Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Linux Web Player?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by adshead, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    Yes, that's called "pedantic". :roll: Everybody knows that PC stands for personal computer. Here's another word: "context". Everybody knows that in the context of "available for PC and Mac", PC stands for "personal computer running Windows". Because technically a Mac is also a PC (even when they had PPC or 68K CPUs).

    --Eric
     
  2. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    I know, I was just being difficult. :wink:
     
  3. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    See thats why its appropriate to be "difficult" towards hacky-tux ;-)

    naw linux is nice for its purpose but thats server usage to me until the different distributions finally come together to find 1 way not, not 10+ ways.

    For end user usage, there are only 3 distributions I would consider a desktop os and thats mandriva, xandros and moblin and the 3rd one is out by definition as they are not even remotely in the range to play unity content. With Xandros not being free, that basically leaves mandriva.
     
  4. Quietus2

    Quietus2

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Posts:
    2,058
    I always thought PC stood for "Profusely Cabled."

    Waiting 3-4 minutes while your machine parity tests all 384k of memory was a very impersonal experience. So I'm not buying the "Personal Computer" story as that would be a cruel joke.


    Personal, was adjusting the rotation speed of your Apple // drive via a screwdriver and a potentiometer. Get that line just perfectly lined up in Copy ][+'s drive test and your babies were humming like oiled machines!
     
  5. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    Because, as stated already, that is simply not how it works at all. There is the up-front cost of the initial port as well as the ongoing costs of maintenance and updates. What about recruiting the right people to come on board for that port? Or do we delay other efforts internally incurring "opportunity costs" as other projects would get delayed? Etc.

    Any new platform incurs expenses that are the now and the ongoing and so your proposal for us to put out a price and have "you" (nebulous group for which you cannot actually speak with authority) pay and then do the "damn port for once" sort of shows a lack of insight as to how major software like ours is developed and maintained. It's just not something that we're ready to take on and divert our time and energy away from other (more important to us) tasks.

    So feel free to keep lighting this fire, we'll only move on this sort of thing if/when we feel that the time is right and that it's worth the time, energy and expense to not just create once but continue supporting. That's just not happened so far.


    And we do not consider our use of "PC" to be misleading, thanks. :)
     
  6. Redbeer

    Redbeer

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    402
    I'm curious why you don't consider Ubuntu, which seems to have a lot of penetration, a desktop OS?
    Not a fanboy, not looking for an argument, I have no opinion really, I'm just curious what your rationale is for my own edification.
     
  7. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    I don't think Linux is that popular. I mean, it's less popular as a game platform than Mac, right? It's typically quite a technical o/s that requires all sorts of know-how to make it work right and operate it. It's useability is far below that of Windows and OSX. I know cus I've tried. So this relegates it mostly to people who are enthusiasts, passionate about technology or principles, etc which is NOT the mainstream. While it would be eminently `cool` for Linux to get a unity web player (if not a full unity editor or standalone binaries), I can see the point that there is a lot of cost involved in not only developing it but testing it and maintaining it over time. The web player is free so making only a linux web player will not make Unity any money at all, so then it has to support standalones, which means supporting the whole Linux platform. I can see how if you love Linux and it's your main o/s then you'd really feel frustrated not having Unity on it, but I agree it really doesn't have the market to make it worthwhile. I think UT would have to be basically `giving away` a freebie to the community in order to port Unity to it, and would have to absorb all of the costs of that. While I really really appreciate UT's generosity in giving away things like great tutorials and content, it goes toward investment in the platform and I don't see that giving Linux users a such a freebie without decent change of growth and return makes much sense.
     
  8. noig3

    noig3

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    <post content removed by a moderator, HiggyB>
     
  9. Lab013

    Lab013

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Posts:
    405
    I like Linux... But id only use it with unity if I wanted to run a game's server(s) on it, or if i wanted the community to be able to run a game server from linux. In which case I'd make the server in cpp or c, then I'd make plugins so a unity client can be integrated with my server code... As for the Linux users that want to use unity games, or the unity engine, you guys already got a cajillion virtual machines, bridge, ports, and hackers to make that happen, without unity's involvement (which although it would be nice if they had support for it, id rather have other things implemented first...).
     
  10. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    @noig3: while I sincerely thank you for your support I do have to say that I found the tone and wording of your post unacceptable. It's just not ok to come out of the box swinging like that, calling people names, swearing quite so much, etc. Sorry to play good cop and bad cop in one post. :p
     
  11. Saeblundr

    Saeblundr

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Posts:
    10
    just a bump to say heres another company (10 software engineers) that would love linux support on the player at least :)

    not for development issues, obviously, but because im writing games at home, and not getting to flaunt it here at work because everyone runs *nix ;)


    @Redbeer: i second your calm clean attitude, and questions.
     
  12. Nomax

    Nomax

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2
    Hi there!

    I wanted to play Space Paranoids Online but I can't because it uses Unity Web Player and it only runs on Windows and Mac OS X. Unfortunately, I'm using Linux (64-bit Ubuntu).

    Software often only exists in Windows version, I'm used to that situation but never got troubles while dealing with web content.

    Even Microsoft Silverlight works on Linux browsers. I'm sure that products like Cult3D never really took off because it supported Windows platform only... Surely not only because of that but it certainly helped.

    Please check how Microsoft did with Silverlight, maybe it will give you a hint for Unity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)

    I never tried Unity, but I heard it works very well. Please, don't let the lack of platform support reduce its potential.

    I hope to be able to see it myself one day. :wink:
     
  13. newt

    newt

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    You stated:
    "Unity is so powerful and robust and it lets you target the _vast_ majority of users (Mac/Win) that it seems odd (to me, your mileage may vary) that you'd choose to bypass everything it does for what is arguably the smallest game consumer segment out there*."

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
    "Flash is so powerful and robust and it lets you target the _vast_ majority of users that it seems odd (to me, your mileage may vary) that you'd choose to bypass everything it does for what is arguably the smallest game consumer segment out there (Unity users)"

    (How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot? Welcome to the Linux party!)
     
  14. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    Well...that's not accurate and it's not an analogy that even works, so I'm not sure what the point of that was.

    --Eric
     
  15. newt

    newt

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    HiggyB made the argument to a game developer--why would you want to write a game that supports Linux (even given its advantages), when it represents a very small market compared to Windows and Mac.

    Well, Unity, as a game platform, represents a small market compared to Flash. So why would a game developer write a game using Unity (even given its advantages), when it represents a small market compared to Flash?

    The analogy holds.
     
  16. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    No, because you can always just install the Unity player if you don't already have it, without having to invest anything more than a few seconds. The install base for the Unity web player isn't some kind of set percentage, and it's going up all the time.

    --Eric
     
  17. newt

    newt

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    "The install base for the Unity web player isn't some kind of set percentage, and it's going up all the time."

    Yeah, same for Linux. :wink:


    Come to think of it, your other sentence works for Linux too.
     
  18. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,325
    Statistics, please!
     
  19. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    The difference is the speed at which they are growing.
     
  20. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    Please be careful with summarizing what I write/say as you're off a touch there and don't quite capture my argument. My argument was that each new platform "costs us" (money, resources, time, etc.) as it requires the up-front porting effort as well as the longer term development, support and maintenance efforts. We have to look at the cost/benefit ratio of any new feature, and even more so for new platforms, and for now the cost/benefit ratio for Linux as a new platform hasn't yet passed muster. That's a very different argument to make than your oversimplification of my words above, and it's not an argument that applies to tool decisions (how and why a platform provider's decisions about supporting a new platform are equated to a developer's choice to pick up a new tool match up in any way I don't know...).

    Please keep my words as mine and if you want to cite me in a post of yours then quote me directly so my words do my speaking for me. Thanks.
     
  21. Vaxon

    Vaxon

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    So basically you saying the ipad has a large enough user base
    But Linux does not for a web player? Maybe not developers tools and everything thats used for game creation,but a player?
    And no guarantee but would it be good for you to actually make the player for linux
    Linux isn't known to have many good games which forces users into some sort of windows emulation,Dual Booting, Or just quitting altogether
    Wouldn't it be good on your end that you will have assimilated an untapped community?
     
  22. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    iPad is 99.9% the same as iPhone, which was already done.

    --Eric
     
  23. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    No, that's not what I said at all and you missed my point entirely. It's important to think in terms of "cost/benefit ratio" instead of "numbers of users". Once more, with reference to Linux and the iPad:

    Each new platform has a cost/benefit ratio associated with it, the costs related to both the up-front initial port as well as ongoing future support. That ratio hasn't been favorable enough for Linux (in our opinion) to justify supporting that platform. The iPad on the other hand had an excellent cost/benefit ratio that justified providing support for that device on day zero.


    What drove that favorable ratio for the iPad? As noted above the OS is essentially the same as the iPhone/iPod touch so the amount of work required was trivial. So adding that as a new platform had very little up-front cost and very little ongoing costs compared to what we were "spending" before it. Looking at Linux you simply cannot say the same (the costs are not "very little" in either case) and we've just not seen enough potential benefit waiting out there to justify adding Linux as a supported platform. As I've mentioned before that ratio is always changing, different forces come into play, etc. So this isn't a statement that we'll never support Linux, it's simply me offering an explanation as to why it's not there today.
     
  24. Kelik

    Kelik

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Posts:
    2
    Got so excited this morning, I saw a news article titled "First Look At Ubuntu Light And Unity".. Turns out the rest of the title was cut off :( it's just the name of a new UI :(.

    I am another developer who supports a linux web player, I understand not wanting to waste precious resources on a small group of potential users however.

    A bit of info regarding linux and games, recently a group have released a set of indie games for a limited time you pay what you want to for them with interesting results:
    http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Linux-users-contribute-twice-as-much-as-Windows-users

    In fact there is quite a lot of interesting information on the blog:
    http://www.wolfire.com/

    Also I do not think a linux editor is worth the development time/cost, while it would be great to finally abandon windows I think most developers would have access to either a Mac or Windows computer anyway, since they are the bigger markets. Also platforms such as the IPhone seem like they would be your most popular platform so they are almost guaranteed to have access to a Mac.

    I think that until the market is a bit more pleasing from a business viewpoint even a desktop build is not super important, but I think a webplayer (even a crappy port of the windows/mac one) will be a good way to test the market and see how popular Unity on linux would actually be.

    Anyway, I'm excited to see what Unity comes up with next :D.
     
  25. LinuxTech

    LinuxTech

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Are you for real dude? Apparently you are the type of person that is comfortable speaking with little or no knowledge of your topic. Wow. You said "While it's true that the Linux user-base continues to grow..." Dude, First of all, Linux was around for YEARS before Microsoft! (not sure about Mac) There are approximately 50 different MAJOR distributions of Linux! And many more offshoots of those!

    Really, if your going to make a statement, get your facts straight. Btw, there are hundreds of thousands of linux users and many of them want to play "Windows" games but NOT in windows that there is an entire programming group dedicated to writing an application to allow us to do that and more (See: http://www.winehq.org). I can use just about anything for windows inside that app, without having to run windows OR a virtual machine.

    I would SERIOUSLY reconsider A) Offering support for a Linux Web Player, and B) just how many Linux users you "think" are actually out there. Seriously...

    Besides, the "Vast" majority you are referring to below only SEEM vast because most are FORCED to use an operating system because it came on the machine AND much of the software being programmed is dictated BY said operating system. Not to mention most of them just simply aren't aware that there actually IS an alternative or just how easy it would be to use. There are MANY linux distributions that are EASIER to use than windows, but too many people just aren't aware of it.

    So I hope my above comment will help you see that the number of linux users is either equal or slightly more than the "other two", we just aren't as vocal as them. :)
     
  26. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    Speaking of "the type of person that is comfortable speaking with little or no knowledge of your topic".... Microsoft was founded in 1975 and made (if that's what you want to call it) MS-DOS around 1980 or so. Linux didn't get started until the early '90s. These are simple facts that anyone can verify.

    Because some random internet guy made a baseless claim that's refuted by any facts you care to name...? Sorry, but no. Thanks for making Mac fanatics look completely sane by comparison though. ;)

    --Eric
     
  27. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    Yes, I'm for real and what among what you offered there (if true), rendered my statement invalid? The truth, like it or not, is that Linux is a small market share operating system compared to Mac/Windows, whether it's been around since the ancient Greeks or it was just created this morning. It's age is not what I mentioned or that I care about.


    You're all up in arms over how I don't have my "facts straight" and really the only facts I noted was that the Linux user base continues to grow and that it's not yet something that offers us enough benefit for the effort that would be required (ours is a constant balance of cost/benefit ratios when considering new platforms). I would think that you'd agree that the Linux user base is growing, and you're just not in a position at all to say anything factual about our assessment of cost/benefit.


    Your comments above only make me wonder about you and how well, or not, you're reading what I wrote. You offered a very passionate reply indeed, but not one that I think I can take too seriously just yet.
     
  28. newt

    newt

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Posts:
    4
    "HiggyB made the argument to a game developer--why would you want to write a game that supports Linux (even given its advantages), when it represents a very small market compared to Windows and Mac.

    Please be careful with summarizing what I write/say"

    If you don't like my summary, I'll use your exact words (as I did in a previous post):

    " it seems odd (to me, your mileage may vary) that you'd choose to bypass everything it does for what is arguably the smallest game consumer segment out there*."

    This was in a reply to a user who said that he'd prefer to develop games for Linux. I think my summary is pretty accurate and am somewhat taken aback by your statement that it wasn't.

    I am aware of your -additional- arguments that it takes extra staff to support extra platforms, and it is certainly a valid argument. I think the other posters are pretty accurate, though, when they say that options for games are pretty limited with Linux, so if you developed a player you'd pretty much have the market to yourselves, and I think you'd be surprised how big that would be.
     
  29. FunnyRobot

    FunnyRobot

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Posts:
    26
  30. Nomax

    Nomax

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2
    As a whole, Linux in installed on way more computers than Mac OS X if you count all servers (60% of web servers run on Linux), render farms (since Titanic, most SFX in Hollywood are rendered on Linux + Linux workstations replaced Silicon Graphics modeling workstations in the last decade), smartphones and embedded systems (my TomTom GPS and Panasonic Plasma TV are Linux powered).

    But Unity aims at the (I guess) websurfers market and most of Linux computers aren't used for websurfing.
    In website visitors os statistics, Linux always gets marginal usage. For example, my website statistics for last month reads Windows: 89.49%, Mac OS: 7.67%, Linux/Android: 1.19%, iPhone/iPad: 0.36%.

    So I understand that 1% marketshare isn't worth spending time, resources and hassle of porting and maintaining a Linux version of Unity.

    But according to these stats, it would be more interesting to make a Linux plugin than an iPhone one. But we would also already have a Linux plugin (and dev tools) for Linux if Unity founders were Linux addicts instead of Mac fanboys. Both mac and Linux users are very passionate about their respective operating systems (Windows users are not because 90% of them didn't "choose" their OS).

    So I said that going Linux now is not very rewarding. But looking at the future, it surely will!

    Because:

    - There are less games on Linux than on Mac/Windows. So a Linux user is potentially more interested in games that run on his system than a Windows user. It's a question of visibility. Like having your product on a shelf beside 10 competitive products (Linux) or beside 100 competitive products (Windows). You have better chance to see your product picked up in the first case.

    - All leading mobile/smartphone manufacturers (Nokia, HTC, LG, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, Panasonic, Palkm, Dell, Acer, ...) offer Linux models in their range representing more than 100 different models (2006 figures).
    http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/Linux-Mobile-Phones/
    Android phones are becoming quite popular lately and supporting theme require little to no extra effort if you have a Linux plugin...

    - Most popular played browser games work flawlessly on Linux (e.g: Quake Live, RuneScape, Evony, zOMG!, Dark Orbit, ...) Don't leave your customers in the cold!

    - WebGL is currently being implemented in browsers (next versions of Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera will support it). It allows the usage of OpenGL in Javascript without the need of any plugin. The only problem is that Internet Explorer (53% browser marketshare) won't support it anytime soon but Google already announced that it was developing a plugin to bring Chrome rendering to MSIE. It will be some serious competition!

    - Most Linux distributions behing shipped with Apache and MySQL, it's the naturally privileged development platform for web services and content (other than Flash of course).

    - As Unity already exists on Mac OS X, porting it to Linux wouldn't be that hard since both are POSIX systems. It's harder to port something from Mac OS X to Windows than from Mac OS X to Linux.

    I would like to thank HiggyB to still follow the discussion and take time to explain/share Unity's point-of-view. That's transparency and this way of communication is always the one to go for a company to stay close to its (potential) customers and gain "sympathy" points. It's very appreciated.
     
  31. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    Thanks for the kind words my way. With the above you've captured the situation nicely, it's just not viable (in our opinion) as of today but that is likely to change as time rolls on. We're keeping a close eye on this and other "behind the scenes" developments we're tuned in to so that we don't miss out on things. But so far it's just not measured up as something worth our effort compared to other new platforms like consoles*, iPhone**, Android, etc.

    *Again, don't think raw numbers of possible customers as surely the console developer pool is rather small. The question is one of "cost/reward" and the ratio there is worth it for us to pursue PlayStation and Xbox in addition to our existing Wii support.

    **No comment on the current iPhone OS 4 issues, there's a 180 page thread on that elsewhere, go read that or our blog (like this) for more info.
     
  32. Spudz76

    Spudz76

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2
    I didn't bother to read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has been brought up already, but the major reason for the Linux market share not taking its fair piece is due to developers like you guys who don't bother to support it.

    It's like a coach saying a kid doesn't have good enough stats to put him in the game - while the kid could have excellent stats and could bring the team to victory if he ever got to play. There really needs to be more equal opportunity for Linux, or it will always be the minority, which is doesn't deserve at all. It's like OS racism. Linux basically runs the Internet too, so if it weren't for Linux you all would be really bored.

    Windows holds its market share only because Linux users still need to have it around (in VirtualBox or dual-boot) for running stuff that shortsighted companies don't bother to port. So you probably should subtract one Windows user from their totals for each Linux user to obtain a more accurate view of how they stack up. The Linux market share is quite a bit larger than the numbers would lead you to believe. Don't forget that statistics can say whatever you want them to depending on who compiled them, and what angle they wanted to show, especially when it's percentages.

    Also the whole "3D isn't stable enough" thing is horseapples. OpenGL works perfectly fine and in most cases even better than on Windows, and software rendering handles it if your drivers are messed up or your video card is not capable - and just like any 3D game if it sucks you need to upgrade. I have heard just as many "this doesn't work right" complaints about OSX (Darwin) and Windows. All distro and hardware differences are abstracted by using OpenGL, and if your app doesn't work on a few weird combinations then its not your fault - assuming you used OpenGL standards properly and didn't base your code on undocumented tricks that only work on Darwin or Windows, or specific vendor extension "hacks" for speed. The end user has to run a recent and not broken distro and have a well supported video card (nVidia, followed by ATI, followed by Intel, and then "the rest"). Basically if you develop for Ubuntu 9.04 (never bother with the latest release, especially with Ubuntu) and nVidia using OpenGL and none of the nVidia vendor specific extensions and it works then you are done.

    Same as above applies to hardware or driver issues, if less people use Linux then there are less bug reports and less people finding the problems, and less effort given to patch the problem. So by releasing things that run under Linux natively, even if they might trip on upstream bugs at first, you basically cause Linux to catch up with you. If Google Earth and Quake3 are the only OpenGL apps a lot of people run on Linux then the OpenGL implementation will only end up with excellent support for how those use OpenGL. If you never put your app in the mix then, by nature of Open Source, it won't get fixed or expanded. It's sort of the reverse of "if you build it, they will come" - "if you come, they will build it".

    Please, coach, put Linux in! He's really good, I swear!
     
  33. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    I'd say it's reasonably important to read up on a conversation like this before posting so you know if it's been covered or not and at least take it new directions rather than possibly retread old ones. But fair enough, let's discuss (again). I'm a chatty enough guy... :)

    But is the coach in your analogy trying to run a business, one that has bills and employees that need paying? Does he have to worry about that kid's performance earning money to keep the stadium open, water in the cooler, etc.?

    This is the dilemma we face in that we have to look at such things and evaluate the ROI (Return On Investment) to decide whether something is worth doing or not and so far Linux support hasn't made that cut yet. And of course please note that the "Return" we're looking for isn't always revenue, in can come in many forms. So this isn't just a "we have to wait to turn a profit" situation, just like deciding to make Unity Indie free wasn't one. We're all a bunch of geeks, we have Linux-heads on staff and in our friend circles, so it's not like we're anti-Linux as a whole.

    Long term this isn't quite the same as your coach analogy, we have a business to run and we have to think about it as such so we're here in another month, year, decade, etc. At some point the balance will tip, our teams have given and continue to give Linux a close eye as the next desktop platform we can target, but that day is not today...
     
  34. Spudz76

    Spudz76

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Posts:
    2
    Fair enough. Still, doesn't your revenue (or other returns) come from content producers, and therefore sites who decide on your technology over other similar (but obviously not as cool) things?

    I know tons of site directors (myself included) who would immediately disqualify a product if it didn't support the "big three" - Windows, OSX, and Linux - completely regardless of how good it was otherwise. It sort of doesn't matter if it's totally the best most awesome 3D browser plugin/technology available if a potential surfer/customer can't even use it. At best Unity3D would be degraded to only being used where it isn't a site-critical feature, among the unimportant bells and whistles instead of an integral part of the framework.

    Granted, it falls under the "who do we care about" question, same as "should we continue to support IE6" and similar decisions, but most sites still want to provide their content with as much of the look and feel preserved as possible on any OS and any browser, so web developers get to deal with trying to get IE6 to behave with forked CSS and all sorts of hacks even though from a "ROI" standpoint it is probably never worth it - at least the site owner can have a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that any old browser can still use the site and not have it be displayed totally broken. Even if someone still using IE6 should be the thing considered totally broken.

    I could see tons of sites using Unity3D for their eCommerce product pages (3D product views - pick it up and check it out more like in-person bricks and mortar stores) but certainly not if a larger than 5% chunk of potential customers have to jump through hoops (boot Windows) to use the site in all its glory. Plus, VirtualBox is rather horrible at hardware accelerated 3D still, so they would probably have to dual-boot which is not worth it most of the time.

    Mainly what raised Unity3D to my attention was wanting to check out the new 3D radar feature on wunderground, but it's not worth rebooting for - the normal 2D version answers my question of "are storms blowing in" just fine. I'll just wait until Google Earth gets 3D weather radar or something instead.
     
  35. Atalargo

    Atalargo

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Posts:
    4
    it's describ reasons to support Linux (and MacOSX too in this article) for game :
    http://blog.wolfire.com/2008/12/why-you-should-support- mac-os-x-and-linux/

    and this one it's about respectiv part of buyers switch OS after the famous Humble Indie Bundle, [url text="Humble Indie Bundle"]http://www.wolfire.com/humble[/url] http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Linux-users-contribute-twice-as-much-as-Windows-users

    This two articles shows why a linux support of Unity could be important for people makeing games...[/url]
     
  36. GeneralGrant

    GeneralGrant

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Posts:
    977
    This is why I hate linux and Ubuntu. Actualy, Ubuntu is great for your first OS. It's simple with a clean interface. But its a horror installing things. Let alone finding a Linux version.
     
  37. Caliber-Mengsk

    Caliber-Mengsk

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Posts:
    689
    Sticky subject here, that's what this is.

    Anyway, while yes, it's a pain to Linux users that it's not supported, I don't see the major fuss. Why not complain to EA that they don't make games for Linux? It's a business thing. If it doesn't make sense, don't do it.

    I agree that Linux is getting to be a more comfortable name with people, to the fact of they at least know what it is, but, just because someone knows what it is, doesn't mean they'll use it.

    Look at things like Bio-diesel. A large amount of people know it works, and that it's renewable, but they still won't use it because they haven't had that experience with it.


    Then again, to disprove my point, look at Android. Linux based, but it already has larger market share then the iPhone. (and still growing, as the iPhone market is starting to shrink)

    My biggest question is, if you guys are making it for Android, would it take all that much manipulation to get it to work on Linux? Android is effectively just another linux distribution. Then again, I guess the core architecture is different being an ARM based processor then a x86/x64 processor... O-o... XD Why do I always have to point out my own flaws.

    Anyway, I'd say it's probably going to be a while still before the Unity Team makes a Linux port, because while it'd be nice for linux users to be able to do it, the ones that expect to play games already dual boot, and are ok with it. Otherwise they would just use Linux all on it's lonesome.

    Ok... I think I rambled enough.
     
  38. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    I think those who argue in favor of the Linux distribution and against the Unity team for the current lack of support for Linux need to become more knowledgeable in computer science before posting.

    The architecture is different as its not x86. Do not even bother mentioning x64 as that is another architecture that was designed to also allow backwards compatibility to x86.

    Unity is an very abstract from its hardware. The hierarchy goes:
    Unity
    Operating System
    Hardware

    Unity must be able to interface with the OS to perform tasks on the hardware. Each OS handels its interactions with the hardware differently. Windows uses different code to perform tasks than Mac does, Mac differently from iPhone, etc etc.

    Unity could be supported on Linux if someone built enough wrappers to have it work directly with the official unmodified Linux kernel. However, that is not worth the effort.

    Time is $$ after all and not enough Linux users out there to make it worth it. I have read your arguments that there are not enough software support so the Linux base won't expand. Your argument is invalid. Porting Adobe software to Linux will not make Linux gain 20% of the market, nor would porting every other application that everyone likes to use. Sure some big companies such as render houses in the movie industry have started using it for their own reasons but did you ever think that its because they can hire someone to modify the OS to be better suited for their needs? Linux is all about custom use in most of its market share.

    Back to what I was saying... most Linux distributions have added substantial amounts of features on top of the core OS Kernel that allow them to work as you see them in desktop and server settings.

    So given the fact that there is no standard Linux OS base, there is nothing to build Unity on top of that is standard. Android is big enough, aka the only competitor to the iPhone, that it is worth it to make a player for. You won't see a player for your regular LG or Samsung phone, unless its running Droid.

    BTW to get Droid to other hardware platforms, new Droid code(assembly instructional code) must be written to get the code to act like "Droid act's". Windows runs on as much hardware as it can because of it's massive partnerships with companies to help write code and make hardware that will be able to be interfaced with easily. Separate code must be written for ALL hardware that is not 100% identical to something already written.

    The point is, there is no Linux standard OS and because of that it is not economical to produce a player or editor for Linux systems unless for a specific purpose(aka smartphone's).

    I hope this better explains it to those Linux advocates who don't know how their OS works ;).

    EDIT: I forgot to mention that Linux is a wrapper for all sorts of distributions. The core of Ubuntu is different from Android as they are different OS's with different code available to higher level systems to perform tasks. Just figured I would clear up the Linux to Linux confusion.SO a call to draw a box on screen in Android may be drawBox(int y, int x) and in Ubuntu its drwBx(int x, int y). All the code would need to be modified. The example here was purely for showing the different. Coders will know why the two functions are different.
     
  39. ITAmember

    ITAmember

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    88
    The architecture is more or less irrelevant, unless Unity uses assembly then it can simply be recompiled for different architectures. Also, x86-64 (the real name for x64 which is just a market hype name) is a 64 bit extension of x86 (plus some SIMD instructions) and therefore not a true independent architecture.

    Those wrappers already exist, they are every single shared library ever written for Linux. All Unity really needs to function with is graphics (OpenGL), input (X11), and sound (ALSA). Unity already uses OpenGL and X11 input is simple to patch together. Sound is the only biggie, then again they could just use OpenAL and reuse it on the other platforms.

    These added features are more or less standardized. Distro venders wouldn't dare mess with packages because it would break compatibility with others. Like I said, Unity doesn't need much to work.

    Separate code most definitely does not have to be written for all hardware, the entire purpose behind an operating system is to prevent that! Compatibility between Linux distros is a simple matter of installing the required dependencies, most of which already exist on the average Linux system. In some ways Linux is more standardized then other operating systems because all you need to do to install an app is install the required dependencies.

    <EDIT>
    Or are you talking about separate code being written for the operating system instead of the program? In which case the first sentence is invalid.
    </EDIT>

    Fractal wrongness I say! Linux is the complete opposite of a wrapper, it is the operating system kernel and by very definition is the core of all cores.



    My view on the subject is a bit of a chicken and the egg situation. Linux has a small user base because there are no games and there are no games because Linux has a small user base. (feel free the replace "games" with the commercial product of your choice)
     
  40. JRavey

    JRavey

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Posts:
    2,377
    A while back I had to set up 250 Linux boxes you can add to the install base for those keeping track. Exactly 0 of them have graphical interfaces. My home NAS, router, media server, and all PBX run on Linux, making it the dominant system in Villa de JRavey yet none of them can even play Solitaire. The point being, just because it is installed somewhere, doesn't mean people will play games on it or that they even can.

    I like Linux, that should be clear, but it is not yet a platform for gaming no matter how much people wish it would be. Besides, with the big draw to Linux being that it runs on cheap hardware and you can get by with a lot of free software, it would be a hard market for actually selling games.
     
  41. ITAmember

    ITAmember

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    88
    Linux is just as much of a gaming platform as anything else, it supports graphics, input, and audio, all that's needed for a game.

    Keep in mind there are many big draws for Linux, mine would be no vendor lock ins, awesome performance, excellent customization, and the ability to do whatever the hell you want with it. (wanna hear what your hard drive sounds like? Pipe it to your speakers)
     
  42. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    Unity did use OpenAL before 2.6, but switched to FMOD. OpenAL just isn't that great.

    --Eric
     
  43. ITAmember

    ITAmember

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    88
    Really? Well that's even better!
     
  44. JRavey

    JRavey

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Posts:
    2,377
    Nobody is arguing that it *can't* play games, just that it is not commonly used for gaming. To be fair, you can't brag about the number of Linux boxes in use without also putting a little asterisk next that statement to remind people that the overwhelming majority of systems running Linux cannot run games at all due to the hardware or missing functionality on many installations.

    You know what can play games, to include nearly every simple game? Windows. Niche markets are decent incubators, but they have very limited growth and that discourages people from making commercial games for Linux. From a business perspective, that Linux runs most web servers and has great OpenGL support is entirely irrelevant. Since this is a chicken egg matter, Linux-on-the-desktop fans need to start releasing seriously impressive games or ports of games if it is going to ever get off the ground.

    Otherwise, you will have to wait for the next market leading MMO to support Linux. Good luck with that. :roll:
     
  45. ITAmember

    ITAmember

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    88
    Well said, I'll crawl back into my hole an pray for better market penetration. :)
     
  46. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    Oh course code has to be written for all hardware(and yes I am talking about for the OS), ever wonder why your sound card or graphics card requires driver's to make it work properly? There are "generic drivers" to make things work, but that's not really utilizing the hardware to its full extent. That is to say with Linux and the way its open-source there is no guarantee that the hardware will be supported. That is my point.

    Also I will clarify that when I said wrapper, I mean Droid is Linux, so is Ubuntu. However their code base is vastly different. People use the term Linux too loosely. It's a wrapper in the sense that people can here it and think its a standard when it's not. There are many Linux distros that have modified the main Linux kernel.

    Also, as for the argument about standard Linux packages that you could use to implement Unity for Linux, so which ones? would it use xfce, gnome, kde? All have certain ways of doing things as I understand it and that's why I can find Linux apps that only run in the KDE or Gnome. Remember, if you make things too generic, you lose the ability to fully utilize hardware capabilities.

    Lastly architecture does matter! Do you think that the Android supported processors have the same features and process scheduling as a standard x86 CPU? No! Let alone the same way to interface with it. Android is a custom Linux OS. I am sure that the Unity team did not write pure code for the Linux kernel that it uses. So to port Unity Droid to another version of Linux would still require a rewrite of much of the code I would imagine as the Droid API will not match other Linux distros.
     
  47. ITAmember

    ITAmember

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    88
    But those drivers are made by the hardware vendors, not by the creator of the operating system. Microsoft just writes an interface in the NT kernel for the drivers and relies on hardware vendors to provide their own drivers.

    Generic drivers can use the hardware to its extent. For example, my processor uses a "generic" driver and it doesn't hurt performance one bit. I agree that using a generic driver with a graphics card will hurt performance but everything else can get away with generic drivers without noticeable performance reduction.

    Linux is Linux, no matter how you slice it. The kernel is the same. Linux is an operating system, not an operating system version. Linux is to Windows as Ubuntu is to Windows 7. Is the term Windows used too loosely? No, it is applied to all versions of Windows Is Linux used to loosely? No, it is applied to all versions of Linux.

    Unity would not use any of those, only OpenGL, FMOD, and X11 input. All of which work on GNOME and KDE. (XFCE and GNOME are different window managers on the same base libraries)

    The architecture is irrelevant from Unity's point of view, once again the point of operating systems.
     
  48. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    As for hardware vendors making the drivers for their device, the point is that many hardware vendors do not openly make drivers for Linux or offer enough support for it to be reliable. Yes there is a majority of hardware support for Linux, but the truth is that most companies give Linux low priority for support. And yes speaking from a game development and playing standpoint. Generic drivers for graphics cards are bad, and isn't that what we are most concerned with here, playing games?

    Linux is nothing more than a kernel designed to tell the hardware how to talk to one another and allocate resources among them. To be precise GNU/Linux is to Windows as Ubuntu is to Windows 7. And yes that is a big difference. There is nothing more than hardware interaction code in "Linux" which is referring to the kernel. Everyone gets Linux and GNU/Linux confused. The linux you refer to is a GNU/Linux which doesn't exist until someone adds enough other code to the kernel to make it a usable platform. Everything else must be built on top of the kernel which is why there are multiple distros and even programs that can't run on all "Linux" operating systems.

    Unity is after all sitting on top of the OS and I was pointing out the fact that the "Linux" of Droid is different from the Linux of Ubuntu. The API's will be different as Unity is using the OS Droid which is has its own ways of dealing with graphics etc. You cannot port Unity Droid and have it run on any Linux. If so, we all wouldn't be having this conversation about the lack of other Linux support as no changes would need to be made to drop it onto the platform!

    So yes, the GNU/Linux of Ubuntu is different from the GNU/Linux of openSuse which is different from the GNU/Linux of Droid etc. They all have the potential to use different or the same packages to handle creating the user experience. So given the vast amount of options for a distribution to have, it would be very difficult to produce a web player or editor for generic "Linux". And given the fact that the Unity team said that it's not a direct port from Droid to other "Linux" options, doesn't that make it clear that there is no current standard in which you believe Unity can be run without much changes on desktop OS's?
     
  49. ITAmember

    ITAmember

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Posts:
    88
    Times are a changin'. Every piece of hardware I use either doesn't need a driver or already has a Linux driver. And I purchased most of them without making sure they have Linux support.

    I figured this would come up. Richard Stallman is a bit of an ego-maniac, his big naming controversy is just a way to steal credit from Linus Torvalds.

    Hell, the X Windows System is an important component, why not rename it X/GNU/Linux!

    The point is, Linux is just a name. Linux is a name for the operating system and the Linux Kernel is the name for the kernel.

    Android is like Windows CE, similar enough to be in the same family but different enough to remove cross compatibility. I am not arguing that Android is compatible with desktop Linux, I am not even suggesting that, I don't even have any interest in arguing about it.

    For the most part the difference between distros is only skin deep. Android is an exception because it is so heavily modified. What does Unity need to work on all desktop Linux? OpenGL, FMOD, and X11 input; all of which exist and are cross compatible on all desktop Linux.
     
  50. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    The difference between GNU/Linux and Linux is the difference between a car and its engine btw.

    And because you miss that large difference and the main points I was trying to make I can no longer take you seriously ITAmember.

    Either way I think I have fully explained why you cannot port Droid Unity to Linux and why its too difficult to extend support to the platform that suffers from little official support.

    ITAmember, It seems you are just nit picking at my posts to try and sound as if you have a greater understanding or discredit me. If it really was that simple and economical I'm sure the Unity team would support GNU/Linux. However because of the reasons I have stated, it is not economical or a sound idea to take on such a project to support GNU/Linux.