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 Support :D

Discussion in 'Wish List' started by FelixAlias, Nov 14, 2005.

  1. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    Yes, that particular sentence is misleading (although the context was a bit of a giveaway), I was referring to sales that were Linux driven, i.e. clients for whom Linux (even player only) presence would be a tipping point for acquiring more/different Unity licenses.
     
  2. Atalargo

    Atalargo

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Posts:
    4
    There are more users in Linux (all distribs) than Mac... and with LinuxSupport you have a big part of Android Support (GPhone OS, that a linux OS) or Nokia's Maemo OS for their phone (and some others Phone os)...
    Think about it, could you delete all futur gphone/ GOS users? yes of course, Google is a little company, influence less in world and mass users...
     
  3. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    @Atalargo

    For all intents and purposes, Android is not Linux.
     
  4. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    But in most ways we cannot treat them as one, and it's that fractured nature of things that presents one of the larger stumbling blocks.

    As I noted above, a device specific Linux implementation is far more likely than a generic desktop/web Linux solution as things are scoped much tighter in that case (distro, hardware, etc.). Whether that relates to Android in particular isn't my focus, instead think of any interesting device that might happen to have Linux as its OS.
     
  5. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    Just out of curiosity, what timeframes are we talking about here ? Seldom is the life expectancy of a mobile device over two years. It will, however, take months for any platform to reach a population of millions (to ring any market size alarms). Add to that the required time to make unity work with it nicely, add to that the time of developers that might need to tweak/release/market their stuff and suddenly I get the impression that by the time such a device-specific version starts to generate a presence in the form of apps, that device is already heading out of the market (or towards a successor). Any Unity-angle thoughts on this ?
     
  6. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    I'm not offering, suggesting nor hinting at any time frames as that would require discussing a specific device. We have staff looking at and investigating a wide range of potential new platforms, both current generation gear and next generation gear (yes, we're in touch with various manufacturers). So no answer here as this is not the place for us to announce nor to commit to anything. I'm offering general commentary that device specific Linux support is more likely than general desktop Linux support. That's the be-all and end-all of the point I'm making, don't ready anything else into that. :)
     
  7. pufuwozu

    pufuwozu

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1
    Hey everyone,

    I just wanted to post some screenshots of the Unity Editor working under Wine 1.0.1 on Ubuntu 9.10:







    As you can see, you can actually work around the graphics problems to create things. Play mode also worked but crashed in the end.

    At Wine's development speed, I wouldn't be surprised to see Unity working completely in the near future.
     
  8. BloodRush

    BloodRush

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Posts:
    14
    Wow!

    Unity somehow running (albeit not stable) on Linux through WINE proves the the viability of a Linux version.

    I think it's mostly about Linux comprising about just a percent of all desktop installations. That and the fact that there are multiple distributions to consider.

    That being said, I think at least an Ubuntu webplayer for Unity would be awesome. Ubuntu folks are more open to proprietary stuff than others. :)
     
  9. robertoop

    robertoop

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Posts:
    1
    Unity web player + linux = bye flash! welcome the 3d web.
     
  10. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    by that measure, mandriva would be the first as they seem to be the only ones aside of Xandros that realize that performance and stability is the primary must have for an OS, not "open hack pride" :)
     
  11. mortalhuman

    mortalhuman

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Posts:
    40
    lightweight linux install + blender + unity + ?? = Profit!
     
  12. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    Hi, just wanted to raise yet another (pacific) voice for Linux support. I understand most of the reasons "against" it but I figured you guys should really know this work would be greatly, greatly appreciated.


    If I may argue about "Linux is anarchical, we can't support every distributions": well, let me assure you, there's no such issue. There is only one official, monolithic (yet modular) kernel that uses only one standardized binary format.

    The way I see it, the reason why it might seem easier on other platforms is because of less strict habits regarding software packaging. On these platforms, the answer to dependency hell is to pack every bit of code needed in a single package, ignoring the fact that some libraries might already be setup on the system - effectively duplicating often different versions of the same code all over the system.

    This has the advantage of not risking any future breakage coming from a dependency, and in the end of not having to deal with them at all. The disadvantages are pretty obvious: use of often outdated code, too much reliance on the developer, and from a certain perspective, truly anarchical, hard to maintain system with a lot of wasted space and lack of coherence.

    Asking any developer to resolve the DH for his software isn't realistic on Linux, because it's true that a flavor of Linux can have an entirely different environment than the other. How can it be a habit then? Well, the job is given to the distributor, not the developer. Only the former has to worry about providing a coherent set of software.

    What I find great about Linux is that distro-people never ask for anything for this job. Just give them the license to re-package the software, and it will be done. One might be skeptical about the quality of the individual packages, as it's true that the DH is extremely complex and hard to resolve sometimes; thus a badly distributed software might leave only some bad advertisement for the developer. This is the only true reason anybody should be reluctant as to support Linux: you have to trust people you might never even talk to. (But you can.)

    Now, consider the worst case scenario: you don't want to risk it, and you don't want to contact any so-called package maintainer from any distro (to which you could negociate a contract ensuring the quality of the package - and this might still be free.)

    Well, you can roughly say "F*** this habit" and go the ID way. What they do is associate a license prohibiting anyone from redistributing the software himself. This of course might be badly received by the most fervent penguin worshippers, but I can assure you the only thing these purists can do is brag - in this scenario, you'd just have to ask your community and watch an unexpected number of silent happy Linux users popping up to thank you. I find it true, yes, that most Linux newbies and even average users don't dare to raise their voice because they don't feel that they have the required (technical) knowledge to jump into the discussion, next to the bragging of the so-called "gurus", who often fall too deep into their beliefs. But they're there. Waiting.

    So how do you distribute it then? Well no magic here, there are (free) self-installers on Linux too. And they do work the way you expect them to, this solution is no different from any other platform.

    Note that you can do both; provide a package yourself but let people redistribute it at their will so distributions can provide their users with tightly integrated and clean software. You might then want to warn users about possible modified software coming from unofficial repositories, and everyone would be happy.


    Well, these were my thoughts on the subject; please note that they're coming from my understanding of the matter only, and that I can't consider myself as an expert.
     
  13. diegoleao

    diegoleao

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Posts:
    23
    I think no one considered the government contractor market. To have our game playing on schools or universities owned by the Brazilian government we have to offer a working Linux solution.

    We also thought that Linux was not important until a amazing job for the government came up and we couldn't take advantage of it because Unity doesn't have a Linux player...

    Also, what makes flash such a compeling player is that you just _know_ that they support all popular platforms (and will continue to).

    Ubiquity. If you want to show something to the world, you know you can with flash. At home, you can access it. On your friend's computer, a Mac, you can access it. If you want to show it to your friends at the university, you can access your nearest linux pc. It's everywhere, and it just works!

    Linux is the missing factor to have Unity as a _real_ web player. If it had Linux support, I think many government contractors would be able to work with it, going PRO. Their budgets are normally big! ;)

    Right now we are trying Wine, as a last resort. So far, we are not being successful.

    PS: We have no interest on a linux editor
     
  14. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    I still think a linux web player would be fantastic.
     
  15. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    Emphasis mine. I believe what unity folks are saying is exactly that Linux is not yet considered 'popular' in the gaming/mobile space. And regarding Flash - there is absolutely no guarantee that a certain platform will be supported. Take a look at any mobile device with native Flash playback - they are at Adobe's whim as to what update they will (not) get. Hopefully this is going to change with OpenScreen, but that's still firmly in the future.
     
  16. flim

    flim

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Posts:
    326
    Embedded Linux + Unity3d
    That is really good for produce coin-op amusement machines or embedded game machines. Please keep going.
     
  17. bearses

    bearses

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Posts:
    17
    (sorry if this is a necropost)

    me! me! oh, pick me! I am happily satisfied with linux for all my developing needs, and find it a much more productive and resource friendly design environment.

    I could care less about exporting to linux, but I would like to develop in it. As of right now, I only boot into windows for 2 things:

    skype, and unity. :(

    I use unity a lot, and would like to not have to go into crappy old windows. It's so unmotivating. :/
     
  18. Jedimace1

    Jedimace1

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Posts:
    119
    I'd rather see them make Windows Mobile and Android support first.
     
  19. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    @bearses Unrelated: rebooting into Windows seems overkill for applications like Skype, you might want to look at seamless remote desktop software to use with (para-)virtualization software, as a temporary solution. Or help convince the world Skype is a poor answer to communication.

    @Jedimace1 You should check out what kernel Android uses.
     
  20. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    the kernel android uses does not help as you can't develop in C++
    The NDK does not include any access to the graphics etc.

    and even if you could: single closed platforms are nowhere comparable to the open world of linux. Its a single fixed version like OSX too.

    Though android shares the major problem with Linux: The "we get everything else for free so why should I pay you for that" attitude.
     
  21. asterix

    asterix

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Posts:
    245
    Well ShiVa offer Linux, iPhone, mac, Wii on same package.
     
  22. Jedimace1

    Jedimace1

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Posts:
    119
    Because free stuff is generally crap. And my game surely is not crap.
     
  23. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    tell that the trism creators that ended on a few thousands while they made $250k in the same timespawn on the iphone.
    Independent of crap, at least for the time beeing android is a "geek phone" and geeks have a far lower interest to pay money if they can get nearly as good stuff for free.

    the other major problem of android though was and is: Its opengl es 1.0 (this seems to hold even for the "holy grail" through which Google has announced their "war and takeover" over the iPhone, aka nexus one)
    even the first iphone ever was already more advanced graphically (ES 1.1) with the 3GS one beeing ES 2.0 and shaders therefor


    but in the end this is kind of ot and doesn't change the fact that "single closed platform != global mixit - hackit platform a la linux"

    either of them will happen when ut has it ready and when the market to sell it as a middleware for it is ready I guess.
     
  24. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    What's wrong with OpenGL ES?

    I don't mean oppose, but I'm not sure what you mean. I agree, they're nowhere close, but it depends on what aspect we're looking at. Are you referring to the presumed better stability of proprieraty platforms?

    Again, I just want to understand, because your comment seems somewhat random to me; could you define "that"?
    Maybe I'm ignorant of the attitude of the actual majority of Linux (inc. Android) users, but I do know I'm actually paying for a community funded project using Unity (which is obviously what brings me here), and I also know about a lot of FOSS people who do the same for a lot of projects. So yes, I'm giving away some money for a game that's not even released (and which might never be) and that probably won't be available on my platform (considering this whole discussion), and I don't feel bad about it. My point is, I don't think Linux users are cheap, and I wouldn't know the precise implications of that for Unity if they were.

    To avoid confusion; what I want is only to be sure there's nothing fallacious preventing the consideration of Linux support.

    edit damn, missed the new page.
    Got it about OpenGL ES, I didn't know about the outdated version.

    Right. And you're absolutely sure your opinion is valuable? Anyway, I heard food from Ivory Coast is utter crap. What should I know about it.
     
  25. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    The 'linux attitude' point is IMHO very debatable. The majority of people using Android or Maemo phones do NOT have a linux background, so there is no 'everything else is free'. The iPhoneOS piracy levels also suggest not everybody is all that happy paying, so let's not generalize :)
     
  26. Tysoe

    Tysoe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Posts:
    577
    I'd like to see a linux version, like a lot of people I don't really see linux as being very appealing from a marketing point of view. For non networking and techie things its still very much a novelty/niche OS.

    If it wasn't for the web player, and feeling that anyone with a PC and WWW access regardless of the OS should be able to play unity games.

    If unity was my product I'd probably be pretty reluctant to put many resources into porting and maintaining a linux version. I might be wrong but it seems like a lot of work with limited return.
     
  27. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    Depends on your goals. Creating an official patchset that would allow unity (the engine, not the development environment) to run under wine, would take a fraction of the effort to create a full port for another platform. From this starting point they could gauge just how many users are there and if it's worth doing a native port at all. Coincidentally, this is also what Google did with Picasa, Chrome and Google Earth.

    Android is pretty bad due to fragmentation, with all the per-device/manufacturer specifics, and probably the most difficult with regard to mixing technologies used in unity.

    WebOS and Maemo could benefit from a linux port and share a common codebase, Maemo already doing far better than expected with the N900 and gaining even more momentum at the end of 2010.
     
  28. DanKegel

    DanKegel

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    I was at Google while those three products were
    being ported to Linux. We chose Wine for only
    one of them, Picasa. All other Linux apps from
    Google that I know of are native.

    I do think getting Unity to run well on Wine
    would be a lot easier than a native port, but
    then as a Wine developer, I'm a bit biased :)
     
  29. BloodRush

    BloodRush

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Posts:
    14
    You guys think the guys behind Unity would have their runtime standardized (like what was done with shockwave flash) so that open source implementations would be possible?
     
  30. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    My bad. I knew Google Earth came first through wine, but apparently that was not an official Google release, which came later. There was also a Chrome-wine hack with a similar history.

    @BloodRush: Flash is not too good of an example, as even with Open Screen and all, there is still no complete Open Source (or, for that matter, any other non-Adobe) implementation of it.
     
  31. techmage

    techmage

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Posts:
    2,133
    I want linux support because I think investing in Linux is investing in technologies future.

    The personal computer may have been birthed with Apple and Microsoft, but it is going to end with linux and completely open source.

    Any developer not looking in that direction I think is completely missing the big picture.

    But don't get me wrong, I do think at our current point in time, closed source and having to do things purely on a money factor are necessary, and completely understandable.
     
  32. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    I doubt that the target of computing is the apocalypse and to me, Linux is an apocalyptic vision of future when it comes to common end user software.
    If I wanted stuff thats not compatible with half the stuff, has trouble half the day and other "funny things", then I would use OSX on a non apple machine or I would use ChromeOS, yet I'm doing neither as I don't have hours of time each month for "OS maintenance" and most others don't have it either

    As long as people with a total lose of sense of reality have control over many distributions, there is just no place for linux as an end user OS.
    Mandriva is basically the exception over the whole Debian - Red Hat derivate mass of "open source is better than good, professional software" believers (interesting that they really use cars instead of their self built bicycles, what a twin logic)
     
  33. Pulov

    Pulov

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Posts:
    824
    Hi,

    I use Ubuntu feel prety comfortable with it. I hate having to write things in a console to do actions that are possible to be done graphically.

    ubuntu helps me to avoid that black screen. (Most of the times)

    I installed it in the computer of my mother in my aunts bussines both are pretty happy.

    I like it.
     
  34. jimmio92

    jimmio92

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Posts:
    31
    Linux users seem to always be left out when it comes to great pieces of software. I hate having to boot into Windows 7 every time I want to work on a game in Unity. I wouldn't even have Windows installed at all if I could figure out how to get the license issue solved and how to get the editor running under Wine. (By the way, Windows exported games work almost bug free under Wine!)

    I do all my development under Linux. It's more pleasant to work in. In Windows: "Oh, I need a library... Let's Google for four hours trying to find it! :D" In Ubuntu? "sudo apt-get install libLIBNAME-dev" and you're done.

    I also exclusively use the GNU Compiler Collection for all of my programming projects. VS Express '08 is a few gigabytes, if I remember correctly. Code::Blocks, my personal favorite IDE, is 21MB download, and that includes the MinGW compiler (under Windows), though I use nuwen's MinGW Distribution as it's recent and has really nice libs.

    Anyway, I really think Unity should be ported to Linux. If you have to decide on one distro, I'd either say Debian based or Ubuntu. Ubuntu's drivers (specifically Nvidia) work great. Easy to install. I dislike ATI to begin with, and I assume the drivers are just as bad under Linux as they are in Windows.

    I completely understand the "it's a waste of resources to port to a platform that very few will use". If I was the one running Unity, I'd agree that porting is a bit of a waste right now. If I started Unity? It would have been developed in Linux for Linux and cross-compiled to Windows and even Macintosh, but Linux would have been the starting point. I'm writing a game engine for fun (Let me tell you, it's a pain in the rear..) using GL (of course) and it works perfectly under Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X Tiger (Didn't have a newer version to test on).
    I know quite a few people who love games as much as I do, and would love great engines working in Linux.

    Aren't there a few AAA engines that work in Linux but no one ever uses it? Source and Unreal 3 come to mind...

    I prefer the console over the GUI any day. So much more intuitive and easy to use. Say I want to find the name of the device I just connected. I could go searching through the GUI for it, or simply "dmesg | tail" in the terminal.
     
  35. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    May I use that as personal epic cite for the future and potentially my sig :twisted:
     
  36. Pulov

    Pulov

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Posts:
    824
    From my point of view, porting all the app could be a serious headache with not enough reward, as many 3d autoring applications dont run under win, even if emulated.

    actually work under linux

    - Xsi? or its Maya?
    - Blender

    And no other important one .

    The rest run with a win-emulator but with low performance.

    From my point of view unity should focus on the developement of a web plugin running under linux instead of the main program.
     
  37. diegoleao

    diegoleao

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Posts:
    23
    AchiA, you quoted the part of my post that was not part of my point at all :) My point was about educational games and government deals. I am limited in what I can do with Unity, there is a whole other side of making games that doesn't involve games for the sake of "mindless" fun, but also for teaching, 3d visualization of products, and so on. I can't have that just because Unity doesn't support Linux.

    But even so, if you read about the World of Goo "Pay-What-You-Want" experiment, you will see that there could be more paying costumers on linux than even on Mac.
     
  38. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    Makes very little difference, sadly. Unity could do a million cool things, but in the end, as it's a commercial entity it will go with the things that give a good ROI. Might be counterintuitive, but it actually matters little how many Linux folks want a Linux version as long as there are significantly better/more new licenses to be sold to non-Linux people (for the same amount of invested $$$).

    It certainly is an intereseting experiment, but I don't think that's really a solid basis for serious business decisions.
     
  39. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    Perhaps there is something to the idea that people who get the Linux OS just because its free would not want to pay for their software, but then again, those who choose an OS simply based on cost are not serious about how the OS suits them, correct?

    I for one am one that has Linux partitions on my PC's because I would go all Linux if possible. I am currently tied to windows as Adobe CS3 I purchased before I got into Linux doesn't run without some very specific tweaking I haven't figured out yet. And of course, Unity. If I had the software I needed on Linux, I wouldn't use Windows another day.

    Now as some people said about Linux being unstable and having problems, I have never had and problems with Ubuntu or openSUSE. They are more stable than my copies of Windows on my machines. And I say I have experienced on my machines, as I know OS experience varies from computer to computer. In reality, there is no OS that does not suffer from some form of instability and bugs, so please do not flame/degrade Mac and Linux just because you find Windows best suits your needs.

    Now looking at this as a business venture, one can say that it might not be worth the investment as sales would not make up for the development costs. However, on the other hand, could you afford to not be the first piece of professional software for the platform?

    I find the GNU/linux OS be at an interesting flux as it is popular enough to get noticed, but not enough for development. Its market share is low because there is a lack of professional level software. Flip side, there is a lack of professional software because of its low market share. At this rate, Linux will stay right where it is.

    Also as for what distributions to test Linux software on I would go with the large distros EG, Debian-which includes all other distros like Ubuntu and Mint, openSUSE, PCLinusOS, Arch, Red Hat, and Mandriva. I suppose the real challenge is about whatever tools you use to develop the software and if they are available.
    *I would like to note that unless a specific Linux distribution has modified the kernel for its own needs, you should be able to write once and publish for all unmodified versions of the kernel. I am unsure of how many modifications, if any are made to the Linux kernel itself with different distributions. It may be something worth researching.


    I wouldn't dismiss GNU/Linux as an OS that has no potential market though. The question is whether the time is now to enter that market.

    As for web player support, I think there is a need for Linux to have a Unity web player. Which if you are able to do that, wouldn't it be possible to then at least compile games to run on Linux, even if you can't develop on it?
     
  40. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    I don't think anyone disputes the existence of that market (maybe the size of it, but that's another question). The real question is for example why would Unity invest in Linux clients when it could pour the same resources into, say, iPad support, increasing iPhoneOS or other gaming platform market shares (these days mobile platforms seem especially hot). From what I've read from Unity folks, they're not against Linux per se, but as you say, they just don't see it as the most lucrative market at this point. Another thing people miss is that they don't need to lobby/request Linux support at Unity, but at the vendors using it in their games.
     
  41. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    Im not sure how well having the gamers ask their game developers to switch to Linux would work. I think it is up to the big name developers who use Unity to try and persuade Unity to add Linux if and when they decided to pursue development under Linux. I would be a cross over to Unity Linux if it was available, but I am not a big name developer and until I fall into $1500, I will only be a Unity Indie user. As for now though, I am content with Windows development as I use trueSpace 7.61 for modeling instead of Blender. I am eagerly waiting to see when Linux will get support. Maybe within the next five years as Linux seems to be steadily gaining ground in the market.

    Regardless of the GUI/IDE, I would love to see the webplayer and build option support for Linux(as if you have one, you have the code base for the other, at least it should work that way). I think if anything, that would be the first support that should be developed for Unity.
     
  42. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    Not switch to, but support Linux - big difference.

    But that is the same thing - big name developers will not push for Unity on Linux until there is specific demand for it from the users. That's why mobile platforms are so important. Desktop oriented publishers usually say 'gamers mostly have windows on dual boot anyway, so who cares', but on mobile devices you almost never have that luxury. There are millions of Linux based handsets out there, and those are an entirely new market - unlike desktop Unity users, who can, as said, dual boot, use wine, etc.
     
  43. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    Ah in reference to my comment on game dev's switching to Linux I was referring to the port of the Unity Editor, not just the build option.

    Well, I guess the question then becomes, if you want to support Linux, why use development software for only Mac and Windows? You find another game engine to use. I would guess that most people already using Unity are fine with just Windows and Mac, otherwise if they wanted Linux support they would have found something else or ported their project to another piece of software

    I find it interesting though that Linux is dismissed because its believed to have a 1% market share and dual booting etc. Really no statistics can show how much Linux really has permeated the market as there are no definitive sales numbers. The biggest thing I would say would be if Google announced Browser OS stats or something, that would be good enough data for me.

    Check out these slightly relevant statistics:
    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
    I find that this also interesting. This web developers school site has 4.6% of its users on Linux based OS's! My only point is that Linux has more of a market than most believe. I don't think Linux support will be around for a while, although I would love it. Generally for developers to help persuade the development of Linux support for Unity there would need to be a large number of developers looking for it.

    I think I will just sit back and watch and hope for it maybe in Unity 4, 5 or 6. It's not a pressing issue in my book, although the Linux based mobile market is calling as it was stated.
     
  44. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    different larger portals and indie publishers have indeed released statistics on sale figures and conversion rates between win - osx - linux and the common consense is clear:

    windows has massive amount of demo users and a pretty low conversion rate, but low of massive = still fairly well
    osx has far less demo users but a magnitude+ higher conversion rate normally still working out

    Linux has far less demo users (than both other platforms) and a conversion rate thats even worse than windows, which means that it does neither compensate with acceptable conversion rates nor volume.

    As linux users say: they use it due to apt-get and thats just a place commercial games will never be nor a place unity games ever will be, which makes the platform a natural enemy of unity created games at least until the mentality shifts to more "standard desktop usage" on the broad which to me goes hand in hand with the distros standardizing more among them and become an acceptable non-geek end user platform, which is something only mandriva and xandros seam to strive for by removing the source parts etc and using proprietary drivers whereever possible ...


    Basically, at least out of my view, that makes Linux a platform only for player deployment for "true crossplatform customer support" especially on the visualization end and primarily webbuilds.
     
  45. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    I would like to inform everyone who wants linux support, that the unity team is a million times closer than it was last month. If you would please read the following thread, all will be clear.
    Whoopie
     
  46. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    You might want to read posts in this thread more carefully:
    http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?p=247665#247665

    I'm sorry, but I tick'd; it *looks* like you don't know what "apt-get" is. For those who don't know, it's just a front-end (there are many) to a single package distribution system (APT, there are many others) used by most Debian derivatives (so called "distros" based on the Debian distribution).

    Now why in hell would you even want to care about that? Without repeating myself too much (please read my previous post), the distribution of the software is offered to the developer. By the "distros", yes. If a developer doesn't trust them to do it correctly, and since he can't answer the dependency hell on all these different systems, he can just forbid the distro people from packaging the software legally and distribute it himself with all the dependencies included in a big-ass self-extracting package; *exactly* the way it's done in other platforms. Pre-requirements will then go down to the kernel, and very few userland software (if any, depending on the size of the big-ass installer).

    Linux distributions are, pretty much undeniably, an advantage for the developer and for the user. If one doesn't wish to take it, one simply does not take it. From the lambda user standpoint, it's still all about double-clicking on a single icon to install in both cases.

    All Linux distributions are guaranteed to have a place for "optional" software, programs that are not in the coherent set of software provided by the distribution, that is. Often, that is the "/opt" directory, which can be compared to "\Program Files". See the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) referenced in the LSB (Linux Standard Base).

    Success stories of commercial software should back my claims up (on the technical side), in case one does not wish to read further.

    I'm not willing to discuss the commercial side of the matter, as I'm not very comfortable with it. I wish, however, that every opportunity to support Linux in whatever way possible won't face any bullshit technical arguments anymore.

    It's not harder to support.

    Thanks for reading.


    PS Please agree that "hiding source parts" and using proprietary software doesn't have anything to do with "beeing acceptable for non-geek users". This is because Linux users have a tendency to not take trolls seriously, and since you're talking to them, this would be handy. Also, if you're interested in efforts towards creating a more "standard" desktop usage in the OSS community, look at the four most resemblant DEs (Desktop Environments) to what is supposedly your view of a "standard desktop": GNOME, KDE, XFCE and LXDE. This is because it *looks* like you're just namedropping with Mandriva and Xandros.
     
  47. AchipA

    AchipA

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Posts:
    19
    I agree with most of the post, but just a small tidbit - it might be harder to support WELL. The problem is that the myriad of distros and their versions all have a 'right way' of support (proper dependencies, directory layouts, etc), but if you want a sustainable general Linux support, you'll just dump a statically linked blob to opt, LSB style. It will certainly work (technically, it's the same thing Windows does !), but will be always seen as ugly in a distro-centric focus.

    As an example, take the Loki period - LSB was no more than a dream back then and yet they made fairly distro-agnostic ports of Windows games. There were business model issues which in the end caused their downfall, but as far as the tech part goes, that has been demostrated as more than feasible.
     
  48. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    You're absolutely right. I would note however that only a few old geeks will dare to brag about that ugliness; it's not like the Linux market has much love and inside-competition, so currently most of the users will take whatever they have - be it ugly or not. (Literally, I've seen people buying Linux games they would never have (even illegaly) put their hand on if they were using Windows.)

    Also, this "ugly" situation only happens because of closed-minded developers. Now I wouldn't go as far as to blame them (and not only because I want to play nice just to actually see games coming out), but because truly, they often genuinely don't know how it works. They simply think it's normal. It's the way it's done since the dawn of time on Windows systems, and now this mess is organized with WinSXS, why would they trust Linux geeks when they tell them their software packages are "ugly"?

    So, what can a developer do to "open his mind"? Well, I'd say trust the distro-people more, for starters. Let them package the stuff the way their users want it packaged. This is what they do. And they're doing it better than any developer could ever dream of. This makes the user happy, and is certainly less work for the developer.

    As I said in an earlier post; an easy compromise is to put a statement in the license for distribution that the distributor should (must?) include a notice that their package is "unofficial" with a link to some info about how to get the official package. Every distribution system is able to do that, and that way everyone is happy (well except for the FSF zealots but hey, gaming needs money, and I don't think these guys touched any game since the days of Tetris).

    Finally, and this is only me, I don't really find these big statically-linked pieces of software *that* ugly. You really got to see them as optional software to your system, and they have their own little place for that. You know I have some homebanking software and a hosting services manager in there; they're doing just fine. Ad-hoc stuff. So I wouldn't mind to see more games there too.
     
  49. jonsul

    jonsul

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    Some people are forgetting that market or not linux is a huge development platform because of its security and stability. The reason I want a Unity for linux isn't to make games for linux, that would be nice, but so I can make games with my main development computer which happens to run linux. I would like to be able to use fully linux but programs like Unity don't support it forcing me to duel boot which splits my resources and makes me deal with things like read/write issues with ntfs and the like. I also don't like having to install the same application on both partitions so I can use it on both. Having Unity, which I work a lot on now, on linux would make developing on it a whole lot more streamlined.
     
  50. dogzerx2

    dogzerx2

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    3,964
    We gotta get those linux dudes on our side guys! they got the hardcore coders!

    ...although it wont be long until they start demanding for unity to be open source, LAWL.