Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:05 UTC, submitted by Luis
Linux Complaining about Windows Vista is a national past time on Internet forums these days. Windows Vista 'costs too much', 'has onerous product activation', 'requires too much hardware', etc. These complaints are often followed up by a very simple boast: 'I'm just going to switch to Linux'. But in today's landscape, how viable is that statment? Is the threat to switch to Linux an empty one, or is it entirely possible?"
Thread beginning with comment 219624
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by chemical_scum on Thu 8th Mar 2007 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
2. The game must be released in GPL.


You obviously know nothing about the GPL or software licensing in general. It is not true that games and programs must be released under the GPL for Linux. Programs can be run on a Linux system that are released under any license including proprietary ones. That is why you can run Acrobat Reader, Flashplayer, Sun Java, Opera all released under proprietary licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Quite Frankly
by Babi Asu on Fri 9th Mar 2007 05:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Quite Frankly"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
2. The game must be released in GPL.


You obviously know nothing about the GPL or software licensing in general. It is not true that games and programs must be released under the GPL for Linux. Programs can be run on a Linux system that are released under any license including proprietary ones. That is why you can run Acrobat Reader, Flashplayer, Sun Java, Opera all released under proprietary licenses.

Ok, I stated again my response that was lost in several pages back, so unread by you.

The game must be release in GPL. Sure, you can a make commercial game in linux, but no one will use it because it's not GPL. Some people who are interested will make a petition to make it GPL, and some people with coding ability will start a GPL'd clone. How can you make money from that?

Some readers comment that 15% PC game share is nothing compared to 85% share of console game, but in the other hand they considered 0.3% usage share of desktop linux is such a quantum leap.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Quite Frankly
by ichi on Fri 9th Mar 2007 10:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Quite Frankly"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

The game must be release in GPL. Sure, you can a make commercial game in linux, but no one will use it because it's not GPL. Some people who are interested will make a petition to make it GPL, and some people with coding ability will start a GPL'd clone. How can you make money from that?

Unreal1 -> not gpl
Unreal Tournament -> not gpl
UT2003 -> not gpl
UT2004 -> not gpl
Quake3 -> released with dual license (one of them being gpl) only years after initial release, when it was no longer the hottest engine to develop games with (and only the engine. Artwork, music and stuff not included).
Serious Sam -> not gpl
Serious Sam SE -> not gpl
Postal2 -> not gpl
Doom3 -> not gpl
Quake4 -> not gpl

While I think it's great that ID released Quake3's source, I still don't see anyone asking for any of those games to be released under the gpl license as a requisite for playing them.

I can buy any of those games and install them from my distro's package manager, same as with any other package only that grabbing the game data from the cd/dvd.

As I gamer, I don't care if it's GPL'd or not. As a programer it's a different story, but still has nothing to do with whether I play those games or not.

And it's not only about games... how about Maya on linux? VMWare? Shake? Mainactor? Pixar's MenVee? Disney running photoshop on linux through wine?

Reply Parent Score: 2