Linux client?

I'd say windows is pretty good on that too now with powershell (saying pretty good but want to say way better, flamewar rawr!)

 

That's not at all how it works. As a paid user (via my work, I've not found the need for a paid license for my hobby stuff yet) Unity have asked me for plenty of feedback int he past.

It's just that in the case of this very specific issue, if you've already bought the license then you're an existing customer rather than a potential customer. And if you're not a potential customer then you simply don't factor into the objective measurement of "how many new customers might we get if we add Feature X?" And since they're a business, getting new customers is pretty important. Without them there'll eventually be no more Unity at all, for anyone, on any operating system. So while it'd be nice if they could prance around doing whatever they wanted without concern for their future income, I think it's pretty reasonable of them to prioritize things that help secure their (and by extension their users') security.

If it's really so important to the Linux crowd as a community, how about trying to crowd-fund it? Voting for an online feedback poll is worthless. Each pledging an actual $1500... now that would say something. Or even just pledging a smaller amount each in donation towards getting the free version ported over could maybe say something. Whatever it takes to demonstrate a commercially worthwhile undertaking. But demanding that Unity should change because you don't want to is unlikely to get anyone far.

 

That is what i need to know, like i said, is not about have Linux port or not (i am initiating a business myself) Like i said before i understand their side , even if in my point of view (that can have a huge chance of being wrong since i am not inside the unity business) they should considering take a shot, they don't really have some market comparison..
But the most important thing that i wanted to know, was if they give support to they actual users (i am not saying spend all money, don't matter the profit and revenue) there is real company's that act like i have said before,

 

Well, while some areas of Unity are less than perfect, I've never had a problem getting support from them regarding either my professional or hobby projects. The two accounts aren't linked in any way, so I doubt that the professional stuff is helping me out on the hobby side (where aside from Asset Store sales they're not even getting any money from me yet), and I've actually had a couple of quite lengthy conversations with support people about parts of that lately.

So, yes, they do give support to their actual users.

 

Ty for the info, then maybe really worth to invest in unity in the future, well, being kind of on topic... Someone here knows if unity on wine have a good performance?

 

Ouch, good point.

 

Yes, this would say something. That the pledger is naive enough to give $1500 to random person on the Internet (unless UT themselves would start the kickstarter which is unlikely).

 

Also, Shiva, less established company than Unity could make move to Linux, so why Unity can't? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmVtGny58TI

 

Once more: Because Unity thinks it costs more than it is worth it!

 

Now, where's Like button when you need one?

 

Hm... OSX is Unix and Linux is Unix. Both follow POSIX. Windows isn't Unix and doesn't follow POSIX. Porting from one Unix to another is certainly easier (especially in regards of such things like paths) than porting from unix to non-unix OS. Hm...

 

Here, take my imaginary like

 

I have no idea what's happening in reality but I know Microsoft bribes companies not to support Linux. They have enough money to make obstacles for smaller companies. Unity Team explain that there's no Unity Editor for Linux because Linux isn't too popular. OK, I can understand this point of view; it's really make sens for me. However, they should support other ways so that Linux users can use their system and Unity3D. We are trying to make Unity3D running in Wine and PlayOnLinux. We are successful. There are still some problems to solve, but you can use Unity3D on Linux even now. It really works! Just try it out. You can get all info at:

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/211059-Unity3D-on-Linux-with-Wine-Support-thread

 

What does posix have to do with anything? Much less portability of unity? You're completely serverly massively missing the big picture

1) Unity, like anything modern, is most definately not using POSIX directly, this isn't the 90s
2) If you want to be pedantic Windows does support POSIX (an old version of it that is)
3) If POSIX was a limitation, they'd just install cygwin be done with it, it's not, it's not even in the picture at all, no one writing anything modern on Windows and mac is thinking "oh, let's just target POSIX man, it'll solve all our problems!"
4) You're somehow thinking in very low level terms (dude writes code, taketh monies! So no expensive right???". The cost isn't there, the PORTING cost is most likely nearly nonexistant if you think of it that way, but that's not how you think of it, what makes the cost skyrocket is that when you do anything in software you have to write it but also specify / test / support it, the later 2 being the expensive things to do on the myriads of linux variants, this means getting 10 or so base installs, setting them up as part of the continuous integration chain, hiring additional QA (that's not 1000$ here and there we're talking about, we're talking about adding new full time positions!) and upping support costs as well as giving additional training to all mac/Windows oriented technicians to support linux too in all the main flavors

Do you begin to see why not being sure to sell 1000 licenses makes it a bad business move? This has nothing to do with "Microsoft spying conspirations" or "Windows not implementing a standard no one directly targets anymore", it's a pure business move, no one is pulling no strings behind the scenes, once you get out of the hobbyist world costs for features, especially large branching features like this, get absolutely massive, and little of it is spent in the code.

Hell for all i know porting may even be as simple as recompiling without any changes (unlikely), EVEN THEN it would likely STILL NOT be cost effective to add linux to the mix for the reasons mentioned above. So yea unless a major linux dev comes out and says "we want to start game dev, we have an internal team of 200 ready for it, we will only work on linux" you kinda can forget about this happening.

Also the fundraising option makes sense, because so far in a previous thread when it was asked to people how many would actually buy (vs be sympathetic / happy / use indie etc) a pro linux license if it actually was released there were i think 3? 4? People who came up and said yea i'd pay 1500

 

Just support newest version of whatever distro is popular at the moment (most likely Ubuntu) and be done with it. No 10 installs, 2 at most (to support LTS). And if people at UT want to know how many people would buy Linux version of Unity, why they won't start Kickstarter? Seriously, why not?

//edit: And Amplify link in your sig is broken, it leads to main page of Asset Store.

 

Why would they? Kickstarter is a one shot thing, doesn't cover recurring cost (which as i listed, is where the big costs are) and why would they care at all? As i said like 5 people stood up and said they'd buy a license, the cost isn't "doing it", so they don't kickstarter's help to do it, the thing is they have a good business running, and you're asking them for something else that makes no business sense and brings nothing to the table.

You're miss-thinking, people don't think in terms of "why not do this", but "why do this", you don't need a reason to "not do something" you need a reason to "do something".

Asking "why doesn't unity start a kickstarter for linux support" is like me asking you "why haven't you killed your cat this morning?" well most likely because you have no reason to do so (or have no cat).

Since you're the one proposing, you need to come up with reason so the question is for you, WHY would unity do this? WHAT do they get out of it? and if you're answer is a few 100-200K, the answer is it's not worth the effort.

 

If you really think that POSIX is the key for portability, you only proof that you have never implemented a slightly complex cross-platform application on your own.

Sorry, I am out of this discussion because it is just like any other Linux discussion here in the forum. It is a waste of time.

 

aye, i'd be surprised if even 1% of the unity code has even a light dependency on anything provided by posix (which, by today's programming standards, is almost nothing compared to what you expect out of the box)

 

Maybe we missed the newest version that additionally defines a cross platform Windowing API that magically supports 3D for any graphics card.

 

And porting export (engine) isn't wasting time and money as well? If they did that, they should port editor as well. And no, POSIX-compliance isn't *key* factor, but it is important nonetheless. Another factor is portable UI framework which Unity already proved to have (since there is OSX and Windows versions) and (in case of tools like Unity) OpenGL rendering for scenes which, again, Unity have as they use it in engine (which is ported to Linux).

And kickstarter (of course started by UT, not by some random guy) would prove that there are enough people to buy Linux version (which will buy it again once 5.x.x will launch and possibly will buy additional exporters).

This, along with survey of how many devs bought windows/osx BECAUSE THERE WASN'T FREAKING UNITY FOR LINUX will prove my point (that Linux editor is more than needed).

 

I doubt porting the export was a good financial move, however it's very diferent as it does drop a nice chunk of the cost for them (the support is for you, the dev, to do to the linux clients, not for them)

No posix isn't "important" it's "insignificant" literally, as i said the porting cost is completely trumped by the rest (support training etc), the technical porting costs are pretty close to 0 most likely.

Kickstarter would prove people are willing to toss in 30-50$ en masse for the linux crowd, not that they would necessarily pay 1500 individually later for licenses (so doesn't prove any form of mid-long term viability)

And hoiw many devs bought it for an existing Platform because it wasn't there for linux is irrelevant, once again they'd be eating one of their market to feed the new one, doesn't bring in any new revenue since those already said "well fine, we'll use Windows or osx", the only market to tap is "we are Professional devs willing to shell 1500 a seat but not use anything else than linux" which is a really really really tiny segment.

 

So the solution is fund-raising, but this cannot be just, don't, one of use just start this, because well, unity have to be involved in some way, even if a minor one.

 

Just ask UT, what!?

 

No hope. You won't get Unity Editor for Linux. Nobody can make UT do that. That's why, we, Linux users, are forced to look for other solutions. It's a normal way that Linux is ignored by some companies. Consequently, open source projects are being created and commercial products are losing their clients. Fortunately, some companies are wise enough to know that if they cooperate with open source, they will be gaining the market. More and more game engines are free now. Unity3D Team still believe that they will have more profits when their product will be commercial. But we can see that more and more features in Unity3D are free. However, this process can't be stopped or controller. Soon, only open source products will be taken into account. The companies that will be unable to understand that will lose in this race.

 

We're surely not going toward that no, only a handful of open source projects ever made a serious dent into the business side, most OS projects are fully discardable are "crap" to be honest in comparison with commercial products, fairly unrelated to the Tools quality of the dev, but mostly due to lack of a clue project management goals.

Now a few projects do work really good (apache just to name one) but most are just not headed the way of taking over commercial ones, actually if anything the gap is widening in the past decade with bigger and bigger budgets

 

Apache is really good I must admit. And Blender, GIMP? These programs are free and more an more companies use them instead of Maya or Photoshop.

But we can look at game engines because we are interested in them, aren't we? Here, Torque3d started to be Open Source because its development was stopped at some point and nobody knew what to do. Making it open source gave a new life. Even Blender is more and more suitable for game developing. It's a perfect 3D tool, but Bender developers feel that they can achieve more making their product be more friendly for game developing. I was amazed at seeing Blender's possibilities. I really take into consideration using it instead of Unity3D. The quality of graphics is better I think. What's more, now, we have Godot. It's still not good enough for being a danger for Unity3D, but it will be changed soon. In other words, Unity3D can have serious troubles in the future. Really. I think there should be a version for open source. A lot of people in the world will be developing it with passion. Then, you can take it to make a professional product for selling. It makes sense. SUSE Linux use this method and it really works.

 

Don't forget that Shiva. made by less established company than UT, with less "porting/support/whatever budget", while still commercial, already support editing on Linux. And is cheaper than Unity too (for their "everything and kitchen sink" version you pay only $1000 instead of $1500)!

Can it be done? Can be done.

 

And if you go to the kickstater of Leadwerks, youll see that the linux version is almost ready and all of this game engines are nice, but they all the lack the unity3d big examples and all the tuts out there on the web.

 

Only a handful of open projects made a dent in commercial side? What about the biggest one of all, Linux itself? Company server farms used to be dominated by Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and other Unix variants and now Linux absolutely dominates in the enterprise on the Unix side of the house.

 

Yes, that's one, i'm not saying open source made a small dent, i'm saying a small number of PROJECTS (not a small number of total users of those projects) ever became commercial sucesses, linux is one, apache is one, there are others, they're few and in between but the great majority is just either crap (lots of it) or good (but not commercially approriate)

 

I guess we can agree to disagree on this one. I'd say there are a LARGE number of projects which are open source that I would consider business critical for quite a few companies.

 

hello, I installed Unity3D on Ubuntu, but nothing appears!
Only the top menu.
How can I fix this

 

You need to follow the steps described in this thread:
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/211059-Unity3D-on-Linux-with-Wine-Support-thread

As I see, you already posted there. Also make sure that you really do the steps from the initial post as described.

 

I disagree. It's depend a lot of where development area are you from. on Big Data, Cloud Computing and High Avaibility, the commercial products are a joke. Search for netflix, facebook, reddit, twtitter architecture....

There is a lot of crap because anyone could start one.

In windows development didn't have this culture, if 1000 devs need a MD5 library, or they buy or implement themselves, but never, never, join togheter and build a open one. If you start one, nobody contributes.

 

Probably is this, but take further support on that thread.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/21...hread/page12?p=1593019&viewfull=1#post1593019

 

I'll put my hand up,

I would be purchasing a Pro copy, within ~4 months of Unity supporting build to and development on Linux.
That is unless i am converted to something else that fits that need before then.

 

Bringing this back from the death, because as we've seen all others engines already have/have almost done Linux editors including several major engines like Source, Unreal 4, CryENGINE, Leadwerks, Shiva, Godot, (...)

Shame on you UT. You had the chance to innovate and bring your engine to Linux fully before "big players" did that. Instead, you choose the route of a coward. Also...


Congratulations, Unity. You worked hard for this and should be proud of it!

If you do not move forward, you are moving backwards. Physical shading was in Unreal4 almost since it begun. Why shouldn't I move to Unreal, CryENGINE or other engines that are objectively better than Unity even if they require subscription and/or royalties and which have Linux editor on top of that?

The future is Linux. Others, both game and engine developers already seen this.

Why won't you open your eyes for once, UT?

//edit: EnglishGrammarException

 

The future has been linux for what, 10 years now? I will believe it when I see it.

I am glad they are devoting their manpower to things that actually matter.

 

Unix like system outnumber any non-unix like systems by order of magnitudes (if you count everything (servers, embedded, phones,...)).
The standard desktop is the only thing remaining. And this will change too. But it will take a while.

 

Yes, yes they do. This does not mean it will be the desktop standard. I am not against that happening, I just don't see it happening. While its as far away from being the desktop standard as it is, I don't see why Unity should prioritize a linux development environment.

 

They're already trailing behind all major engines in terms of availability of the tools (not export, tools in particular). And as I said before, developers who would develop on the Linux otherwise are forced into buying Windoze li©en$e just to use Unity. Then UT makes excuses of not wanting to support Linux "because no one would buy pro licenses".

Typical catch 22.

//edit: It's similar to one Linux had with games. Now once few good Linux titles were made Linux gaming exploded. Oh, and Linux Humble Bundle buyers pays the most.

 

The 'excuse' is actually a really good reason for not supporting linux at the current time. Do remember that it costs money to port to different platforms. Unity feels that the costs wouldn't be worth the money returned.

 

They could just release the source to pro customers. Wouldn't take long until it is ported. Look at UE4, Epic would port it, but the community is much faster than Epic.
But that means no money from the people that pay for the source. The question is how much longer this is a good business case (because many source licensee maybe look to UE4 with one eye anyway, so free source access and fast bugfixes and new features from the community maybe makes it more likely that they stay).

 

Do we have to do it again? Okay.

Shiva, company that is nowhere as rich as Unity had ported both their engine and their tools to Linux. They didn't make excuses like that.

Because that's all this is. Excuses. If poorer company managed to do that, Unity who has literally millions at its disposal can do so as well.

//edit: And in very unlikely case they don't actually have free funds, let them release code of all components that they are going to open-source anyway in their current state and let community develop it. That gotta release some money.

 

Its not an excuse its a business decision. I get the feeling you don't know how businesses work.

 

Business decision without roots in reality when other companies who don't have your resources actually pulled it off is another name for an excuse.

 

Business decision without roots in reality eh. I really can't tell if you are trolling. If you ever get to college, please go take a course on business. Do you a world of good.

 

Okay, another example, because without shoveling it you obviously won't understand.

There's Jim and Steve. Jim is rich and Steve is poor. Both are in tomato selling industry.

Steve has money to buy 10 tomatoes for $1 each and sells them for $2 each.

Obviously Jim will be able to earn even more because he has more resources and so can buy more tomatoes in first place. He can even put bigger pricetag on them, selling them for $2.5 each, because screw Steve, he won't ever be able to compete with THAT.

At first nothing really happens, but years pass and word gets around about Steve's wonderful $2 tomatoes. Steve now has enough money to buy Jim's business and Jim must now live on the streets begging for even single penny.

Now replace Jim with Unity Technologies, Steve with Shiva Tech. (or whatever Shiva company is called), selling tomatoes with making game engines, $2 with deciding to make Linux port and putting bigger price tag on tomatoes with not making it.

And that, my dear friend, is what happens to Unity in the long run if they won't act now. They'll just fade into irrelevance and be bought off by another company who might or might not want to develop Unity further.

//edit: EnglishGrammarException

 

Yup, troll. Moving on.