Linux client?

Does anyone know if there's a port of Unity in the works for Linux?
I have not been able to find any information on the subject, so my guess is "no," but I thought I'd see if anyone here knew anything about it.
I thought Unity already had a Linux client (mixed up clients and export support), but since that's not the case, does anyone have a workaround?
I've tried running it in Wine and in a Windows VM, but neither worked.

Thanks!

 

They don't have any plans, and there is no public information on it. They may have someone working on it in the backgrounds but it is highly unlikely. For the forseeable future, the answer is no

 

The same with the 64-bit version, there are too many dependencies to break...Sigh...

 

True, but at least that has an 'under review' label.

 

What? They've been saying forever they had 64 bit as a priority and were aware of the demand, did they backtrack on that???

 

I think you can get it to work with WINE. But I have heard that it doesn't work very well.

 

Easier said than done, but I feel this is needed. If anyone is interested, you can see how certain versions of Unity 3D run inside Wine here. I hope to see a native version soon...

 

That then would be a native version for Ubuntu (as thats the only Linux flavor officially supported) and probably just yield an even worse wave of displeasure by all those hating Ubuntu though.

 

Well that sucks. Why won't the linux client work for other versions of Linux?

 

It doesn't work on any version of Linux since it doesn't exist, but if it did, it seems reasonably likely that it would be the same situation as the standalone executable, namely that Ubuntu is the officially supported distribution--others work, but are not officially supported.

--Eric

 

Nobody should really get their hopes up. A Linux client will not be available for some time. It was a while after the Windows port was announced that an editor was released for Windows. It's been only a year since the Linux publishing option was announced. I'm hopefull that something will arise, but it's not coming anytime soon.

 

Sounds like a waste of ressources to me unless it's the same exact code as the mac version.
Who exactly is the target for this? People who have neither windows nor mac or have either but would rather develop games on a platform with crappy graphic drivers? The only use i can see for this is if they already have it internally as a mean of testing the engine on linux to make sure any runtime bug appears by using it non stop in editor, else it's a waste of ressources.

 

Linux is becoming more of a gaming platform nowadays, and the drivers are getting better, so it would make sense to have a native Linux client.

+1 for a Linux client.

 

Considering http://feedback.unity3d.com/unity/all-categories/1/top/active/platforms-unity-editor-for-linu
which is the highest voted feedback, a lot of people.
+1 to this

 

Plus, let's not forget that a lot of the competition out there provide a Linux client. But I prefer Unity.

The drivers for Linux are now taken seriously, and are becoming more stable thanks to the release of Steam. I have zero issues with my AMD drivers, which is a massive improvement from last year.

Linux can't be ignored any more.

 

Leadwerks (Linux version is in development)
Gameplay3D
C4 Engine
Sandbox 3D Game Maker
Gamekit
Blender Game Engine
Panda3D
Crystal Space 3D
Shiva3D
Unigine
Raydium 3D Game Engine

Plus the 2D software such as Stencyl, GameDevelop, Construct 2, GameMaker Studio.

 

I run Unity 4.2 here from Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit host, using VMware Workstation 9.0.2, running Windows XP Professional guest, with 3D Hardware acceleration enabled, and Angry Bots ran just fine.

 

It's a massive undertaking to make a linux editor. I would rather stability and development be focussed on the linux build platform.

 

The target is developers and those who hire them... and I'll try to word this carefully to avoid any unintentional flame wars... some of the world's best developers run Linux as their primary development platform.

Aside from Linux being a free, community maintained platform, it has an order of magnitude more development and automation tools available for it. It's unreasonable to expect individual developers to pay for, install, and learn a separate operating system they are likely to consider inferior from a development standpoint from the the get-go.

Additionally, while plenty of existing game development companies are staffed to the gills with Mac and Windows developers, many companies with existing Linux talent wanting to break into Unity development are bound to see convincing their developers to install new tools via VMWare or Wine as an officially unsupported and PITA hurdle to entry -- your typical rockstar developers aren't exactly known for their patience or willingness to do things your way.

Many developers are already accustomed to web and mobile development utilizing a separate array of build, rendering, and test machines running other operating systems. Mac designers render on Sparc clusters. Windows PhoneGap developers build their iOS packages "in the cloud". Solaris-based sysadmins use Puppet to remotely configure and install new machines for their IT and marketing departments.

While the intended audience may be on another platform, letting your development team work in an environment they're already comfortable with assists with employee retention and talent scouting in large corporations and can financially make or break a project in the startup market.

 

Pretty much the best explanation I've heard so far on why a Linux editor would be beneficial.

 

If you develop within unity, then it's unity regardless of the OS, install Windows or mac (no VMware, just dual boot) be done with it, if your dev has an issue with that, fire him, he's the kind of rockstar you don't need, ego-driven without a clue. Once you're in the unity interface, what the hell does it change on which os you are? It's self sufficient!
If you're going to dev around unity, then i disagree about what you said on linux, it may have an order of magnitude more dev Tools but as far as .net is concerned, they just don't compare, i've never seen anyone suggesting that monodevelop similar Tools are anywhere close to visual studio, even the express editions, and those are free.

So no i don't feel it's worth making a complex expensive port for the few companies whose only reason not to switch to unity would be the massive ego of a few devs they can't put under control.

 

Ego or no, retaining development talent is of the utmost importance to any real dev shop. Take care of your team and they will take care of your interests. Rockstar developers don't need a reason to leave you for another shop, and they tend to work where they enjoy working. Putting them "under control" takes a back seat to simply putting them to work.

Also, wanting to develop with Unity and only wanting to develop with Unity are far from the same thing. I expect any development team I work with to be competent and versatile in numerous development areas. Should I expect my Vim and Emacs hackers to be complacent doing their web development in UltraEdit or TextMate just because we decide to switch out their development machine? What about Glade Gtk+ interface designers and the Eclipse Java devs -- how far do you think that .Net / Visual Studio argument would carry with them?

The stubbornness of talent aside, cost benefit analysis alone stacks up against an OS switch pretty quickly in any 10-20 member dev shop. While Unity licensing is reasonable, Windows licensing cost isn't (at least not to an existing development team) and purchasing a new Mac lineup is simply out of the question.

Square pegs, round holes. I say buy your developers the tools they work best with and move on with your business. If a tool you want doesn't suit your development environment you find another tool. Between Indiegogo, HumbleBundle, and Valve porting Steam to Linux it's not a stretch to think that a good number of shops are going to be switching over to full Linux stacks. Is it any more reasonable to have a developer running Windows to fire up an Ubuntu VM to preview their Linux build than is the inverse? How many lost licenses do you think it would take to make the "waste of resources" worth while?

So you know, this conversation has also often gone the other way from me in the past. I (almost) as avidly support making major development tools available for Windows and Mac when someone argues otherwise. The more platforms a development tool is available on the more development talent has access to them (not to mention the more licenses that can be sold).

As an aside, your "crappy graphics drivers" comment irked a part of me... not because you're wrong, but for what that statement often implies (that Linux is somehow graphically inferior). Valve noted as part of their reasoning for porting Steam over to Linux and using it as the basis for the up and coming "Steam Box" that Linux outperforms Windows graphically, assuming a supported card is used. Microsoft is adept at "lobbying" card manufacturers to conform their hardware specs to DX white papers. Apple is good at providing financial incentive to (or blacklisting) card manufacturers to get drivers written for their very limited line of selected hardware. Linux (and Unix) are good at performance. When manufacturer drivers are provided for Linux, surrounding memory management and low overhead open up a lot of room for additional graphical performance. So while they may have "crappy graphic drivers" they also have a more suitable run environment when appropriate drivers are provided.

 

What does web devs java devs have to do with it? Leave those guys alone you don't need to switch your whole company to linux, just get those who need unity to dual boot to use it, that's all. You're not switching OSes, but adding another one, and Windows licensing cost is way way way WAY lower than unity's licensing cost.

Also wth is this grappy graphic drivers comment mention? I never said anything about drivers nor even about linux at all afaik?

 

That one =)

In any case, in general your arguments aren't unreasonable from the perspective of someone already running Windows or Mac as their primary OS. They would also not be unreasonable to any larger game developer who can put millions behind a project, buy all new dev machines / licenses, and has their pick from hundreds of developers.

Startups and @home hackers are another story though, and while they are typically a smaller part of the market share for tools like Unity, they also tend to be the best evangelists for tools they like (not to mention they make up the majority of indie game developers).

How many times has this same conversation been had about Adobe and the Photoshop / Flash line ups? or as you mentioned Visual Studio? With the iOS hype over the last few years there are even Windows developers clamoring for a Windows port of XCode. It's not a new dialog, it's just another context added to the pile.

If development tools were written from the ground up in C++ or Java with Gtk or Tcl bindings and an OpenGL rendering base most IDEs and compilers would be cross platform. Then again, if we all ran Python or Ruby or Node there'd be no need for PHP (or really Java for that matter). It's a matter of taste and that's the way it should be. But it's hard to argue against making development tools available to a lot more users when you make your money off of selling said tools.

 

Years ago, my primary OS was Linux. I switched to Windows only because I wanted to use Unity. It would be awesome for me to use the Unity editor directly in Linux. I would definitely switch back to Linux again.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense for Unity. Let's face it, the Linux world is ego driven! The market share is somehow not existing and even worse there is not something like a standard distribution. And on top of that, there is variants of distributions for different graphical desktops. At least there is a Linux standard to defines stuff like packaging, that can be ignored by everyone. The amount of work that Unity has to spend in order to support something that changes so often so dramatically is huge and makes no sense from a professional point of view.

Still, my ego would go nuts with a Unity editor in Ubuntu!

 

That's probably why Unity builds are only supported on Ubuntu; you can use other distros but you're on your own. Presumably the editor would be the same, if they were to make a Linux version.

--Eric

 

What big game teams are Linux-only for development, then?

 

Well, game companies (or any companies at all) aren't exactly required to state which OS they are using. Unity isn't exactly geared towards AAA games either.

If all, I think we may deal with catch 22 there. They're using Windows, because they can't use Unity on Linux and there are no Linux editor, because people can't develop Unity games on Linux .

I'd gladly change my OS if Linux version of editor would be available and I know at least 10 people who would do it as well.

 

Graham, I think the sheer number of mobile game startups in 2013 alone makes up for a potential lack of "Linux-only big game teams", since startups and independent developers make up the majority of the development community. More over, the point I was trying to make is that any big shop is likely a mixed group and you shouldn't try to force them all onto a particular development platform.

Dantus, I would propose that in the professional world (particulary that of software development) there is a huge market for Linux software and development tools. On the design front, while Autodesk was kind enough to give the Linux community Maya, 3D Studio Max would have been appreciated. Myself and a ton of other developers would love to see (and happily pay for) the aforementioned Photoshop, Visual Studio, and XCode on Linux.

While the variety of packaging systems is occasionally disparate, Ubuntu alone claims over 20 million users, and while they're the most popular in the desktop market a lot of devs have their own preferred popular "flavors" like RedHat/CentOS/Fedora, Gentoo, or Arch, and I even know a few running entirely custom builds. Sure, those last ones have more than a bit of an ego, but I also trust their capabilities. They'd never switch and I'd never ask them to. Packaging matters less than a simple binary tarball. Dev communities will determine the dependencies and create the packages for you from that point.

Anyway, I certainly didn't intend to spark such a conversation this morning on a reasonably aged thread (it's not like this is the only "linux port?" thread out there), and I'm not the "he who yells loudest" sort. I only intended to put my two cents into the bag, and for what it's worth, I think a lot of developers would spend a lot more than two cents on a tool that fits their existing dev stack.

For the record, my primary development machine is a Windows 7 box -- but it's running a minimum of two Ubuntu 12.10 VMs at all times -- and there's an iMac right next to it. The issue at hand isn't my problem, but it is a problem to a lot of potential paying customers and fellow developers.

 

@xmxspencer, to me it looks as if we have about the same opinion about Linux. But to me it still feels as if it doesn't make sense for Unity to provide a Linux port of the Unity editor from a commercial point of view. Without being able to prove it, I have the impression that there is interest, but not enough.

 

This contradicts what you've been saying, though. Refusing to use an excellent set of time saving and value adding tools purely because of an OS preference isn't exactly "taking care of my interests".

And taking care of my team doesn't mean catering to their every whim, either. My priorities with regard to taking care of my team start with things like making sure they get paid, maintaining their job security, keeping a healthy work environment, minimising stress/crunch, and so on. That's followed by nice-to-have things like interesting projects. Pandering to whimsical software preferences comes way far down that list. And using tools like (but not specifically) Unity helps a lot with the stuff that sits high up that priority list.

As sucky as it'd be to do, if one of my developers forced me to choose between their personal preference and something that we wanted to do for the good of the business, I'd have to do so with the whole business in mind. If I need to hire a new guy to get a job done because my current guy refuses to do it based on petty preferences then at some point either I need to choose between addressing his preferences vs. addressing the businesses needs (they clearly aren't considering the business themselves) or he needs to re-think his own priorities. He's putting himself at severe risk by backing me into that corner, because once he's essentially given the new guy a part of his job he's eating away at his own security.

In my team, everyone considers the business, and everyone's priority is to do their job to the best of their ability. Getting to pick their tools based on personal preference is a luxury, and when they can have it it's one they appreciate.

 

Big +1, you've said clearly what i tried to say poorly earlier!

 

For desktop users, Linux will be the future.

Its massively clear that the major OS developers are abandoning desktops and shifting to tablets and mobile devices (which, personally, I think is ridiculous). So Linux will fill the gap that the major players like Microsoft will create.

It would probably be a good idea for Unity to take a serious look into supporting Linux, because I'm pretty sure they'd eventually have to in the future, and if they arent in the Linux game when popularity begins to rise, someone else might be beating them to the punch and it could make them vanish. (Ex: imagine if Unity only stayed Mac and never added Windows support. UDK would be the primary dominating force right now, and probably the only thing available.)

 

Don't forget about Metro/"Modern" UI (how glorified Program Manager from Win3.1 can be called modern, puzzles me) debacle. This will make even more people switch to Linux. I know few people who switched to Linux BECAUSE of it or declared that they'll do that once Windows 7 will not be supported anymore (like currently XP is) and Microsoft will fail to address it properly, such as adding switch between start menu and start screen (like in XP you could witch Start Menu to look like in Win9x).

Myself? Unity is the only thing that keeps me on this steaming pile of sh*t. I'd rather use Linux right now that this "efficient" and "fast" OS Windows is.

 

Yeah, I'll be making a full switch to Linux once Win7 isnt supported (or sooner).

 

+1 for Linux Comatibility )

 

Would you buy a Pro copy of Unity if we supported Linux? We'd need to sell something above 1000 extra Pro seats in order to make Linux worthwhile from a commercial point of view. I asked earlier about game teams who only use Linux as a way of figuring out who these new Unity users would be. I didn't see any confirmation that there are these teams out there who's switch to Unity.

 

Is it? I don't really see that at all.

It's pretty clear that a huge chunk of everyday casual computer usage is moving to tablets or phones. If all you do is email, browse the web and do occasional document editing who needs anything more? Naturally each OS provider wants to get in on some of that action.

On top of that, since that's how casual computer users are now used to things working, naturally the OS providers also want to capitalize on that for their desktop systems. Enthusiast users can tweak things to make it work how the want. Casual users will often just go elsewhere if the first glance is too different to what they're already used to.

But aside from that, there's a huge difference between "abandoning" something and doing two things at once.

 

Try explaining that to Netscape.

---

Rockstar developers aren't bound to or dependent on a single OS, otherwise they wouldn't be rockstars. I find the whole scenario that there are awesome linux only devs just sitting out there waiting for a engine to cater to them. It's a pretty laughable concept.

 

Yes, given I'd have enough $$$ to do that.

Maybe UT should start crowdfounding campaign to support Linux fully (Webplayer+Editor)? I know I'd certainly donate, even if it wouldn't be much of money.

//edit:

1. Go to nvidia.com
2. Download latest driver
3. Restart system without X-server
4. Run driver installer (after chmod +x of course)
5. If you have ATi/AMD (which states for Advanced Machine Destruction, contrary to what they want you to believe) GPU, you're screwed.

Good luck!

 

But do you have the $$$ to do that? It's exactly the question . The question isn't "would people want it" but "would people who CAN afford it WANT to buy it, and then are there at least 1000 such people"

 

As I said, start crowdfounding campaign and we will see if there are enough people who will pay enough money to bring it.

//edit: Also people who can afford Pro, probably already have it regardless of Linux support.

 

Funny, Ubuntu runs on my machine with a Radeon 5870 with no issues at all. 3D is fine, no kernel panics.

--Eric

 

I wasn't referring to kernel panics at all. It's just that "official" drivers for AMD/ATi cards for Linux is of poor quality and it have less performance that on Windows. So-called "open source" drivers for AMD GPUs runs even worse.

If it comes to Linux gaming, nVidia is the way to go.

 

That people who can afford pro already have it regardless of linux support is a financial arguement against porting it, you realise that right?

 

Already have Pro, but I'd likely pick up more licenses for a fully Linux-based build pipeline and integration/test suite.