. If Linux had 25% market share, you can bet that more and more games would appear for Linux. Likewise, more commercial involvement in Linux would help to develop better standardisation for pretty much everything people moan about.

So the way to get games for Linux, isn't to use Wine or to beg people to develop for Linux. What needs to happen is that the Linux userbase gains enough market share to make Linux an attractive platform to develop for.

When such a day happens, you can bet your last pay check we'll be moving away from single platform technologies like D3D and towards industry funded multi-platform ones.

And please, stop Bashing Canonical as if they have this duty to you. Canonical fund Ubuntu so that they have a stable platform that they know intimately for which they can sell support. It's easy to say Canonical should have done this or that. Particularly since it's their cash not yours. But if you think there's something they should have done but haven't, feel free to offer your own money and time to them so that it can be done. Otherwise, shut up.
A+++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly!

[hoppipolla]

OpenGL has been around as long as Direct3D. However, Microsoft have managed to get nearly every game developer to use D3D over the years. Probably using the same methods they used to try kill every other competitor they've ever had.

Whatever problems exist, we have MS to thank for getting everyone to develop for a single platform rather than using something which is cross-platform. Again, this helps MS maintain their hold on the desktop market.

Like it or not, developers will go where the money is. If Linux had 25% market share, you can bet that more and more games would appear for Linux. Likewise, more commercial involvement in Linux would help to develop better standardisation for pretty much everything people moan about.

So the way to get games for Linux, isn't to use Wine or to beg people to develop for Linux. What needs to happen is that the Linux userbase gains enough market share to make Linux an attractive platform to develop for.

When such a day happens, you can bet your last pay check we'll be moving away from single platform technologies like D3D and towards industry funded multi-platform ones.

And please, stop Bashing Canonical as if they have this duty to you. Canonical fund Ubuntu so that they have a stable platform that they know intimately for which they can sell support. It's easy to say Canonical should have done this or that. Particularly since it's their cash not yours. But if you think there's something they should have done but haven't, feel free to offer your own money and time to them so that it can be done. Otherwise, shut up.

lol I mostly agree with all of this, but I think user feedback and suggestions are always good, as long as it's constructive and not bashing :)

[RiceMonster]

People like to say "yeah but if Linux had x amount of market share...". That might be so, but it's not that simple. You have to ask the question why Linux does not have that amount of amount of market share. Frak already discussed some of the issues that can make it unattractive to developers, and I think it's been discussed to death here why people don't adopt Linux, so I'm not going to bother getting into that.

Honestly, if you're hoping for a certain market share for Linux on the desktop, you're going to be hoping for a heck of a long time. You're better off just forgetting about it, and paying attention to the new technologies that are coming along for Linux and how those can improve what we have now.

[hoppipolla]

People like to say "yeah but if Linux had x amount of market share...". That might be so, but it's not that simple. You have to ask the question why Linux does not have that amount of amount of market share. Frak already discussed some of the issues that can make it unattractive to developers, and I think it's been discussed to death here why people don't adopt Linux, so I'm not going to bother getting into that.

Honestly, if you're hoping for a certain market share for Linux on the desktop, you're going to be hoping for a heck of a long time. You're better off just forgetting about it, and paying attention to the new technologies that are coming along for Linux and how those can improve what we have now.

I completely disagree ._.

I think Linux will increase in market share once it hits that "tipping point" where it provides a product which is tempting enough to sway people. I think we are approaching it fast :)

EDIT -- But, these are just opinions and predictions... we'll have to wait and see! :)

[mivo]

Like it or not, developers will go where the money is. If Linux had 25% market share, you can bet that more and more games would appear for Linux.

More and more publishers stop funding games for the PC, because they are not as lucrative as console games. PC games require more support and sell, in comparison, worse. There are exceptions to this rule where some, few PC titles sell millions of copies, but the PC gaming market as a whole is less attractive than the console market. Much less casual piracy, too.

Linux hovers around the 1% market share for desktops, so we are nowhere near 25%. Even if we were, I do not believe that we would suddenly see a ton of commercial games (many here state they don't want to pay for software, there are still tons of distros that all do some things differently, Xorg is completely unpredictable between releases, audio is a mess on Linux, etc.).

But this is hypothetical anyway. Without games, 25% aren't realistic (Linux, on the desktop, appeals strongly to geek-types and adventurous younger people -- and both tend to also enjoy video games) in the next ten or fifteen years. I'd be surprised if we saw 5% within the next ten years. Apple has better chances to increase their market share -- they are more likely to soak up users who want a change from Windows.

I don't necessarily see why one OS has to be perfect for everything, though. I don't mind playing video games on my Windows box. If I grew tired of PC gaming, I'd pick up a home console. Between light gaming on the PC, DS and PSP, and having other hobbies, a relationship and, oh, right, a job, I doubt I'll feel the need to take that route any time soon, though. :)

[hoppipolla]

We're not really trying to get gamers though... not primarily. We are trying to get casual computer users.

[mivo]

Casual computer users play games, too. They may not buy three games a month, but they buy something every few months.

I don't feel Linux on the desktop is ready for the vast majority of casual users. That will take a few more years, and I really don't feel it has become "more ready" in the past two years. But that is for another discussion. :)

[forrestcupp]

@ the OP, There has been a lot of work from the community that has gone into getting games to work in Linux. The devs for Wine, Cedega, the native Loki installers, and many others have worked their hind ends off trying to do what you say nobody is doing. Even if you don't agree with Wine, it is an example of people who love Linux and want to make it so that people don't have to use Windows.

It's not the Linux community's fault; it's the game studios' fault. And when the game studio developers are working their butts off to feed their kids and pay their bills, we can't really expect them to work countless hours on implementations that are not going to pay them. That's like asking you to work at your job for a couple of weeks without a paycheck.


People like to say "yeah but if Linux had x amount of market share...". That might be so, but it's not that simple. You have to ask the question why Linux does not have that amount of amount of market share.We need more games to attract users for a greater market share, but we can't get more games until we have a greater market share ... Go figure.


More and more publishers stop funding games for the PC, because they are not as lucrative as console games. PC games require more support and sell, in comparison, worse.
This is the big problem. The market for PC games is rapidly going down hill, and that is for Windows based computers. If the enthusiasm for making quality games for Windows is going down, how in the world could we expect them to be enthusiastic about putting effort into quality Linux games?

I have always been an anti-console PC gamer from the days of Commodore 64 vs. Nintendo. I hate to admit it, but when I bought a Wii, my desire to play quality games on my computer went down drastically.

[phrostbyte]

We need more games to attract users for a greater market share, but we can't get more games until we have a greater market share ... Go figure.

Chicken, meet egg. ](*,)



This is the big problem. The market for PC games is rapidly going down hill, and that is for Windows based computers. If the enthusiasm for making quality games for Windows is going down, how in the world could we expect them to be enthusiastic about putting effort into quality Linux games?

The same reason Windows games are going down in quality and quantity is why high budget Linux games are few and far between. Lack of sales/interest. Console games sell better, and it could be because of piracy being so easy on a PC as well.

[hoppipolla]

We need more games to attract users for a greater market share, but we can't get more games until we have a greater market share ... Go figure.

No, we need more games to attract gamers :)


The same reason Windows games are going down in quality and quantity is why high budget Linux games are few and far between. Lack of sales/interest. Console games sell better, and it could be because of piracy being so easy on a PC as well.

totally :)

I prefer the 360 to pc gaming myself! :)

[ElSlunko]

No, we need more games to attract gamers :)



totally :)

I prefer the 360 to pc gaming myself! :)

And we need more gamers to attract more games!

[hoppipolla]

And we need more gamers to attract more games!

no we just need a greater market share to attract more games!! lol

man this is a WEIRD kind of debate! xD

[phrostbyte]

no we just need a greater market share to attract more games!! lol

man this is a WEIRD kind of debate! xD

I think it's ultimately pointless though. Linux will get games either way when Wine is capable of perfectly implementing DirectX - and Gallium3D will enhance this.

In a way to fight Microsoft, you got to think like Microsoft. That means embrace-extend-extinguish. :)

[hoppipolla]

also my friend just reminded me... cloud gaming is just around the corner! That may level the playing field nicely for the future! :)

[Zoot7]

also my friend just reminded me... cloud gaming is just around the corner! That may level the playing field nicely for the future! :)
I remember seeing a demo of a new protocol, whereby a pretty basic laptop (may have been a netbook) was playing GTA4 which was entirely rendered on a different machine connected via ethernet.
Can't find the link at the moment though.

It's possible, don't know how much it'll catch on though.

[michaeldt]

also my friend just reminded me... cloud gaming is just around the corner! That may level the playing field nicely for the future! :)

Indeed. And as for consoles, they are really just PCs. So given a unified gaming platform (preferably linux based), we might one day see games which can run on anything which supports that common platform. Ok it's a dream but still, we have to aim for something.

[Mornedhel]

I remember seeing a demo of a new protocol, whereby a pretty basic laptop (may have been a netbook) was playing GTA4 which was entirely rendered on a different machine connected via ethernet.
Can't find the link at the moment though.

That kind of thing is still only in demo... What you saw was probably a single client being connected to a server spending 100% of its CPU rendering for that one client. To provide a normal gaming experience, you need the computing power of a normal gaming PC to do the rendering for each client. Anyone providing cloud computing gaming would need to maintain a huge farm of computing power for its userbase. Think Google-sized rendering farm, just for the Call of Duty players.

(Not to mention latency to and from the client. It works for some, but not all kinds of games.)

This thread is going in an interesting direction. So far we have the chicken-and-egg perspective, which I happen to agree with -- no users because no commercial interest because no users. Not sure I *want* more market share, though. I don't subscribe to bug #1, but I can understand why people do.

At this point, I'd like to remind everyone that there are high-profile games on Linux. My favorite example used to be Unreal Tournament 2004, which had a little Tux on the box, and a Loki installer in the official CD, making it very easy to install the game on Linux (and actually gave a better experience on Linux, since you didn't need the CD to play, whereas on Windows it was required for anti-piracy purposes).

Unfortunately, at least in Karmic, it is no longer possible to (easily) install UT2k4, as some dependencies are no longer available.

But, yeah, the game was played, and while it probably didn't sway any Windows gamer to Linux, for Linux gamers it was a huge PR bonus for Epic Games, and for Loki. (It was a full port to OpenGL. No small deal. For 64b, too!)

[mivo]

At this point, I'd like to remind everyone that there are high-profile games on Linux. My favorite example used to be Unreal Tournament 2004, which had a little Tux on the box, and a Loki installer in the official CD

Those high-profile games all came out years ago, though. I had pre-ordered Unreal Tournament 3 because the Linux client had been announced. Now it is about two years later and there is still no UT3 for Linux. I am unlikely to ever buy another Epic game.

Some of the other games with native Linux clients, like NWN and Quake Wars, did not come with a Linux client inside the box. It was just the normal Windows retail version and you had to download the Linux client. It's not the extra effort that it took, but the fact that this way of distribution did nothing for Linux in terms of "advertisement" or retail awareness (not even Windows gamers could tell that the game they bought would also work in Linux).

The developers/publishers saw the download numbers, sure, but I still felt like a second class gamer. (I stopped gaming in Linux and when I bought a new video card, it went into my Windows desktop.)

[Zoot7]

That kind of thing is still only in demo... What you saw was probably a single client being connected to a server spending 100% of its CPU rendering for that one client. To provide a normal gaming experience, you need the computing power of a normal gaming PC to do the rendering for each client. Anyone providing cloud computing gaming would need to maintain a huge farm of computing power for its userbase. Think Google-sized rendering farm, just for the Call of Duty players.

(Not to mention latency to and from the client. It works for some, but not all kinds of games.)
No I think the rendering was done a GPU. Agreed about the latency though.

[phrostbyte]

Actually it's a reason they don't like to make external video cards.

[hoppipolla]

To be honest I never game in Linux at the moment, it does give me a nightmare. As much as I adore Ubuntu and KDE, I game in Windows and on my 360 :)

....... for now :)

[ExSuSEusr]

I read most of the posts, but I also skipped a few and scanned a few others - so if this point has already been made, sorry in advance.

Gaining market share doesn't have to happen simply by commercial companies porting the products over to Linux variations. At this point in time I don't think it would help much. When *I* talk to a pure Windows user and try to describe Ubuntu, Debian, or anyother distro I typically get the same response "oh but isn't it is a total PITA to use?" or the other infamous "don't you have to be a programmer to use that?" or better still "I can't do with it what I can with Windows..." (which of the three is the most true statement).

People have stated that Linux needs to gain market share before "commercial" softare companies will start taking it serious - and I agree with this. But, at this juncture it's up to "Linux" to push itself into the mainstream. If "we" want to attract more people to try and eventually convert over then "we" need a more fluid platform with exponentially more compatability that we currently have.

I've said in other posts... Windows users don't give a rat's *** about "open source" or "freedom of choice" or any other the other slogan'esque catch phrases we so proudly interject into our nerdly conversations. What they DO care about is whether or not their iPod's will connect when they plug it into their PC's USB port. What they DO care about is whether or not they can install and run their favorite made for Windows programs (like the Office Suite) without having to spend a week tweeking, configuring and compiling everything under the sun.

Right now? At this point in time it doesn't work like that.

The argument can be made that Linux offers a vast variety of free programs that are 'just as good' as their over the counter 'adversaries.' While it is true they are indeed free - you can't with straight face claim they are half as good in quality. Let's be real... Photoshop crushes Gimp in practically every regard. Open Office isn't a match for Office 2007 - not even close. Do they work? Sure. But why settle? Why should I settle for the limitations of Open Office when I can spend $50 for a legit copy of Office 2007 (through my employer) and wield 10x the power? Why should I settle for Gimp when for a couple of hundred bucks I can get a legit copy of Photoshop that will last for a few years, easily?

The only value the average user sees in Linux is the fact it is essentially virus/malware free, stable and costs nothing to obtain. Other than that they see no point in giving up something they know works "right out of the box."

I know a few Linux users who don't want it becoming mainstream. They like being an "outsider" of sorts - they wear Linux' obscurity as a badge of honor almost. People like that do more harm than good in the grand scheme.

I think part of the problem is with the vary nature of open source. It's double edged sword. While it does allow for the tapping of what is essentially a global think tank, it also subjected to the old saying "too many cooks in the kitchen." Secondly, people develop programs for the love of developing programs - they aren't (most of the time) being paid to do it. Again this is a double edged sword. When you are being paid to do a job you'll tend to stay focused and do a better job than if you treated it like a spare-time hobby for the sense of accomplishment, no? On the other hand, being paid essentially ties your hands and restricts your creativity to an extent.

Perhaps Linux is moving too fast in some areas and not fast enough in others. Do we really need new releases every six months? Isn't that a bit extreme?

If we're going to attract more people we need more compatability, period. WINE, Cedega are great, but until a Windows user can really install most of what they need without the headache of configuring everything under the sun, or spending a week waiting for a message board post to be answered with a half-answer lacking any in depth "how to" explination - they'll continue to avoid it like the plague and stick with they are most comfortable with. And as long as that happens we'll not get the "corporate support" we need.

That's my take, hate it, leave it, love it, whatever - it's just my opinion.

[forrestcupp]

I think it's ultimately pointless though. Linux will get games either way when Wine is capable of perfectly implementing DirectX - and Gallium3D will enhance this.Gallium3D is amazing, but I don't see how it will help with our dilemma of commercial games not working in Linux. Will it somehow make it easier for Wine to come up with a better DX implementation?


I remember seeing a demo of a new protocol, whereby a pretty basic laptop (may have been a netbook) was playing GTA4 which was entirely rendered on a different machine connected via ethernet.
Can't find the link at the moment though.

It's possible, don't know how much it'll catch on though.
Lol. So it's ok to run games in Windows as long as it's being done on another computer? :)

Interesting concept. I don't see how it could really work well under current infrastructure. I can't even view a large avi file well from my home wireless network. I have to convert them to mpg's for them to not be choppy. I guess games content can be compressed and still be quality.

[Zoot7]

The argument can be made that Linux offers a vast variety of free programs that are 'just as good' as their over the counter 'adversaries.' While it is true they are indeed free - you can't with straight face claim they are half as good in quality. Let's be real... Photoshop crushes Gimp in practically every regard. Open Office isn't a match for Office 2007 - not even close. Do they work? Sure. But why settle? Why should I settle for the limitations of Open Office when I can spend $50 for a legit copy of Office 2007 (through my employer) and wield 10x the power? Why should I settle for Gimp when for a couple of hundred bucks I can get a legit copy of Photoshop that will last for a few years, easily?
Gotta agree there.
However I think it's only true if you want to use those programs to their full capability. For instance I like Openoffice, it's a pretty good drop in replacement for MS Word provided you can stay away from the .doc format. I've found I'm well able to put together a complex technical report using it. I really don't need more than that, so it does me fine there.
Gimp also does me fine, however I neither know how to use the advanced features of photoshop nor have I any reason to learn how.
The best example in my case is my home recording package Steinberg Nuendo. There's some open source alternatives out there such as LMMS (Linux Multimedia Studio), which seems like a nice app, but I've no idea whether or not I can have my audio or midi interfaces play nice with it, and even if I could it just doesn't have any of the advanced features I need for what I ask for.


If we're going to attract more people we need more compatability, period. WINE, Cedega are great, but until a Windows user can really install most of what they need without the headache of configuring everything under the sun, or spending a week waiting for a message board post to be answered with a half-answer lacking any in depth "how to" explanation - they'll continue to avoid it like the plague and stick with they are most comfortable with. And as long as that happens we'll not get the "corporate support" we need.

That's my take, hate it, leave it, love it, whatever - it's just my opinion.
Yup it's a catch 22 situation and like it or not, Linux on the desktop isn't really going anywhere thanks to the lack of application support.

For instance take what I can accomplish with my XP install on my laptop or Desktop.

Record/Mix/Edit to my full needs.
Model Complex Engineering problems using comprehensive packages
Use Other Packages to Control systems in Real Time
Program Hardware

Thats just a small list specific to my computing needs, but there's a huge amount more anyone could do.

Linux (Ubuntu or whatever) falls down here, because there's just nothing to even remotely come close to those kind of pieces of software when it comes to open source.

Granted I do love the freedom Linux gives you (the ability to customize as you please), but for mycomputing needs it's not doing to address them anytime soon. So I'm bounded to Windows, regardless of whether I like it or not.


I can't even view a large avi file well from my home wireless network. I have to convert them to mpg's for them to not be choppy. I guess games content can be compressed and still be quality.
Is it a G (54Mbps) network?
A friend of mine has a similar setup, with a home server connected wirelessly, and he's able to view 720p (I think over it). Granted his is a Wireless N network.

[phrostbyte]

Gallium3D is amazing, but I don't see how it will help with our dilemma of commercial games not working in Linux. Will it somehow make it easier for Wine to come up with a better DX implementation?

Well it would allow for a native implementation of Direct3D because it decouples OpenGL from the video drivers which implement it. Right now it's Direct3D -> OpenGL -> Video driver, with Gallium3D it could be Direct3D -> Abstract video driver -> Specific video driver..

Please note I am not sure in practice if this will improve performance or rendering correctness.

[vexorian]

But why settle? Why should I settle for the limitations of Open Office when I can spend $50 for a legit copy of Office 2007 (through my employer) and wield 10x the power? Why should I settle for Gimp when for a couple of hundred bucks I can get a legit copy of Photoshop that will last for a few years, easily?

I'd like to live in that fairy tale world of yours in which wasting " a couple hundred bucks" on features you are not going to use is reasonable.

I am a home user, and the gimp is completely fine for me. If I had hundreds of dollars to spare they would go into something more useful than having TEH BEST PICTURE SOFTWARZ . Some pro artists out there actually use the gimp.

I also prefer open office to latest MSOffice versions that only run in windows, cannot open all the standard formats correctly and are full of so much blue interface that they look like a bathroom not to mention the annoying ribbons. No thanks.

Regardless, those things happen to be proprietary software, which is harmful to users. So even if they were free they would be undesirable to me.


I've said in other posts... Windows users don't give a rat's *** about "open source" or "freedom of choice" or any other the other slogan'esque catch phrases we so proudly interject into our nerdly conversations. **** them then. If a user doesn't care he can go screw himself and continue using windows. Why should we care about people that are obviously not the intended market? Those users are idiots that will not ever be able to switch to anything anyway, so why bother even trying to appeal to them? You go and reduce it to 'nerdy' stuff, it isn't . It is about users' freedom and having a healthy market with competition. If you do not want it go ahead and continue with your windows usage, I don't care, I'll still use ubuntu as - to me- it is the better choice.






What they DO care about is whether or not their iPod's will connect when they plug it into their PC's USB port. What they DO care about is whether or not they can install and run their favorite made for Windows programs (like the Office Suite) without having to spend a week tweeking, configuring and compiling everything under the sun. Exactly my point, these users are idiots, there is no reason to bother about them.




I think part of the problem is with the vary nature of open source. It's double edged sword. While it does allow for the tapping of what is essentially a global think tank, it also subjected to the old saying "too many cooks in the kitchen." ********.


Secondly, people develop programs for the love of developing programs - they aren't (most of the time) being paid to do it ******** again. Some developers do get paid to make 'open source'. You have shown to have no knowledge whatsoever of the reality, please refrain from posting again.


I know a few Linux users who don't want it becoming mainstream. They like being an "outsider" of sorts - they wear Linux' obscurity as a badge of honor almost. People like that do more harm than good in the grand scheme.
Linux is already mainstream. All sort of companies distribute many different Linux-based stuff to users. Ubuntu is all but "obscure" in regards to brand recognition and stuff.

If you are talking about reaching more marketshare. I'd sure like it to have more market share, like 10% or 25% , enough to make the whole arena more fairly competitive. It is not Linux's fault at all that hardware companies or software companies do not release drivers/ software for it. It is not due to any technical or legal issue preventing them from doing so. It is right now all an artificial thing. I'd love this artificial thing to end. Windows' dominance is an absurd self-referential monopoly. "windows is popular because people want to run windows apps" "companies make windows-only apps because windows is popular" The whole thing is full of absurd things like that. It is not a healthy state of things.

I do not want Linux or any OS to have 95%. Or even more than 70%. I want a healthy OS market share. In which many different alternatives have about 25% or 30%. The current situation is a joke. Imagine for example if 99% of the cars were Toyota and you could only find parts and accessories for Toyota cars. That's the sort of ridiculousness the desktop software world has reached. If you replace windows with Linux, it might get a little better due to Linux being open source, but it will still not be healthy per my definition. I'd prefer many different OS and distros to have many parts. App developers would have to forcefully make cross platform software instead of locking users into a single platform. Same with hardware companies, they would have to actually go with what common sense dictates and release specs of their hardware...




If we're going to attract more people we need more compatability, period.

********. Period.

As I said it there is no technical or legal limitation preventing this compatibility from happening. What is lacking is hardware and software companies not giving a damn about OS other than windows. So, no, there is no way in hell canonical is going to come and say "let there be compatibility" and BOOM! we got compatibility.

Compatibility will come as long as we focus on quality, true ease of use (which is not the familiarity that the retarded users like the ones you mentioned call 'ease of use') and marketing . We are improving in those aspects. Progress is being done, but it is going to stay gradual and slow for a while. But there is no other way.