Quote: Original post by AndreTheGiant

Quote: Original post by Kambiz
For everyone that does not care about games Ubuntu is a great choice.

Ive heard this a million times about (all versions of?) Linux. My question is, WHY is this the case? Linux obviously has a huge fanbase of developers. Some of them must also like games. A lot of them dont like Microsoft, and a lot of them would like to see Linux overtake Windows as the most popular operating system. Everyone knows that "Linux is great...unless you like games."

So WHAT is the missing piece of the puzzle? Based on all of the above, Linux should have MORE games than Windows.

Most developers don't care about trying to increase the marketshare of Linux (Why would they?) , they want as many people as possible to buy/use their software which mean that they will spend their effort on platforms that have a decent marketshare allready.

Even most Linux users don't really care if Linux "overtakes" Windows or not, it is mostly irrelevant. We just want it to get enough marketshare to get decent third party support (Since this makes it more useful for us).

One thing to remember about free software developers is that they generally make their product available on most platforms (Including Windows), and for platforms they don't support themselves you still have the code so someone else can port it, even the KDE project is getting Windows support now. (http://windows.kde.org/) , No (application/game) developer in their right mind ignores Windows, it has the most users.

Linux won't ever get more games than Windows unless it gets a bigger marketshare than Windows so that proprietary developers start targeting Linux over Windows. This probably won't ever happen. (nor does it have to, Apple is big enough to get a huge amount of third party software without being anywhere close to Microsoft in size)

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
It's not as if your government geek said, "Gee, Micro$oft sucks let's install Linux!" - yet you treat it like that. The "subpar security" comment is especially hilarious, given that 66.6% of the internet is powered by Apache running on various flavours of Unix.

And what does this prove? Nothing. It just tells me that 66.6% of the webservers on the internet run a free OS with a free webserver. It does not prove that Linux / Apache are actually secure products.

However, how many people would have the benefit of hacking one or more of those 66.6% servers running Linux? Noone, except a few script kiddies who want to deface a website, but that also accounts for the rest of the webservers on the internet.

However, it gets more interesting for a hacker to introduce a potential backdoor into the OS when this could grant him access to a bunch of servers ran by the tax services of several countries, or social services. Allowing them to spread tax information, extort people or even identity theft. Introduction of code in an open source system is easier to do than it is in a closed source product with a company that has very strict regulations on who it will hire as a kernel programmer.

Sure, it doesn't mean Windows is free of exploits, it just means that if you find out that Microsoft introduced a backdoor in the OS that allows third parties to steal data, you know where to go and who to sue.

An OS is never 100% secure or safe or whatever. And the fact that certain people use a certain product, still has no meaning about how safe it is. The amount of people with the knowledge of how to hack into a Linux box is probably a lot lower than knowledge on how to break into a Windows box, because there are more Windows machines on the world.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
If you are an indie developer, aiming for cross-platform distribution (Windows / Mac OS X), Linux support should be trivial to add.

It's the testing and support that makes me uneasy. It's tricky enough as is. For Windows, you need to check Vista and XP as a minimum, Win.7 soon, maybe some of the earlier ones. For Mac, it's somewhat expected people upgrade (although I can scrounge enough systems to test Panther, Tiger and Leopard if need be). But with Linux, there's a jillion different distros, each with multiple front end windowing systems. That freaks me out.

There's also the problem that I've never got OpenGL to work properly under Linux, although I might just be having bad luck with my choice of hardware.

Nvidia stuff is fairly easy at this point. In Suse you can actually add 3D drivers by downloading them from the software installer. CLick, click your done. For ATI you need to be a smarter man than I. Everything has to be just the right this on just the right that.

I would say if you're freaked out by it then it is likely not worth it. The biggest pay off you would get would be from a personal desire to do it as the client base is likely disproportionate to the effort. That being said you do earn cool points if you pull it off. You could also give it a try and if it starts dragging you down bail on it.

Quote: Original post by AndreTheGiant

Quote: Original post by Kambiz
For everyone that does not care about games Ubuntu is a great choice.

Ive heard this a million times about (all versions of?) Linux. My question is, WHY is this the case? Linux obviously has a huge fanbase of developers.

Your missing dual boot.

The majority of *nix users have windows on their computers. They get it free or low cost from OEM licensing and other sources. It doesn't make sense to them to pay full price for a *nix version when they can get the game sooner or cheaper or both for Windows. And once they have the Windows version, it doesn't make sense to buy a copy for *nix, since there's no added value expect not booting into Windows to play it.

So while the market for *nix is growing, the market for AAA titles isn't. It would take a mass migration off windows to do that, not something I see happening in the future.

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
Have you made an actual cost-benefit analysis on quality, security and cost, or are you basing this on your personal preferences?

Check the "who's online" page, and look at the OS I'm using. How ironic, don't you think ?

The company I work for is a defense contractor. So yes, we have done such cost/benefit and security analysis in the past. I obviously cannot go into details, but let's just say that in most cases, Linux failed the security analysis. Mainly due to the fact that most source code isn't traceable to an identifiable individual or corporate entity, and that a full source code check is insanely expensive (also considering the horrendous state of the Linux source code and the non-existent documentation).

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
It's not as if your government geek said, "Gee, Micro$oft sucks let's install Linux!" - yet you treat it like that.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure that something like this was involved in the decision.

Quote:
The "subpar security" comment is especially hilarious, given that 66.6% of the internet is powered by Apache running on various flavours of Unix.

Yes, and two thirds of the internet don't have mission critical status. Remember, we're talking about a military agency here (the Gendarmerie is not the Police ! That's a common misunderstanding).

Quote:
Correct, the code should be audited. Which is exactly why Windows is *not* suitable for the government, don't you see? Accountability means nothing after the fact ("a third party may be able to access my data, but I can sue Microsoft so it's ok?")

The full Windows source code is accessible to government agencies and contractors. It can be audited, and Microsoft provides all required assistance. From extensive documentation to actually sending highly qualified staff with security clearances on site (for money, of course). Try that with Linux.

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
On accountability of closed source software... read the windows EULA (or any other EULA for that matter). In essence, Microsoft explicitly denies accountability, and tells you not to buy and install the software if you disagree and want accountability for damages.

This part of the EULA is invalid under EU law, which France is a part of. If you sell software in the EU, you are always responsible for damages. You cannot waive it away, except in a specifically signed contract between two corporate entities (which an EULA is not).

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
Have you made an actual cost-benefit analysis on quality, security and cost, or are you basing this on your personal preferences?

Check the "who's online" page, and look at the OS I'm using. How ironic, don't you think ?

Ah, the fine art of irony, you got me there :D

Quote: The company I work for is a defense contractor. So yes, we have done such cost/benefit and security analysis in the past. I obviously cannot go into details, but let's just say that in most cases, Linux failed the security analysis. [...]

Even so, Linux *is* used in mission critical systems, including (for example) the US military and the NSA. Obviously different agencies have different standards, so it can be suitable for the Gendarmerie even if it is not suitable for your company.

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
It's not as if your government geek said, "Gee, Micro$oft sucks let's install Linux!" - yet you treat it like that.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure that something like this was involved in the decision.

In that case, that's, err, pretty awful of your government. Then again, my government signed an exclusivity deal with Microsoft last year, which is not far off in the awfulness scale. ;)

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
The "subpar security" comment is especially hilarious, given that 66.6% of the internet is powered by Apache running on various flavours of Unix.

Yes, and two thirds of the internet don't have mission critical status.

Sorry, but banks, airlines, government infrastructure are *completely* reliant on these servers. Were this infrastructure to go offline, half the country would grind into a halt and I'm not kidding. That's pretty mission critical in my book (we tend to forget how reliant on the internet we are.)

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
Correct, the code should be audited. Which is exactly why Windows is *not* suitable for the government, don't you see? Accountability means nothing after the fact ("a third party may be able to access my data, but I can sue Microsoft so it's ok?")

The full Windows source code is accessible to government agencies and contractors. It can be audited, and Microsoft provides all required assistance. From extensive documentation to actually sending highly qualified staff with security clearances on site (for money, of course). Try that with Linux.

This is a good point. Doesn't Red Hat or Novell provide this kind of service?

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
On accountability of closed source software... read the windows EULA (or any other EULA for that matter). In essence, Microsoft explicitly denies accountability, and tells you not to buy and install the software if you disagree and want accountability for damages.

This part of the EULA is invalid under EU law, which France is a part of. If you sell software in the EU, you are always responsible for damages. You cannot waive it away, except in a specifically signed contract between two corporate entities (which an EULA is not).

good luck have fun suing about your losses due to your windows getting hacked. Or, if you wish, run nuclear reactor using windows, it goes paging, you blow up, and sue microsoft for damages.
You see, windows was made for regular user. They'll just say, our product was never advertised as able to withstand hacking attempts by dedicated hacker, we believe that our product performed similarly to other products in that market, that is your own problem you got hacked, perhaps you should have bought special operating system for your special needs.
If you got special contract with source code audit of your own, it is especially so.
BTW. Remember dcom/rpc exploits?

as for RedHat Linux.

Quote:
I obviously cannot go into details, but let's just say...

rrrrright...

As for government:
I'd guess that
1: French government database computers weren't running windows to begin with, but rather some flavor of unix, possibly proprietary, and
2: Gendarmerie is organized so that gaining access to a desktop computer shouldn't compromise the system, given that organization of this size is bound to contain malicious insiders of various sorts, and given that all operating systems did contain in the past, and can be expected to still contain (no matter the reviewing) security holes of all sorts.
You already forgot the dcom/rpc worms? The hole which almost amounts to a backdoor.

(as for linux. I think ubuntu is particularly poor choice. Debian heavily patches all the software, and there is poor control over patches, which may result in very major fuckups. You can often trust upstream, but evidently you cant trust typical free distros. Also, see "iceweasel". Distro maintainers, whom arent really programmers themselves, love to make various changes to feel more important, i suppose.)

[Edited by - Dmytry on March 16, 2009 12:53:33 PM]

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
Even so, Linux *is* used in mission critical systems, including (for example) the US military and the NSA.

But these are very specific subsets of Linux. You can be certain that, for example, the Linux running a missile control computer is not your out-of-the-box Ubuntu. It's going to be a highly customized version, with the source checked line by line, redundantly by several people. In fact, it will bear almost no resemblance to your standard Ubuntu / Suse / RedHat anymore.

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
Sorry, but banks, airlines, government infrastructure are *completely* reliant on these servers.

And Apache servers do crash or get hacked just as IIS servers do. The idea that Linux servers are some inherently secure and un-penetratable fortresses is nonsense.

Quote: Original post by Fiddler
This is a good point. Doesn't Red Hat or Novell provide this kind of service?

I don't know. Even if they did, Linux is much harder to audit than Windows. This is mainly due to complete lack of documentation, lack of coding standards, lack of source organization and, frankly, a horrific code base.

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
good luck have fun suing about your losses due to your windows getting hacked.

I think you underestimate what governments can do with contracting software companies that are in breach of contract or law. Just look at what the EU constantly does to Microsoft, making them custom develop useless software for free.

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
You see, windows was made for regular user. They'll just say, our product was never advertised as able to withstand hacking attempts by dedicated hacker, we believe that our product performed similarly to other products in that market, that is your own problem you got hacked, perhaps you should have bought special operating system for your special needs.

The versions of Windows sold to various government agencies are special need versions. And yes, Microsoft is liable if something goes wrong that was contractually agreed on being Microsofts responsibility. Of course such cases, if they did happen, would never go public, as they are classified.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
The versions of Windows sold to various government agencies are special need versions. And yes, Microsoft is liable if something goes wrong that was contractually agreed on being Microsofts responsibility.

And why exactly would microsoft agree that system getting hacked would be their responsibility? They know their bugs per KLOC rate, bugs per KLOC after review, etc, theres no way they would believe that software of this size would be un-hackable. edit: heck, the software developed with regular programming practices, as opposed to using special programming language, automated-theorem-proving, and such to increase reliability.

Quote:
Of course such cases, if they did happen, would never go public, as they are classified.

rrrrright...

BTW, why you're using linux if its so horrible? Had it forced on you or something? then i could understand the attitude.