Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2018 21:35 UTC
Games

While it's true Steam Machines aren't exactly flying off the shelves, our reasons for striving towards a competitive and open gaming platform haven't significantly changed. We're still working hard on making Linux operating systems a great place for gaming and applications. We think it will ultimately result in a better experience for developers and customers alike, including those not on Steam.

Through the Steam Machine initiative, we've learned quite a bit about the state of the Linux ecosystem for real-world game developers out there. We've taken a lot of feedback and have been heads-down on addressing the shortcomings we observed. We think an important part of that effort is our ongoing investment in making Vulkan a competitive and well-supported graphics API, as well as making sure it has first-class support on Linux platforms.

Valve has done a lot for Linux gaming, and it's good to hear they pledge to continue doing so.

Order by: Score:
Some history
by liamdawe on Wed 4th Apr 2018 22:00 UTC
liamdawe
Member since:
2006-07-04

For those curious on why Valve posted this, it's because I wrote this article:

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/valve-has-removed-the-steam-m...

Then all the big sites picked it up.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Some history
by Darkmage on Wed 4th Apr 2018 22:37 UTC in reply to "Some history"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

Valve's support of Linux gaming has been almost flawless. Really they've done a fantastic job. Getting Sam Lantinga from Blizzard/Loki Games and focusing on the drivers and support infrastructure has definitely been the right move.

The biggest barrier to Open Source Linux gaming at the moment remains modding/developer tools for artists. There's a lot of game engines and a lot of ported titles, but workflow issues remain e.g hardpoint editors, mission editors etc. This is what's stopping open source game development from taking off in a big way. The example I like to use is Freespace 2, a 20 year old open source game engine which only has editing tools available on Windows. The Mission editor FRED2 only runs on Windows and while the asset import tool for ships now runs on Linux, the editors and viewers for the game's archive files are still Windows only. Descent 1/2 and 3 all have level/asset editors only available on Windows despite these tools being open sourced. This needs to change before modders will jump in and create new content. Modding is a natural fit for open source game development, get the modders and you'll see a lot more games and content. Modders are future game developers.

The commercial industry moving to standard engines has been a massive boon for the platform, however there is still a lack of AAA titles. I think there's still room for another porting house similar to Feral/Aspyr but focusing on different titles. Linux gamers have a lot of choice in Indie titles, but are still lacking in choice in non FPS/Racing/RTS genres. A solid AAA RPG is still lacking on the platform of the likes of Oblivion/Fallout 4.

Edited 2018-04-04 22:46 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Some history
by ilovebeer on Thu 5th Apr 2018 04:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Some history"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Linux will continue to lack a library of AAA games for several reason, one of which being the lack of enough market to bother. And there's nothing to debate in that regard because all aspects of reality have been speaking loud & clear year after year after year after year after year after ........

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Some history
by Alfman on Thu 5th Apr 2018 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some history"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

Linux will continue to lack a library of AAA games for several reason, one of which being the lack of enough market to bother. And there's nothing to debate in that regard because all aspects of reality have been speaking loud & clear year after year after year after year after year after ........


You are right about the niche market status, clearly AAA games will target the largest markets. However I think this argument overlooks a detail that game developers don't have to target linux specifically to support linux. They can get linux for free by targeting a multiplatform game engine to begin with. They could realistically target linux and windows in one go.

I'll admit that I don't have game industry experience, but if I were going to write a game it seems to make sense to me to use a multi-platform engine rather than a windows specific one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Some history
by coherence on Thu 5th Apr 2018 07:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some history"
coherence Member since:
2018-02-04

Almost none of the engines are platform specific.

The fact is that the player base is tiny compared to the rest of the market and it simply isn't worth the bother supporting Linux and even then if they do it is going to be Ubuntu. It is simply a cost benefit analysis whether it is worth supporting the game after development.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/linux-game-sales-statistics-f...

Some claim that upto 25% of their support time is spent on Linux alone, when it is less than 5% of their player base. With stats like that I wouldn't bother.

The only reason a lot of game engines became cross platform was because of Android and iOS devices being popular.

Edited 2018-04-05 07:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Some history
by Alfman on Thu 5th Apr 2018 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Some history"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

coherence,

Almost none of the engines are platform specific.

The fact is that the player base is tiny compared to the rest of the market and it simply isn't worth the bother supporting Linux and even then if they do it is going to be Ubuntu. It is simply a cost benefit analysis whether it is worth supporting the game after development.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/linux-game-sales-statistics-f.....


2-3% linux sales seems about right...

Some claim that upto 25% of their support time is spent on Linux alone, when it is less than 5% of their player base. With stats like that I wouldn't bother.


I have no idea where you got the "25%" figure or if there is any credibility behind it. At 25% of time, I wouldn't find it worthwhile either. However that figure doesn't seem very plausible for a game that genuinely targeted a multiplatform game engine. It really should be a straightforward recompile with negligible effort to support linux.

The 25% figure makes much more sense if they started out with a platform specific game and then ported it to linux. But unless they've been mucking around with DRM or features outside of the game engine, recompiling a multiplatform game under linux should be a fixed effort to setup the build scripts and that's it. I'd really like for someone with direct experience to shed some light on the matter ;)


The only reason a lot of game engines became cross platform was because of Android and iOS devices being popular.


Yep, there's no doubt that popularity increases support.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Some history
by coherence on Fri 6th Apr 2018 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
coherence Member since:
2018-02-04

The 25% figure is in article I linked, you obviously didn't read it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Some history
by Alfman on Sat 7th Apr 2018 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Some history"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

coherence,

The 25% figure is in article I linked, you obviously didn't read it.


It wasn't itemized like the other numbers listed in the article, but fair enough. It was mentioned in passing in an interview quote, here's the full quote:

Milkstone Studios
Seeing these numbers, look like Linux players are more used to single player experiences, so that might be the reason.

We support Linux on a pretty basic level (we're not Linux users ourselves, so we have limited experience with it). Linux support takes up lots of support time (I'd say around 20-25% of our support time is dedicated to addressing Linux issues), and it's hard to justify dedicating our time to this platform if sales for it are low. However, Unity allows for easy generation of Linux builds, and most of the work required for a proper port was done with Ziggurat, so for now we'll continue releasing games with Linux support, and trying to solve issues to the best of our knowledge.


Here's the thing, the 20-25% figure makes sense for porting a game to linux as they did. I really do get where they are coming from with low linux sales relative to costs, however that's the direct consequence of not starting with a multiplatform engine to begin with.

Note the last comment, they'll continue to release games with linux support because most of the work required for a proper port was done. That's the way these things usually go: It takes effort to port an engine to linux, but once you have a multiplatform engine that work is mostly behind you.

I think the primary obstacle for most developers isn't that linux takes a disproportionate amount of effort to support, but that the rewards for doing so may be quaint given the small market.

The developers seem mixed on whether it's worthwhile, here are other developer quotes from the article:

The Linux market remains small in comparison to Mac, and tiny compared to Windows. Three years of bringing AAA games to Linux has taught us a lot about what works in sales terms, and what works less well. Although we had hoped that the Steam Machine would gain more traction, we have been pleasantly surprised by the Linux sales achieved on distros other than SteamOS, and continually encouraged by the passionate (and vocal!) audience of Linux gamers. However, we are disappointed by the promotion of piracy by some, which does disproportionate damage to the economics of bringing games to an already small platform.


Our Linux business continues to be an important part of our strategy going forward. We consider Linux a viable platform, and continue to make it a target goal of any deal we strike.


Edited 2018-04-07 17:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Some history
by juzzlin on Thu 5th Apr 2018 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some history"
juzzlin Member since:
2011-05-06

I think all major game engines, like Unity, support Linux exports so it should be zero overhead. I have tried that myself and it just works.

Edited 2018-04-05 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Some history
by ahferroin7 on Thu 5th Apr 2018 12:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some history"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

Just having game engine support isn't quite enough if you're doing anything beyond the most basic games.

At a minimum, even if you don't need anything platform-wise beyond the base game engine, you still have to have a way to build for Linux (not all cross-platform game engines support cross-building), and you still have to do testing on a Linux system. In reality though, very few games I've seen that weren't purely independent ventures or done by very small companies have used just the game engine. Quite often, they end up tying in extra stuff designed to run on top of the game engine and provide bonus features, and a lot of that does not consistently operate on Linux.

Now, assuming that none of that is an issue, you've still got customer support overhead. Just because Linux users tend to be more tech savvy doesn't mean they can solve all the problems themselves, and some really aren't any more technically savvy than your average Windows or Mac user, so you need to account for not two but three platforms in your customer support flow-chart, which further increases training costs.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Some history
by Alfman on Thu 5th Apr 2018 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Some history"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ahferroin7,

At a minimum, even if you don't need anything platform-wise beyond the base game engine, you still have to have a way to build for Linux (not all cross-platform game engines support cross-building), and you still have to do testing on a Linux system. In reality though, very few games I've seen that weren't purely independent ventures or done by very small companies have used just the game engine. Quite often, they end up tying in extra stuff designed to run on top of the game engine and provide bonus features, and a lot of that does not consistently operate on Linux.


It's not clear what features you are referring to, could you be more specific?


Now, assuming that none of that is an issue, you've still got customer support overhead. Just because Linux users tend to be more tech savvy doesn't mean they can solve all the problems themselves, and some really aren't any more technically savvy than your average Windows or Mac user, so you need to account for not two but three platforms in your customer support flow-chart, which further increases training costs.


I think it's a fair point, hypothetically. However do you have actual evidence that linux users need more support than windows users in practice? Ie if they are 2-3% of your users, do you have stats showing that they consume more than 2-3% of the project's support resources? I'm genuinely curious if you have links with numbers.

You could probably mitigate most of the support requirements by going through a distribution service like steam, which takes care of the platform specific installation for you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Some history
by ahferroin7 on Thu 5th Apr 2018 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

It's not clear what features you are referring to, could you be more specific?

Most of what I'm referring to beyond the build and testing stuff is middleware. Much of it has gotten better, but there are still issues.

In most cases though, it's not a case of the middleware not supporting Linux, it's that it has various internal assumptions about how the underlying system works that make it unreliable or significantly lower quality on Linux systems. Scaleform (used for in-game menus in a lot of older games, especially stuff on UE) had this issue for example. It technically works on Linux, but it was not trivial integrate cross-platform.

I think it's a fair point, hypothetically. However do you have actual evidence that linux users need more support than windows users in practice? Ie if they are 2-3% of your users, do you have stats showing that they consume more than 2-3% of the project's support resources? I'm genuinely curious if you have links with numbers.

Actually, I would expect it to be a wash on average.
With Windows, a significant percentage of support requests end up being resolved by telling people to make sure their drivers are up to date and try with their AV software disabled. Neither of those are likely to be causes of problems on Linux, so while you'll probably have fewer support requests, the ones you do get will not be as easy to solve.

I've got no numbers to back this up of course, but I have been working in the software industry for almost half a decade at a company that does stuff for both Linux and Windows. Windows issues are more common, but tend to get resolved quickly because it's usually trivial stuff, while Linux issues are less common, but tend to take much longer to solve because it's usually not trivial, even though we only deal with a single Linux distribution.

You could probably mitigate most of the support requirements by going through a distribution service like steam, which takes care of the platform specific installation for you.

Doing this would of course solve the installation aspect, but that's only a small part of support for a platform, and it's one of the easiest parts to solve (even without using a dedicated distribution service). Keep in mind that for any reasonable developer, saying 'I support X on Y' doesn't just mean that X runs on Y, it also means that you provide support to help make sure it runs on Y, including handling bug reports (which becomes exponentially more interesting the more platforms you support).

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Some history
by Alfman on Thu 5th Apr 2018 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Some history"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ahferroin7,

Most of what I'm referring to beyond the build and testing stuff is middleware. Much of it has gotten better, but there are still issues.

In most cases though, it's not a case of the middleware not supporting Linux, it's that it has various internal assumptions about how the underlying system works that make it unreliable or significantly lower quality on Linux systems. Scaleform (used for in-game menus in a lot of older games, especially stuff on UE) had this issue for example. It technically works on Linux, but it was not trivial integrate cross-platform.


I'm still not entirely clear on this, but no matter.


I've got no numbers to back this up of course, but I have been working in the software industry for almost half a decade at a company that does stuff for both Linux and Windows. Windows issues are more common, but tend to get resolved quickly because it's usually trivial stuff, while Linux issues are less common, but tend to take much longer to solve because it's usually not trivial, even though we only deal with a single Linux distribution.


Same here, I've experienced issues with both platforms. Just this week I'm dealing with windows 10 upgrade woes affecting some of my clients on some systems. Windows has a reputation for being stable & backwards compatible, but spite of this reputation we've sure experienced a lot of windows breakages over the years. Admittedly though my windows clients are using & developing rather niche technology.

Doing this would of course solve the installation aspect, but that's only a small part of support for a platform, and it's one of the easiest parts to solve (even without using a dedicated distribution service). Keep in mind that for any reasonable developer, saying 'I support X on Y' doesn't just mean that X runs on Y, it also means that you provide support to help make sure it runs on Y, including handling bug reports (which becomes exponentially more interesting the more platforms you support).


What you say is true, but it's also true that in most cases someone else has already done the grunt work. So I guess it depends how much of the wheel the game devs want to reinvent versus re-implement by themselves, haha. I'll admit that I sometimes build my own libraries at the cost of more debugging.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Some history
by moltonel on Thu 5th Apr 2018 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some history"
moltonel Member since:
2006-02-24

Linux will continue to lack a library of AAA games


The library of "AAA games" for Linux is actually pretty good nowadays, in good part because of Steam. GoG and Humble Bundle helped too, but not so much for AAA. For what it's worth, the MacOS offer is about the same.

I'm a regular player and haven't felt the need for wine for the last few years (and haven't used Windows for over 17 years).

There's always going to be some titles missing or arriving after the hype has died down, but there's already more quality titles available than you have time to play. Some will find the unavailability of $FAVORITE_GAME a showstopper, but most people don't care as much and would be pretty happy with today's Linux offering.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Some history
by ilovebeer on Thu 5th Apr 2018 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some history"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"Linux will continue to lack a library of AAA games


The library of "AAA games" for Linux is actually pretty good nowadays, in good part because of Steam. GoG and Humble Bundle helped too, but not so much for AAA. For what it's worth, the MacOS offer is about the same.
"
As both a Linux user and a gamer, you should know better than to claim Linux has a `pretty good` library of AAA games. I don't know why you would intentionally walk into that quicksand but there's no question that's what the claim is. As far as MacOS - who cares? Steam Machines specifically target Linux, and that's the subject here, not MacOS.

This is really not that complicated. Linux gaming has been a mess since forever for a myriad of reasons. It's noble of Valve to try to improve it, and most of us can appreciate their efforts, but at the end of the day deep down inside most people know those efforts will never transform Linux into a formidable gaming platform. For people who want to argue in favor of Linux gaming, I say simply that the numbers don't lie. Linux can't be both great for gaming with a good AAA library, and a flash in the gaming pan. The numbers prove the latter.

Another point... If using multi-platform game engines and cross-compiling makes it so easy & cheap to get games to Linux, why aren't the huge developers taking advantage of the easy money? It takes more than creating working binaries to get the performance needed. There's still a lot of development that takes place outside of the game engine in many cases, and it can be a significant amount - or to the game engine itself so it provides what the developers want from it. Game support and customer support are two other huge areas we haven't even gotten to.

Linux is not the gaming gold rush waiting to happen so people have convinced themselves it is. It's not even a good money-grab. It's more like collect cans and bottles. Technically you can make money doing it but it's going to be a lot of work and in the end there's very little chance it's going to make you rich.

As Valve just admitted, after 5+ years of heavy investment, "Steam Machines aren't exactly flying off the shelves", and they were supposed to be on par & real competition for consoles and Windows.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Some history
by Alfman on Thu 5th Apr 2018 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Some history"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

Another point... If using multi-platform game engines and cross-compiling makes it so easy & cheap to get games to Linux, why aren't the huge developers taking advantage of the easy money? It takes more than creating working binaries to get the performance needed. There's still a lot of development that takes place outside of the game engine in many cases, and it can be a significant amount - or to the game engine itself so it provides what the developers want from it. Game support and customer support are two other huge areas we haven't even gotten to.


I think that's a good question, but I suspect the answer has less to do with the technology and more to do with the politics. Game studios may have strong aversion to working with and on open source platforms that their competitors can take and legally use for themselves without licensing or royalties.


Linux is not the gaming gold rush waiting to happen so people have convinced themselves it is. It's not even a good money-grab. It's more like collect cans and bottles. Technically you can make money doing it but it's going to be a lot of work and in the end there's very little chance it's going to make you rich.


While I disagree with you that it's much more work for development, I agree with you that the market for paying linux users may be relatively weak. IMHO there's always been this conundrum for developers to target linux.

It's somewhat like android vs IOS. For reasons that have much more to do with marketing than with the underlying technology, android's lower price points attracts poorer users on average. The IOS market is smaller, but it's users have already demonstrated a willingness to spend lots of money on their gadgets. Android still gets lots of support due to it's dominant market share, however linux desktops don't have this benefit. Not only is the linux market a small niche segment, it is also comprised largely of FOSS users who have a reputation for not wanting to pay for software.

Edited 2018-04-05 16:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Some history
by ilovebeer on Thu 5th Apr 2018 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Those are all good points that shine yet more light on the problems. To expand further regarding paying customers, micro-transactions have become commonplace in the gaming business model. So, if much of the Linux user pool isn't keen on paying a one-time fee for a game, how in the world do you get them to pay repeated small fees, which is even less attractive? For companies who survive off micro-transactions, that creates a serious obstacle and easily puts their products into a high-risk category on Linux. From a business standpoint, the choice is fairly simple - do you want to fight hard wars for crumbs at best, or not bother and just go where the money is?

Trying to shoehorn an industry onto a platform where they're at fundamental odds with each other is well beyond `an uphill battle`. I'd like to be optimistic on this subject but there just isn't any compelling, much less convincing, argument I've heard yet.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: Some history
by moltonel on Thu 5th Apr 2018 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Some history"
RE[6]: Some history
by ilovebeer on Thu 5th Apr 2018 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"As both a Linux user and a gamer, you should know better than to claim Linux has a `pretty good` library of AAA games.


Hum, I should know better than what I've observed first-hand, playing on Linux for years ?
"

Yes, you should know better because you know that Linux does not have a significant library of AAA titles. It has a very small handful. That's it.

I stand by the "pretty good library of AAA games" statement: most games I want to play are available natively, with a few clicks. That's all there is to it, it makes the library "pretty good" in my books.

That just means you define a "pretty good library of AAA games" as being a very small handful. Most people don't, myself included.

YMMV depending on how frustrated you get if you can't play your specific pre-ordered favorite game on day one. But that's an off-lyer that doesn't affect the mean score.

Doesn't affect the mean score? When is the last time you even looked at a list of AAA titles and compared it against how many found their way to Linux. The numbers are abysmal. If Linux was such a worthy gaming solution that wouldn't be the case and threads like this wouldn't exist.

"Linux gaming has been a mess since forever for a myriad of reasons.


Yes, and it has improved a lot. 10 Years ago I wouldn't advise non-Linux-enthusiasts to use Linux for games, but today I do. Maybe not for hardcore gamers like you seem to be, but definitely for more average people who have "gaming" as one of their regular computer activity.
"
Linux being less garbage today than it was 10 years ago is not the same as being in an actual good & healthy progressive state.

I'm not even close to being a `hardcore` gamer and nothing I've said would suggest otherwise. If I were to recommend a gaming platform to a casual gamer there's no question it would be either an Xbox One S or PS4. Both around the $300 range, less than you would spend for a PC regardless of Linux or Windows, and a vast library of games with nearly all AAA titles available.

"For people who want to argue in favor of Linux gaming, I say simply that the numbers don't lie. Linux can't be both great for gaming with a good AAA library, and a flash in the gaming pan. The numbers prove the latter.

...

Linux is not the gaming gold rush waiting to happen so people have convinced themselves it is. It's not even a good money-grab.


Sounds like you're in the "through of disillusionment" of the hype cycle. I feel Linux for games is more towards the plateau of productivity. It doesn't have to overtake Windows in order to be successful. It doesn't have to be sucessful in order to be good.
"
What exactly do you think I'm disillusioned about? All I've done is observe reality. There's nothing `hype` about it, the truth is what it is. Like I said, the numbers don't lie. If you think they do then perhaps you're the one disillusioned.

Nobody said anything about overtaking Windows. Nobody said games have to be successful to be good. Yes you will people games on Linux with entertainment value. Yes that will be good enough for some people. But this conversation isn't about what's technically true or possible in the smallest way.

I can't speak for game developers (appart from reading various blogs that seem to point out that supporting Linux is extra work but isn't *that* hard), but as a regular gamer, I feel that Linux is a "good enough" platform today.

If you find Linux to be a satisfying gaming platform, there's nothing wrong with that, but you are certainly in a minority group.

Before you start explaining to me why my feeling is incorrect, let me define "good enough" as "I don't feel any need to look for a better one". I have plenty of non-gaming reasons that drive me away from Windows and towards Linux, and the gaming reasons that would drive me towrds Windows are too weak.

Why would I say your feelings are incorrect? In fact, I just stated the opposite. Again, the conversation isn't about you, your feelings, or if Linux gaming suits your needs. The conversation is much bigger than that. We're talking about this at an industry level.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[7]: Some history
by moltonel on Fri 6th Apr 2018 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Some history"
RE[2]: Some history
by Kochise on Thu 5th Apr 2018 04:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Some history"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

If the editors have been open sourced, what prevent them now from being properly ported to Linux ? Lack of motivation and/or talent ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Some history
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Apr 2018 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some history"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

what prevent them now from being properly ported to Linux ? Lack of motivation and/or talent ?


Package management.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Some history
by juzzlin on Thu 5th Apr 2018 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some history"
juzzlin Member since:
2011-05-06

That was true a couple of years ago, but now we have (more or less) universal packages like Snappy, AppImage, and Flatpak. They are WAY easier to create than some PITA Debian packaging.

Edited 2018-04-05 06:29 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Some history
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Apr 2018 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Some history"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

That was true a couple of years ago, but now we have (more or less) universal packages like Snappy, AppImage, and Flatpak. They are WAY easier to create than some PITA Debian packaging.


The fact that you named many different systems, and that I haven't heard of them, kind of proves my point.

They've just replaced one package management problem with another.

Which would a company choose, and can the company be assured that it's not going to run out of steam (hah) and get abandoned? Will those package management systems interfere with each other? Will the company have to support all of them?

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Some history
by Soulbender on Thu 5th Apr 2018 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The fact that you named many different systems, and that I haven't heard of them, kind of proves my point.


It kinda doesn't though since there are many different systems for creating installers in Windows (InstallShield, WiX, NSIS etc etc etc holy shit there's a lot of them) which is basically the same as the package management "problem" in Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Some history
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Apr 2018 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Some history"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"The fact that you named many different systems, and that I haven't heard of them, kind of proves my point.


It kinda doesn't though since there are many different systems for creating installers in Windows (InstallShield, WiX, NSIS etc etc etc holy shit there's a lot of them) which is basically the same as the package management "problem" in Linux.
"

Yeah, but the point is by now, most of them work without error and don't step on each other's toes. The only installer for Windows that has given me any trouble in the past few years was, ironically, IBM's piece-of-shit Installation Manager for installing Java* programs.

* Not just any old Java programs, but their Eclipse-based Rational development environments. Eclipse is already bad, but you can always count on IBM to manage to outdo an existing piece-of-shit with something even worse.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Some history
by Sauron on Thu 5th Apr 2018 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

The fact that you named many different systems, and that I haven't heard of them, kind of proves my point.

They've just replaced one package management problem with another.

Which would a company choose, and can the company be assured that it's not going to run out of steam (hah) and get abandoned? Will those package management systems interfere with each other? Will the company have to support all of them?


If you haven't heard of Flatpack, Snap etc. then you obviously don't follow Linux or related news very much! It's been quite huge news for a couple of year now and many articles have been published on every Linux news site I have come across.
Basically, they are the Portable Apps for Linux, you just download the program, double click it and run it, no installation required.
More importantly, no package manager is required either, which makes your point rather moot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Some history
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Apr 2018 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Some history"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

If you haven't heard of Flatpack, Snap etc. then you obviously don't follow Linux or related news very much!


No, I haven't, because I've stopped jumping around different distros and now just stick with KDE Neon. But I don't even use their package manager and just stick with Synaptic.

This is precisely the problem with package management (still) because if the problem was solved, there wouldn't be so many options.

More importantly, no package manager is required either, which makes your point rather moot.


No it doesn't. I was talking mostly from the point of view of the company that makes the software. Which option do they go with, and how can they get assurance that the one they chose will still be supported?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Some history
by computrius on Thu 5th Apr 2018 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some history"
computrius Member since:
2006-03-26

In this case, isnt steam itself kind of the solution to this for valve?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Some history
by liamdawe on Thu 5th Apr 2018 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some history"
liamdawe Member since:
2006-07-04

Package management hasn't been a problem for years.

Want your game on Linux? Steam client does it for you, GOG package Linux games themselves with MojoSetup, itch.io also has a client like Steam.

For normal packages outside of those stores, AppImage has been around since 2004 - Beamdog (reviving lots of old RPGs like Neverwinter Nights) use AppImage on Linux for their own client and it works perfectly. Snaps and Flatpaks are newer, but also work across different distributions.

Packing is not an issue, anyone saying it is just isn't looking. Anyone claiming it still is despite them, obviously glossed over the many ways to differently package for windows.

Edited 2018-04-05 09:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Some history
by Darkmage on Thu 5th Apr 2018 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some history"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

From what I've seen/heard it's mostly a lack of talent, lots of good Linux programmers, but they have no interest in porting MFC applications to GTK/QT. On the other end the people who want to use the tools can't program (artists) so they have to stick to Windows to get work done. Package management has nothing to do with modding tools getting ported. It also has nothing to do with games being ported/released. Self extracting installers solved that issue years ago. Loki Games solved that in 1999.

Edited 2018-04-05 08:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Risthel
by Risthel on Thu 5th Apr 2018 11:34 UTC
Risthel
Member since:
2010-12-22

The only thing i care about Steam and Linux is a good replacement to Moonlight, so i can buy graphic cards that are not Nvidia

http://steamcommunity.com/app/353380/discussions/0/1696043263494088...

Reply Score: 1

Smart move
by jpkx1984 on Thu 5th Apr 2018 12:14 UTC
jpkx1984
Member since:
2015-01-06

Linux is the Valve's safety... valve. In case of MS or Apple trying to limit software distribution on their respective platforms, Linux Steam machines are an option.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Thu 5th Apr 2018 13:04 UTC
drcouzelis
Member since:
2010-01-11

I just bought Tomb Raider (2013) and Painkiller: Hell & Damnation (2012) through Steam on my Arch Linux computer this week. They both run great!

I've been a Linux user since the time when "Linux gaming" meant "Tux Racer and Nethack", so the fact that I can play these games on Linux still blows my mind. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by drcouzelis
by moltonel on Thu 5th Apr 2018 13:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by drcouzelis"
moltonel Member since:
2006-02-24

Same here, I've recently bought Tomb Raider and Life is Strange, neither of which were available on Linux originaly.

I don't care that I didn't play them when they came out:
* I generally wait for the price to go down anyway
* these games didn't age much, are just as enjoyable today
* my game library is already much bigger than I have time for, I'm never short of a great game to play

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by drcouzelis
by BluenoseJake on Thu 5th Apr 2018 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by drcouzelis"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Life is strange was good, i really enjoyed, and that caught me by surprise. Hope you do to

Reply Score: 2

this reminds me...
by hdjhfds on Thu 5th Apr 2018 17:52 UTC
hdjhfds
Member since:
2013-08-19

Galbraith's Law of Politics: Anyone who says he isn't going to resign, four times, definitely will.

Reply Score: 3