Quote: Original post by cozman
Oluseyi, I'm pretty sure that you didn't read the post thoroughly, and even after your second reply you don't seem to have read it properly. I agree with your feelings about rebooting just to play games, but I don't think that's the true idea of the original post.

I think that's immaterial. If the distribution is tweaked for gaming, then it probably breaks mainstream apps, which necessitates reboots. If the distribution is aimed at current non-Linux users, then it's a live CD distro, which necessitates reboots.

Just to clarify.

Quote: Not for the home consumer. ATi and Nvidia graphics cards aren't the only forms of hardware out there, and "UNIX" is a dangerous catch-all in this regard. Are you, for instance, suggesting that my Wacom Graphire tablet will work on HP-UX?

Didn't think so.

This is perhaps the most idiotic statement I have ever heard. Who the hell will run HP-UX as a desktop OS? In fact, who the hell runs HP-UX at all? If you did any research you would find that Linux and FreeBsd do support Wacom Graphics tablet -> http://linuxwacom.sourceforge.net/ .

Quote: Note that "UNIX enthusiasts" are a small minority of the UNIX userbase; the majority of users of any operating system are pragmatists - whatever is best suited to the task at hand.

Yes I am a UNIX enthuasist, I also work as a lead programmer writing simulation and pattern recognition software for SGI IRIX systems. It is best suited for our task because it is STABLE, highly CONFIGURABLE and SECURE. All things that windows lack.

Quote: Because a kernel does not an operating system make.

Uh, Yes, kernel == operating system. I have studied kernel internals for over 5 years. Perhaps you have a different definition of operating system kernel?

Quote: Useless to the end consumer if it isn't easy to use. The conceit shared by many technically-minded people that people should wrap their minds around how the computer works rather than vice versa is a cop out: it's an easy excuse for not designing and building better, more stable, more secure and more robust systems that offer people-oriented affordances. It's a gimme that lets the techs avoid having to interact with the general population to determine their needs, and it's the reason why Linux on the desktop is primarily a weak clone of Windows and Mac OS.

I never said that UNIX was for normal people. I agree that for the average Joe Schmoe windows is the best route. On the other hand for programmers wishing for a stable enviroment to develope their applications on, it is indeed a great OS. There is no doubt that UNIX is the programmers OS. UNIX is far from a Windows clone. It was never coded with the intention to replace it. As for OS X, speaking kernel wise, it IS a clone of UNIX.

I would love to sit here and debate with you all day long but unlike 90% of the gamedev.net forum I actually have code to write.

I don't know anything about Linux, I've only used Unix back in 1993 or something. The idea is neat, but is their any concern of devlopers sterotyping Linux movement as being free, which seems to be its strong point. I think of linux as being free, and the idea that almost all apps are free for it, is why I would probably want to use it. Would this make it hard for developers of games to try to sell your games for Linux ? just with the free mentality.

Again I don't know much about Linux or Linux communities. So enlighten me.

Quote: Original post by gosper
This is perhaps the most idiotic statement I have ever heard. Who the hell will run HP-UX as a desktop OS? In fact, who the hell runs HP-UX at all? If you did any research you would find that Linux and FreeBsd do support Wacom Graphics tablet -> http://linuxwacom.sourceforge.net/ .

But I bet you I can find a piece of commodity hardware from an esoteric vendor that they don't support. Linux and BSD are doing a wonderful job of providing support for peripherals. I've personally never owned hardware that didn't work perfectly under Linux, as far back as 2000. But - again, from a consumer perspective - the hardware support for them is not as complete as for Windows. (Even OS X pales in comparison to Windows support, for obvious reasons.)

Quote: Yes I am a UNIX enthuasist, I also work as a lead programmer writing simulation and pattern recognition software for SGI IRIX systems. It is best suited for our task because it is STABLE, highly CONFIGURABLE and SECURE. All things that windows lack.

Great for you. Meaningless to the industrial designer or author or playwright or artist or editor on my block. Which is exactly my point: you pick what's the best suited tool to the task, and for the majority of the population, it ain't UNIX.

Quote: Uh, Yes, kernel == operating system. I have studied kernel internals for over 5 years. Perhaps you have a different definition of operating system kernel?

Not "operating system kernel." "Operating system." Even GNU/FSF advocates say that the operating system should properly be identified as "GNU/Linux." A kernel on its own can do anything productive; it needs to be coupled with a number of utilities to become an operating system capable of supporting general-purpose computing.

Was I too subtle?

Quote: I never said that UNIX was for normal people. I agree that for the average Joe Schmoe windows is the best route. On the other hand for programmers wishing for a stable enviroment to develope their applications on, it is indeed a great OS. There is no doubt that UNIX is the programmers OS. UNIX is far from a Windows clone. It was never coded with the intention to replace it. As for OS X, speaking kernel wise, it IS a clone of UNIX.

So we're going in circles, essentially, since that was my original point - that UNIX is great for programmers, but not for pretty much everyone else.

Quote: I would love to sit here and debate with you all day long but unlike 90% of the gamedev.net forum I actually have code to write.

Poor you. I was just contacted about a potential position as advertising director at a company, and I have a street party to attend (from noon to 8 PM EST). I think I'll take my life over yours! [smile]

Quote: Original post by Codemonger
I think of linux as being free, and the idea that almost all apps are free for it, is why I would probably want to use it. Would this make it hard for developers of games to try to sell your games for Linux ? just with the free mentality.

When I used to peruse the Linux Game Tome, I frequently found unappreciative comments directed at hobbyists and independents who put up their game for free, but without source code. To the community's credit, they were swiftly defended by other, more enlightened parties, but the source-based approach makes deliverying closed binary applications difficult (increasingly less so these days, especially since glibc stabilized).

That said, the conflation of ideology with technology, coupled with the comparatively low market penetration of Linux/Unix on the desktop make developing commercial games for Linux/Unix a challenging proposition. Your best option is to develop primarily for Windows, then offer a Linux version as well - on the same CD if you go shrinkwrapped.

Quote: Not "operating system kernel." "Operating system." Even GNU/FSF advocates say that the operating system should properly be identified as "GNU/Linux." A kernel on its own can do anything productive; it needs to be coupled with a number of utilities to become an operating system capable of supporting general-purpose computing.

Was I too subtle?

Linux != GNU. What makes an operating is strictly its kernel. Even Torvald him self has said this. There is a clear distiction between kernel land and user land software. User land software does not encompass the operating system its self. Even though a kernel by its self is useless. Freebsd uses GNU software and yet Linux and Freebsd are two completley different operating systems. Maybe this can clear things up for you http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html .

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Your best option is to develop primarily for Windows, then offer a Linux version as well - on the same CD if you go shrinkwrapped.

I think that sums up what I'd like to add: Windows is seen as more important.

Most games are developed for Windows, many of which are written using DirectX, proprietary libraries, available only to MS platforms. That's where the money is, so that's why professional software companies do it that way.

Many titles take ages to appear on the Mac (Battlefield 1942 came out on the Mac around or after Battlefield Vietnam appeared on PC), and many never make it to Linux at all, apart from some notable exceptions, namely Unreal Tournament, Quake (which now appears on SkyOS as well), and Doom. Many other games are open-source copies, and not the originals (i.e. Freeciv is shaping up to be Civ2).

It'd be one hassle to produce a stable, usable Linux distro exclusively for games development, but I'm not sure why one would bother when other, tried-and-tested distros out there fulfil all your needs and offer so much more besides? After all, Linux these days comes with the kitchen sink with regards to software development, and you can just as easily grab yourself more.

Sorry, but my considered opinion is that Linux gaming isn't taking off too well at all. Not yet, anyway.

Good luck with your project, should you choose to proceed.

ukdeveloper.

Quote: Original post by gosper
Linux != GNU. What makes an operating is strictly its kernel. Even Torvald him self has said this.

Well, of course he would, since he essentially just worked on the kernel! :) Bill Gates would probably tell you the operating system includes the UI. Personally I think the answer is in the middle, but who's to judge?

Quote: Original post by fyhuang
The only thing(s) holding back people from using Linux is gaming, as Linux is suitable for gaming but there aren't many games (oh, and the fact that many people don't know much about Linux or have the misconception that it takes a crapload of geekiness and weeks of time to set up a Linux box, which can be true but, with modern installers, is more often not). Why aren't there many games? Because game developers don't develop for Linux. So how do we encourage game developers to develop for Linux? I think the OP's gamedev distribution might be of some use here... by simplifying game development-specific tasks, maybe we could get more companies to join in? Just a thought (a long one).

There are a few gaps in the logic here. I know a commercial developer near me that develops for PC, Xbox, PS2, etc - and they do it all on Linux. In fact I expect a lot of console developers use Linux. So making game development easier on Linux probably isn't as necessary as you think. And 'simplifying game development-specific tasks' has been left vague throughout this discussion, which implies that people assume that there is a problem, but can't describe it. This often hints that there is no problem.

The issue is more about whether it's commercially viable to make the game for Linux. Since Linux isn't much of a viable platform on its own, the answer to this lies almost solely in portable gaming libraries that require little to no effort to install.