I would totally agree that Linux needs some original commercial games but lets face it - at the moment commercial companies won''t do that and even leave it to companies like Loki to do the ports (well more and more like Epic and Id are bringing out the binaries but).

I have seen a LOT of good ORIGINAL Linux games out there but most are under the Open Source banner.

Does it really have to be a commercial game? To my mind an Open Source Project is okay too...and there are sure enough of them

Yours,

Indeterminatus

--consuetudo est quasi altera natura hominum...

If commercial games are released, there will be a larger commercial support base for Linux, which is a Good Thing (tm).

OpenSource is good on ethics, bad in business. You don''t make money from it. Maybe if you operated it like shareware (i,e, you need datafiles for the full version, ala Doom and Quake), you might have a little success.

Even then, people will find out how to make their own datafiles and you''ll loose out.

Mark Collins (aka Nurgle)
me@thisisnurgle.org.uk

There are, along with Open Source software, some people that release shareware products and games too. Problem is that the Open Source idea has been around in Linux for so long.

Bad for business I know, but some of the software is great. And it does give people the ability to join groups of people working on a project.

i think... actually, i don''t know how linux is.. never seen it, got screen shots??

Indeterminatus, you are restoring my faith in humanity by trying very hard to stop this thread turning into a flame war.
Therefore, I''ll attempt to answer your questions with my personal opinions.
( For those of you feeling like flaming me, yes I have an open job offer from Microsoft, but it''s not clouding my judgement, I have a dual-boot RedHat/Win95 )


* Do you think Linux has a chance against software giant Microsoft? Why/Why not?

It depends on what "a chance" is. Will Linux ever displace Windows as THE user Operating System? I don''t think it will. Linux is a nice initiative, and a reasonably stable and full-featured OS, but not that much research goes into it. The reason is simple, you can''t make money directly by developing a Linux variant. Microsoft has the advantage of being able to get together a team of excellent developers, all with great ideas, and work hard for a few years to get a good Operating System running. Then they have the marketing machine to make it sell to people.
Look at Win2K as an example. Stable, fast, full-featured, and familiar.

* If you had the possibilty to change anything in Linux, what would you do?

Installation procedures have to be made better. Looking through manuals and .cfg files for hours to figure out what''s wrong when installing hardware, or trying to download and install software can be a BLOODY pain. It seems that most software requires libraries that might or might not be installed, but they do not come in the distribution, and no mention is made on where to find them. This could be due to my relative inexperience with Linux, but it''s annoying none the less.

* Do you think a co-operative OS (Windows and Linux) would be the ultimate one?

No, what is the point? You only need one good OS to run your PC, the only reason to have 2 is if developers obstinately refuse to develop equal-quality software on both platforms.

* If you were a successful game developer, would you distribute your games in Linux?

I''d surely try, because so many quality coders are very Linux-minded and anti-Microsoft. If these people would be added to the Mod community for my games, and their mods would be useable on Windows platforms, that would be a great bonus. Plus, why limit your market? You might as well aim at the broadest possible audience.

* Do you think that people are just too lazy to get into Linux?

No, people generally aren''t lazy, they are afraid of ( relatively ) unproven and unsupported technology. Think of all the households where after years of waiting, and trying to learn, people have finally bought their windows-based PC. Switching to Linux would be traumatic, because it would all be different once again. For most people, the computer is just another appliance, that should be easy and familiar to use, and they''ve all learned about Windows, not Linux.

* Isn''t it ignorance, if someone says "This product sucks." just because it is from Microsoft (and maybe a good program...)

Yes it is. It is ALWAYS ignorance to dismiss something before taking a step back, taking a long, hard look at it ( and at yourself ) and asking if you are REALLY justified in shooting it down.
Chances are you''ll come up with a different answer, and both strong and weak points, for any software you look at.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

quote: Original post by Dee
i think... actually, i don''t know how linux is.. never seen it, got screen shots??

This is exactly what I meant with my answer to "* Do you think that people are just too lazy to get into Linux?" in my previous posts.

You talk about Linux, and people ask for screenshots...
An operating system has nothing to do with it''s user interface, per se! There are no "screen shots" for Linux, it''s a bunch of low level kernel features that could be worse or better than those that allow the Windows UI to run.

There are of course GUI''s for Linux, XWindows with all its window managers is the one that springs to mind. But a screenshot of XWindows is not really a "Linux" screenshot.

The only thing close to a screenshot would be downloading the kernel source and browsing through it.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

but for users the user interface IS the operating system. Just look at the words, "user" and "interface". Just like for programs the api is the OS, so asking for a screenshot is a very natural question. Most people, I''m willing to guess most technical people (including programmers) don''t care how the internals of the OS work. Sure people prefer stability over instability and this over that but in the end people want two things:

Compatibility: all hardware and software should work out of the box with no real skill needed. If at all possible products should not require any skill to use, without compromising functionality of course. Think about that and come up with a counter argument. I don''t think there is one.

A good interface: no a command line is not good, a gui is (though having both is best).

Moving along here''s what linux needs to displace windows: great games that are then ported to the PC. The only reason people would switch to linux is to get their favorite games a few months earlier. That''s one way the over emphasis on open source hurts (open source is good in moderation but you can''t have everything be open source, otherwise programming would cease to be a paying job and then not as much programming would get done). Maybe great games can be made open source but that''s unlikely. Developers need income, otherwise they are forced into having other jobs to support themselves. That would lengthen production far too much. I do not think having ten times as many people would help either, then administrating the project would become impossible, especially as everyone has their own idea how things should be and most people would rather run their own project then be a cog in someone else''s machine.

(duplicate deleted for easier reading)

Edited by - Godfree^ on June 19, 2000 6:12:32 AM

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
but for users the user interface IS the operating system. Just look at the words, "user" and "interface". Just like for programs the api is the OS, so asking for a screenshot is a very natural question.

That''s the point I''m trying to make, it''s a confusion. The User Interface is NOT the operating system. If you wish to compare the UI''s the thread should have been XWindows vs. the Windows UI, not Linux vs Windows.
Just because Microsoft has inextricably linked UI and OS, doesn''t mean that is necessarily a valid generalisation. From a usability stand point, it''s a good idea - consistency leads to familiarity for users.

Asking for a screenshot may be a natural question, but it''s wrong. Saying a screenshot of XWindows is a "Linux Screenshot" would be similar to saying an Excel screenshot is a "Windows Screenshot". It''s just another application, but in Linux'' case, it happens to be an OS shell, whereas Microsoft linked their UI straight into the OS.




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~