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. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Minority users always think that their choice is the "right, only and huge one", but I thought Linux users commonly are informed about their situation as they claim all others to be uninformed cause they use Windows or OSX

    As such I'm sorry to say, but the only measure against which Linux is huge is the measure "OSX Server used in the real world" vs Linux used on desktops (keep in mind that the server install base is of 0 interest as Unity is and offers no server products)

    Against any other number, its minimal to a good laugh.
    Against Windows it loses in pure numbers.
    Against OSX it fails misserably because OSX, while not having a windows alike install base, isn't filled with a pure to highly expected freerider attitude, making clear that any investment for an undefined amount of time isn't justified. I would actually expect that if it is ever done, it will result in Linux = Unity Pro only or even sold as a Unity Addon License

    And that all although we consider all 10+ major linux distributions as "the Linux". For any realworld importance, they first have to merge and standardize enough to be realistically seen as "one os", which at the time can not be done at all

    Also security and stability is nice but it does not pay anything especially not massive investments for development but especially post release support and it seems like linux users forget about that or the fact that most devs even on linux already focus on just 1 distribution due to the total incapability of communication and standardization among the distributions. (linux is really making clear that they will go back to server within the next 5 years primarily, cause for desktop they can and never will be possible as a realistic options as long as this total mess is taking place and is especially desired or even considered acceptable)
     
  2. caitlyn

    caitlyn

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Posts:
    402
    There's a cost-benefit analysis question behind the decision to support (or not support) a Linux webplayer. Theoretically, if a business opportunity or two were to come along which needed a Linux player as a prerequisite, well..

    ;)
     
  3. dogzerx2

    dogzerx2

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    3,964
    Gasp!
     
  4. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    No argument here.

    LSB is far enough for most applications. Is there anybody that actually reads me? I'm not saying I'm right with absolute certainty, but please either argue or agree, don't ignore.

    I feel like repeating myself over and over, but what the heck: the concept is that you choose who you get your support from. The user never has to integrate the software herself, it's the distro-developers' job. "Upstream" developers don't have to worry about that though, they can just focus on their software, and not integration, using the LSB. Oh well, just read my previous posts.

    So now "Linux" is united? "Clear", hu? That's just lame, I'm sorry. Please don't try to trash the work of thousands of people in a meaningless sentence. There's no mess, no switch, no unique, narrow-minded "Linux" movement. Just systems for each and every imaginable use, including "standard" desktop usage.

    I got trolled again, right?

    Oh, before you change the subject, I'm not arguing over the commercial side of the problem, I'm not saying Unity should go support Linux without hesitation - I am only trying to stop most technical non-sense I read around here.
     
  5. dlannan

    dlannan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Posts:
    16
    I think many people have have some good solid points about Linux. It is extremely sad to see that some of the 'generalizations' are way off the mark when it comes to trying to persuade an argument.

    To note a few:
    "No one I have ever met ever uses Linux for development"
    - This is a false argument. And with full knowing, because everyone in development knows at _least_ one Linux developer.. Linus. And yes.. hes still going, along with _millions_ of others. So dont go down this argument path its silly.

    "Linux has zero or little user base"
    - This again is a silly statement. For gaming, it is small, but for engineering, embedded development, open source development, it is a substantial portion. Yes even compared to OSX!

    Here are the browser only stats
    http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
    Now this only desktop and laptop usage. And that may be your only market - if so, then so be it.

    However, server, engineering, academic R&D, supercomputing, embedded systems, financial businesses use Linux by a _majority_. Over 90% in these fields. And these people all _pay_ for their Linux setups and software. Its how company's like IBM _make_ money by providing services for these people. And I would suggest that these areas are worthy area's to pursue because of the large financial backings these groups get.

    How do I know? I work for a simulation company doing the same thing. Many simulation companies around the world are moving away from windows based systems to more stable, less resource hungry systems like Linux. Additionally Linux is ideal for hardware interfacing (unlike windows or osx) and thus is becoming the sole choice for future development in this area.

    As a company, I would assume this would bode well for Unity to provide a target platform like Linux. What I am quite puzzled about though, having myself developed on OSX, Linux, and Windows (and a number of game consoles). Is if you have a working OSX OpenGL implementation, the effort to get a working Linux build surely is not that surmountable? It even seems odd to waste so much effort denying the Linux market when an OSX->Linux is usually a very straight forward port? In the end.. you will capture extra dollars? and potentially (like simulation, and others) brand new markets flush with cash?

    Just a thought..

    PS: Any hope of getting an OpenGL windows version happening? DirectX is horribly limiting, especially with the new direct addressing extensions for OGL - can do some incredibly kool stuff.
     
  6. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    It already does that; use the -force-opengl command line argument. It won't gain you anything though except worse drivers; you don't write any Direct3D or OpenGL code when using Unity.

    --Eric
     
  7. muzzwood

    muzzwood

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    5
    Please please please make unity compatible with Linux! :)


    1. Make it possible to run Unity on Linux.

    2. Make the Unity browser plug-in compatible with Linux browsers.

    3. Allow us to publish to Linux.


    I'm sure these things would make myself and others very very happy.

    In terms of the myth about people who use Linux not wanting to pay for software, look at the Humble Indie Bundle. The majority of customers listed Linux as their OS.

    Cheers,
    Muzz
     
  8. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    Not sure where you got that idea; the majority of sales went to Windows. However, the split was 52.6% Windows, 23.9% Mac, and 23.4% Linux, so you're partially correct.

    --Eric
     
  9. muzzwood

    muzzwood

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    5
    ack! You're right, my mind must've been wandering. I remembered from when I bought the bundle that Linux users had more of something though... A quick look at the website shows it was the average contribution that was higher with Linux users, not the amount of purchases. oops!

    Average price the customers paid:
    Linux users: $14.48
    Mac users: $10.17
    Windows users: $8.05
     
  10. alewinn

    alewinn

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Posts:
    185
    We encountred today a circunstance where it can be useful to have a linux build ; when using some sort of server-side unity application for MMO.

    Some research labs we work with are using exclusively Linux on server-side, this limiting us using unity server-side (some sort of network architecture where a server node is runing as a headless server)...

    Considering the fact that the cost of a Linux server CAN (depending on your datacenter) be less (to VERY less) expansive than a Windows server node, it can be a second argument having the hability to build for Linux.
     
  11. MagyarOlympic

    MagyarOlympic

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Posts:
    6
    The argument of a cost/benefit analysis being behind the lack of development of a Linux web player doesn't make sense. The purpose of the web player is to deliver the content and it is already free. Development time would be unmeasurable.

    It isn't rocket science either. Shiva Game Engine has a linux release and the ability to output games for linux and a linux webplayer.

    As to the myth espoused earlier about many, non-consolidated distros... It really boils down to deb or rpm. If you have rpm, you just need alien to make a deb. Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse etc doesn't matter.

    The reality, as is the case with Adobe, many software manufacturers receive compensation (via r and d $'s or thru directed and compensated development)to avoid development in linux. The use of OSX or Windows in a production environment would plummet overnight if CS5 were Linux compatible for example.

    And on the topic of pipeline, Maya 2011 64 bit runs considerably faster on Linux 64bit than windows, and most especially OS x. Unity would run faster, no doubt.

    Just my two cents.
     
  12. ryanzec

    ryanzec

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Posts:
    696
    I highly doubt the drop would be as big as you think.
     
  13. Ntero

    Ntero

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Posts:
    1,436
    The cost/arguement benefit is not talking about the cost of deploying the web player to a web site.

    It's talking about the cost to make the web player compatible with Linux. If it takes 20 people 2 months, then you have just spent those salaries on developing a Linux compatible web player. That is the cost. And the benefit is the amount of extra people who would purchase Unity because it contains a Linux compatible web player. They don't make a Sega Saturn version of Unity for a similar reason. Costs money to create, and will not bring in significantly more users who were looking specifically for a Sega Saturn engine. Not saying it'd be as dumb as a Sega Saturn version (which would be silly), just trying to elaborate on the cost and benefit being talked about. Not many people are looking for Webplayers for Linux users in their game engines.

    Second, just because one engine has a Linux compatible webplayer does not mean it is trivial for another engine.

    One, we don't know how much work Shiva had to do to make that work. They could have spent months getting it to specifically work. Or it could have been in their design from day one, not requiring a reengineering of existing parts of the engine.

    Two, engines function differently and have different dependencies. For example, Unity requires Mono. While it is easy to make Shiva not rely on Mono (it does out of the box as it doesn't use Mono) it would be insanely difficult to remove the dependency on Mono from Unity, because it was built around it.

    Different engines are different, and if one has a feature it doesn't mean that every other engine architecture can easily support it as well. It depends on the engine.
     
  14. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    You're partially correct in citing where the "cost" comes from, but not fully correct. The "cost" is based not just on the implementation of the Linux player, but also on the ongoing maintenance as well as support of that player. Additionally you have to consider the "opportunity cost", meaning the "cost" incurred by choosing that feature work instead of something else. For example, if we implement feature X at a cost of $X, will that have a bigger impact on the product's adoption and sales than feature Y at a cost of $Y? It's a constant balancing act that we have to perform each release, and sure enough the tactics and decisions vary from company to company.
     
  15. MagyarOlympic

    MagyarOlympic

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Posts:
    6
    In my experience it is.

    It would be deceptive to analyze what a production environment is using as an example of what is best, it really boils down to the package deal the tool jockey can deliver as to what some production houses adopt. That said most high end production houses utilize Linux.

    Proprietary software drives the requirement of operating system, not the other way around. I think you can see how many boxes would dump windows if games came with a Linux release? Adobe Creative Suite? It simply wouldn't make sense at that point to continue to use an OS with excessive overhead and management considerations, when you could install a secure and reliable operating system like Ubuntu (for example). It isn't a matter of folks picking an OS for their needs anymore, it is inverted.

    Both Microsoft and Apple are quite aware of dependency and work to facilitate r&d and support programs to ensure software is continually developed for their platforms. Adobe used to make a market argument for their refusal to release a Linux port. However, 68% of their market is Higher education licensing with a large share going to EDMC (which runs the Art Institutes). Many people run dual boot systems with Linux as a day to day and windows as a means to run proprietary software.

    It isn't as if there isn't a user base. In March 2010, there were an estimated 24 million Fedora users and 10million Ubuntu users. That's just two distros, the number increases with other distributions like SUSE and Gentoo etc. 34 million people who wouldn't have had to spend hundreds on Operating systems could spend money on worthwhile software like Unity...
     
  16. MagyarOlympic

    MagyarOlympic

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Posts:
    6
    That doesn't really make sense. Mono is open source, cross platform development and the primary choice for Linux app development. Here is a site.

    Mono development makes it easier for a linux port, not harder.

    I am sure most of Unity's software engineers could do it in their sleep and if you polled them, they are probably highly familiar with Linux anyways. What programmer outside of Redmond or Cupertino isn't?
     
  17. tsturzl

    tsturzl

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Posts:
    8
    I really don't see Unity putting up much of a fight for coming technologies as WebGL, and new web based technologies that are aiming to completely replace browser plugins like Java, Flash, and that would also include the Unity Web Player. WebGl already presents several advantage, open standards, extreme cross platform abilities, hardware acceleration for high level languages, and the ability to extend the engine. Not to mention since webGL is just an opengl exposure, it will make it easy to port to a standalone client.

    WebGL is already used for commercial development, especially on mobile platforms. The Titanium Framework already supports webGL and many games and 3D applications on apple devices and android devices use WebGL, which means it supported on Android, Iphone/Ipod, Ipad, Linux, Mac, Windows, and Blackberry.

    Anyway, what I'm saying is, Unity keeps sitting here saying linux isn't worth the time. Well you have to consider these technologies. Its only a matter of time till webGL is going to be available in every major browser. Chrome and firefox already have experimental support and have for a while now, soon to be available in stable releases.

    On top of that IE isn't complying to new web standards, which again is fueling the Linux market, and right now the web market is where everything is at, everything is moving into the cloud. All these users who want to progress with technology, but can't because they are running a windows system, won't want to go buy a Mac, so probably there best choice would be to go to Linux, since it will run on there current PC.

    I don't know why unity continuously averts itself from a linux client, it just digging a grave. Because the fact is, theres going to be an engine that provides all these features like Unity does, but they'll have the ability to run on linux, android, and in the browser without need of plugin. So why would you invest into Unity when something out there offers more? Its like "I'll give you $1 or $2, which would you like", no one is going to say "Oh, I'll just take the $1, since thats all I need right now", they'll be more like "I'll take the $2, because I might need it later, and no harm if I don't".

    In conclusion, how is Unity going to hold up to these new technologies? They're already new engines in the works that use simple languages like JavaScript to make in browser and stand alone client games using the same or similar code. And like the original post said "What platform doesn't support Javascript?".

    Unity definitely isn't going to win the battle by denying platform support to fairly large platforms, I can understand why you wouldn't provide support for BeOS or openDOS, but Linux is a fairly large platform, and web technology that doesn't work on all web compatible platforms isn't a web technology at all. You're not putting up much of a fight, and I wouldn't expect much growth if this is your current motive.

    Good luck. My bets are on WebGL and its successors to come.
     
  18. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Agreed, unity isn't going to win anything by denying fairly large platforms.

    thats why it offers support for all major platforms.
    As android even outnumbers the web usage of linux, they did well in deciding that android is obviously more important than Linux and unless something fundamental changes on world, linux won't become a major platform for anything but server usage (which should be rather easy to provide, batchmode running on linux with no sound and graphics, when compared to the full thing which would be far less usefull as deferred likely runs that craptastic that U3 would become meaningless)
     
  19. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    You talking about 30 million machines 'estimated'.

    How many of these machines are the main pc - as you specifically stated "34 million people who wouldn't have had to spend hundreds on Operating systems". I know of a few people who are mainly windows, but run Linux servers.

    And of secondly, how many of these machines could even support unity in a serious fashion?

    I'm not against having Unity available for Linux - but please don't exaggerate the spread of Linux.
     
  20. muzzwood

    muzzwood

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    5
    Another point worthy of note is that the Ubuntu Software Centre will have a paid software centre as part of the OS in the next release (10.10). This will be a fantastic channel for indie developers to sell their games.

    It's Linux time! ;)
     
  21. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    That will have to be proofen.
    Neither Xandros nor Mandriva took off with their models and unlike Ubuntu they are regular enduser friendly
     
  22. muzzwood

    muzzwood

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    5

    I tried both Xandros and Mandriva and am quite surprised how you could say they were more end-user friendly than Ubuntu... ?
     
  23. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Well xandros is to expensive, agreed.

    But mandriva just works, on any damned system I ever installed it on including a joke cube system. Install and happily goinging ...
    it updates fine, has proprietary, tested drivers etc and runs extremely fast. I've it on my netbook and the normal mandriva can compete with the netbook ubuntu there (it shows pretty well that mandriva has engineers working payed fulltime on it and that they take their work serious including the usage of intels offers for netbooks etc).


    With ubuntu, which I test every year too, I can be happy if it works fine on 30% of the boxes with all hw supported and performant out of the box, in the past it even refused to just work on intel reference notebooks with all relevant aspects for new generations which is basically inacceptable for an OS (worst so far was 2009.10 which on my notebook neither provided lan nor wifi drivers. Do I need to add anything on how damned S*** ubuntu is as general user os if such a thing for a standard notebook with standard hw can happen in 2009??).
    The wifi side is nothing new, every since the 2008.04 where they decided that they are "cool tuxies" by dropping out the intel proprietary drivers, using ubuntu has gotten more and more painfull.
    No idea how they came up with the idea that adding a 3d desktop with their attitude towards drivers is an acceptable step at all.
    The only good, current ubuntu distribution to me is their netbook one where they are able to compete with mandriva.
    The last good ubuntu was like 2007.10, which worked nearly as flawlessly on a wide variety of systems as mandriva does.

    For clarification: Acceptable enduser OS means that it installs and works fine on 90% of the systems supporting fully (with proprietary not home hacker drivers) the standard HW of that time + the past 5 years, and that out of the box, no wiki reading, no google search, no console mastery, no fishy extra repo

    Also mandriva never F***ed up tens of thousands of system installs by pushing through broken devel modules through the regular update unlike some not further named *buntu distri ;)


    Linux is great for where it was developed, thats servers, fully agree.
    But on the home regular enduser sector, hell will freeze before they land, the fact that even android has a larger browser usage install base than linux speaks for itself
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2010
  24. muzzwood

    muzzwood

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    5
    hmmm that's strange, I had exactly the opposite experience to you. I had endless problems and much time spent on work-arounds whenever I tried Mandrake/Mandriva (in terms of hardware compatibility).

    I've only been using Ubuntu since 8.04 but with each iteration it's installed seamlessly on all my machines. Actually I take that back, upgrading hasn't gone so well but when I scrapped that and did fresh installs there were no problems at all.

    I use Ubuntu on all my machines at home and love it for its ease of use and the fact that everything just works!
    I've just got my main desktop dual-booting to windows to run Unity. Hopefully that will change in the future ;)

    edit:
    As for the proprietary drivers (e.g. video card), it asks you in a pop-up the first time you use it.
    I do however agree they should have VLC as part of the base install so that all the codecs "just work" however as it is it's still a simple matter of just going to the software centre.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2010
  25. tsturzl

    tsturzl

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Posts:
    8
    Well if its not willing to step up and support linux, another engine will is the thing. Now if you have 2 engines that offer the same features but one has only one advantage of having linux compatibility also,then why would you go with the other engine. Fact is all engines are emerging from the release of WebGL, and they show HUGE potential. Unity has to be willing to start supporting new platforms, and possibly looking into these new technologies to use for themselves.

    You realize android uses JAVA, and the lower level system is just a light linux kernel, so either way, if you were to provide Android support you'd also provide Linux support. Since Java is cross-platform and extremely portable, you'd end up supporting every platform java supports. If you were to do a low level android hack(bypassing the java API), then you'd be developing on a Linux platform. So android support inevitably means Linux support, but for some reason it doesn't bring Linux support. I don't know how they're pulling off an android game engine but either way, it almost has to mean theres an easy port to Linux, either way they did it.


    Anyway, saying "support android but not Linux" just doesn't make sense. And if they aren't going to do it someone will, and very soon.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2010
  26. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    You assume that you can just magically 'Support Linux' at absolutely no cost.

    Given two equal engines, if one has Linux support than what compensation for this would the other have?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2010
  27. tsturzl

    tsturzl

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Posts:
    8

    If you already have supported Java, then why not just distribute towards the JVM, rather than just the andriod is what I'm saying. Pay to maintain the JVM release, which hits multiple birds with one stone, and then after you compile the game to JVM format then from there you can choose how you want to package it, either as a jar(with wouldn't require much work) or a android app(wouldn't be to hard either). I don't see why they're aiming is only at Android when there work can be aimed at a broader platform, java itself, which is supported on more platforms than one could imagine.

    Also, the 2 engines would be equal except for that fact, is what I was saying. If you're saying I'm not giving equal thought to each, then you're completely missing my point. I'm saying engines offering the same features as Unity are on there way, and they provide Linux support and web based support(without plugins), so what reason would be left to even use unity if theres something thats even a small fraction better. Besides, its the little things that count when it comes to these large projects, they'll all offer the same core features of course, but each will have to compete by trying to surpass each other with little things, like requiring no plugin for web support.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2010
  28. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    I thought some solid information on Linux game market would be of help:

    http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/The-state-of-Mac-and-Linux-gaming -This is a must read for understanding cross platform game sales, it shows how Linux game sales would be a lot larger then you think. (24% of the money made from this promotion was from Linux)

    http://linuxgamingnews.org/2009/11/25/interview-with-frictional-games-amnesia/ - The Penumbra series. Linux has 12% of sales, Mac only has 8%. http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/10/one-month-after-amnesias-release.html -Same developer, different game, this time Linux estimated at 5%, Mac at 8%.

    http://2dboy.com/2009/02/12/world-of-goo-linux-version-is-ready/ -World of Goo is released on Linux, after 2 days it already makes up 4.6% of total sales.

    http://www.hemispheregames.com/2010/06/23/linux-the-numbers/ - An indie game developer produces a Linux port of their game (Osmos). The result? At least the very least, 15% of their total sales, and this was a while after the Windows and Mac versions had already been released.

    http://www.koonsolo.com/news/linux-users-show-their-love-for-indie-game - Indie game Mystic Mine, turns out over a third of sales are from Linux, and Linux users have a higher conversion rate (likelihood of buying the game after seeing the site)

    Certainly seems like there's a lot of benefit in having a Linux version of your game.
     
  29. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Wolfire: sorry but all that stats shows is that linux users don't rate by quality of what they buy.
    games like this were in and hot a decade ago on windows and 5 years ago on osx if not even before that ... nowadays nobody is looking for games anymore that are barely PS1 level.


    World of Goo: You missread it a bit.
    It says 4.6% of what was bought on their website.
    Thats like 0.1% and less of all sold games as their major channels are bigfishgames, impulse, xbox live arcade and steam as a matter of facts

    Osmos: license wise a similar misery. As the pay once get all platforms isn't available through the licenses sold on major systems (basically the same as World of Goo) - with exception of osx on steam, the numbers there again are purely based on the sales from their webpage

    Osmos 2: Their statement is rather trivial "Did we get rich off it? No. But the time we invested was repaid, with room for margin of error, and possibly with a little extra at the end." - this in short for middleware developer means no market as doing an engine for a specific game is trivial compared to do a general purpose engine with powerfull middleware and masses of code.


    I own licenses to both of them and got a linux download for neither of them, showing that they are clearly handling the real platforms and their tiny amount of sales on the own website seperated.

    And none of these give any insight on the actual win % per platform.
    That Linux sells 2% more than osx might sound cool but if that 2% is of an amount thats small enough to not seriously exceed the costs linux support cost them, then its not worth it.

    Also we are talking ehre about unity 3, not some low end engine ... we know the performance of deferred on windows, we know it on osx.
    going by normal quality on linux, you couldn't use it there at all as the drivers are even worse than on osx, which means basically no dynamic lighting, dual lightmapping and rather low use for pro yet I would expect that only pro would even get linux support for the time being.

    and this all without considering the fact that unity has no 64bit support and as such wouldn't even run on linux 64bit installations unless the user has installed the 32bit library counterparts which non-geeks normally definitely will not have.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2010
  30. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    This is what Linux can do:
    http://unigine.com/products/sanctuary/
    http://unigine.com/products/tropics/
     
  31. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    nobody said it can't do it.
    But you compare some other tech with this here and this here works differently and has other targets (including the pricing target).

    there is no dx 10 / ogl 3 support for example in unity which has a major impact on the performance. (not much to do there, apple has no ogl 3 support at all)

    but you are aware of this and other consequences, otherwise you would use unigine, not unity
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  32. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/10/brukkon-sale-ubuntu-software-centre-game/

    The first game has been released for purchase on the Ubuntu Software Center.
    The Ubuntu Software Center is used by all users of Ubuntu to quickly install a wide variety of programs, and now it makes it extremely easy for Ubuntu users to immediately pay for and download video games, in "one click".
    Think about it, how can it get any easier for a user to buy and download a game for their PC?
    This could be a big opportunity for a lot more Linux game sales. It'll be interesting to see the sales figures.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  33. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    through a real platform where more than home hackers release their games like impulse, big fish games, steam, mac app store, ...
     
  34. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    I'm actually getting quite sick of this now.
    This is meant to be a serious debate where where consider the merits of supporting a currently unsupported platform, not another petty internet dispute where making dismissive posts counts more then bringing serious arguments to the table.
    I'm trying to make the most level headed posts that I can. If I make a biased post, I expect to get called out on it, however, I expect to be called out on it in a way that pinpoints exactly where my bias caused me to make an incorrect assumption or conclusion and preferably with a link to additional information, not by a post that is the textual equivalent of a condescending sneer.

    To take on your point head on, "real platform" is just weasel words, what matters to an indie developer is whether they can make money selling games on a Linux platform. That's the linchpin of this entire debate, and is why I'm posting news about something that can possibly make this easier.
    And "home hackers" are equivalent to indie game developers. You used the term dismissively which implies you've not only insulted a lot of people on this board, but also yourself. If you are going to reply by trying to draw a distinction between "home hackers" and indie developers, keep in mind you defined the term by "people who release games on Linux". Many indie developers release games on Linux (2D Boy, Irrational Games, so many others), and Unity caters a lot towards indie game developers. So if a service makes it a lot easier to sell indie games to customers on one of the platforms they support, it's important news.

    On another note, it looks like space combat MMORPG will be coming to the Ubuntu Software Center next: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/10/...-online-coming-to-the-ubuntu-software-centre/
     
  35. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    I'm not saying that it is a bad move that this things happens.

    But its not a "real platform", at least not if we go by reachability and the average end user hardware of those getting the platform.
    You are right, for the Linux world it might indeed be one of the most important moves in a long time to make it a viable commercial platform at some point in the future.

    The problem is, this is a first step of a series of steps that are required, a major part in these steps includethat this one store gets adopted on all major linux distributions.
    If there is going to happen fragmentation again through the distributions the move is, as hard or "stupid" it might sound, useless to anyone not primarily focused at Linux development or Linux only, because it makes the whole thing much harder again and cuts the userbase.

    I have the hope that after a decade of fragmentation and not that wise decisions, those pulling the strips on the major distributions (red hat / fedora, ubuntu, mandriva) for once get their ass at the same table and work together towards some standardization and combined strategy, as I don't see any hope nor even reason to target them otherwise personally unless its a one click and forget thing, as any other OS thats not dead or Solaris has long left them behind in broad usage. Android as well as OSX are both running in circles around Linux when we consider non server usage only.


    And with Home Hacker I don't mean indie users but people having 100% jobs somewhere, targeting such a platform as part of the spare time endevours for some extra cash or just "for the fun of it" without any direct dependency on the endevour not failing / making win on top of paying back the investment. For such targets, a reasonable userbase, standardizations and the target to grow the userbase from the platforms company are vital especially with a userbase that has a payment morale like Android users but has a fraction of it in size.
    I would expect to see Open Source projects going through such a platform at some point though and benefit seriously from it as it would be a solid alternative to the donations path, just because its more convenient and standardized and "sits right in front of them".
    Top games like OpenTTD, even though they are opensource, would have a lot of potential on such a platform out of my personal view.
    But you are right that the wording there might be suboptimal.

    In the end we will see 12-24 months after release how well it really worked out and if the chances and the potential were used by the Linux community or if their ego trips again killed something that could have worked out as an attraction point for commercial developers.

    VO looks interesting and they might do really well if they get there featured at start.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2010
  36. thib

    thib

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Posts:
    7
    @dreamora
    Sorry to take the defensive again, but I'm quite getting sick of it too. tsturzl's $1/$2 and Android arguments are valid, and people here have been trying to repeatedly demonstrate that the Linux platform as a whole has at least *some* potential. If the cost of supporting it is that low (the Android argument), it just doesn't seem reasonable to completely ignore it any more, and absolutely stupid to dismiss it as an "unreal" platform. Seriously, as Sofox said, it's irritating.

    Linux isn't just "for servers", it never had that goal only, ever. Linux is just a highly modular monolithic kernel. You have no idea what it really means, do you? You've been ignoring what many have been saying since the beginning, I've tried to tell you nicely, now please, *please*, shut up about fragmentation. This is *not* the issue, this is a *good* thing, it means choice, and it means you can be everywhere the users want to be with your software with truly minimal or no porting (read "cost"), since all these distributions use the same kernel. People have different tastes, and thus use different computing environments - not everybody is like you. Now just get over it. Thank you.

    You praise proprietary software as a Better Thing, while not providing necessary context. Oh, drivers, you mean? What do you actually know about them? What's your interest in the state of the Linux drivers model? It's different, yes, but even so, is it so incompatible with proprietary solutions? I'm willing to debate, but only if you can show you're actually interested in that debate, and not just spreading FUD you read on mainstream news wires (getting a bit technical won't harm). Please note that I have nothing against proprietary drivers, but I just happen to have an actual informed opinion about when and where *I* want to use them and not (yes, I do use some).

    Last thing, you said: "sorry but all that stats shows is that linux users don't rate by quality of what they buy.

    If you can't see what's wrong with that, you may have a problem. These are public boards, you can't expect to basically insult people and get them to agree with you in return. If you don't seek any kind of agreement, then just get the hell out of here and stop bothering people, you've got the wrong definition of a "debate", and as far as I know, this is one. Making random points won't get us anywhere.

    Now, back on the "real" (just kidding) conversation, there's a point I want to make: if nobody is offering games on a popular desktop platform (as in "has tens of millions of desktop users"), then many people favoring it won't play. I was what I consider to be a regular gamer. I started favoring Linux over Windows and Mac for my desktop environment a few years ago, and now I only rarely launch a game when I see a build that works great with some release of Wine, because I can't be bothered to leave my environment altogether just to play anymore. Other than that, I'm never invited to play games on my platform. If someone did, if some games were actually offered on it, well then believe me, I would. Many other people would. Maybe it still won't be sufficient to cover that gigantic porting cost (free sarcasm), but I really want it to be considered in the discussion, because this is in contrast to the other people who actively seek Linux support (those who do everything they can to "make it run on Linux") - Those you don't have to tempt, but you hear about all the time, although they are, I think, the minority everyone is talking about.

    So, more clearly, my point is that you can't put potential gamers in reliable statistics, someone has to find out for real. While I do think there could be a profitable "hidden" market on Linux, I respect anyone who doesn't, as long as they explicitly say they don't care about it, instead of trying to trash that opinion for what seems to be "the heck of it".
     
  37. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    Wait? Are you saying you've been posting countless objections to the Linux platform for several pages... and you don't even know the first thing about one of Linux's most prominent features?

    Ubuntu Software Center is just a more user friendly version of what's basically a package manager, something that every single worthwhile Linux distribution has had for over a decade. You start up the package manager, click on the programs you want and *bamb* instantly installed. Also easily removed and updated. They're a huge deal and have been part of the Linux landscape for years.
    Ubuntu Software Center currently has access to 34,608 items (some are libraries or development items, but also pretty much every popular open source program you can think of).

    Well that's funny because it's been in the Center since at least 2008 (actually it would have been accessible through the Synaptic Package Manager, but that accesses the same respositories as the Ubuntu Software Center).

    The point I had been trying to make was that as of the last Ubuntu release, the ability to actually pay for downloading stuff through the Center has been added. This is a big deal, as the Center is already the go to place for installing programs on Ubuntu, just like the respective package managers for every other Linux system.

    I'm actually still surprised you don't seem to know about package managers. They're one of Linux's most basic features and are familiar to anyone who's spent any amount of time using a Linux operating system.
     
  38. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    There's one last point I'd like to make:

    The Humble Indie Bundle, an indie games package that was sold a few months back, managed to raise $1,273,613 on the strength of 5 indie video games. This netted the indie game developers in the bundle a fair bit over $150,000 each (the remainder went to charity [stats]).
    About 25% of that money came from Linux gamers, making up about $340,000 for the entire bundle. Musings on this surprising result written by the organiser of the bundle is essential reading for those who wish to understand the Linux games market.

    There's probably going to be another Humble Indie Bundle coming up soon given that bundle's huge success, the page even has a way to enter your email address to be alerted when the next one appears.

    The next bundle, for the above reasons, will likely require that each game to be entered into the bundle has Linux port. As such, no game developed using the Unity engine will be eligible.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2010
  39. VCCGeek

    VCCGeek

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Posts:
    89
    Well, here's my $.02 worth.

    Disclaimer: I'm a big Mac fan and a big Windows hater. I used to be a big Linux fan (still sort of).

    To be up front, I think it would rock to see a Linux port of Unity, or at least the player.

    As far as fragmentation is concerned, only "outer rim" distributions use any kernel version other than a snapshot of the official one, and it's pretty easy to upgrade it if it isn't the latest. The problem aside from that is that different distributions tend to use slightly different filesystem structures. I think that it would do the Linux project a lot of good to work towards the major distributions being fully Unix-compliant like OSX (yes, OSX is fully compliant with the Unix standard as of OSX 10.5). The reason for standards is so that a developer can make certain assumptions about the client computer. If the platform isn't compliant with those standards, then the application can break by, say, trying to access a library that's stored in a different place than the standard says for it to be. I've run into this before, even trying to install an open-source app on a major distribution.

    That said, I think that there are quite a number of assumptions a developer can make that would carry over to the major Linux distributions. I think it would be reasonable to limit support for your game/app/whatever to a specific set of distributions, and make some stipulations that everything be up-to-date. We do that with Windows. Customer calls, says it's crashing to desktop, we ask some questions and discover he's using a 25-year-old driver for his video card on Windows 3.1. Tell him to upgrade and hang up.

    The other problem with porting to Linux is the market segment problem. I think that can be a self-solving problem - sort of. The issue that we face with gaining widespread acceptance of Linux, is often known as the "chicken and egg" problem, and it sort of requires developers to give it a chance on a large scale. It sort of goes like this: No one wants to use the (insert whatever OS you want) operating system because there aren't any apps for it. No developers want to create apps for it because no one uses it. And no one uses it because there aren't any apps for it. It's a catch 22.

    Here's my conclusion: It would be absolutely fantastic to see a port for Linux, even for just the player, so we can either target that market segment or at least have a Linux version available for our customers. I think that it's hard to get companies to buy into it if they aren't already disposed towards the idea, because they think that they are taking too much of a risk (companies are very often - perhaps too often - all about the bottom line, and not about making a particular platform work). So from an ethical, scientific, pro-consumer viewpoint, it should definitely happen. From a pragmatic, resource-tight, make-the-shareholders-happy standpoint, they're afraid to risk it. I think both viewpoints are valid and each side of it needs to try to find a common ground, because first, there's a great potential in the Linux market, but second, companies *do* have a responsibility to their shareholders.

    And then there's always the fanbois on each side that just want to be right. Just ignore those.
     
  40. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    Unity Tech has no shareholders. :) So they can do whatever they want.

    --Eric
     
  41. VCCGeek

    VCCGeek

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Posts:
    89
    If there are no shareholders, then perhaps there's hope for it. They still need to keep afloat, though. I would still love to see at least a player. I think the player, in and of itself, would be fantastic, because then at least we can PLAY the game under Linux.

    I think that the best way to go is to make the player sort of self-contained, so that it doesn't really *need* for things to be where they're supposed to be according to POSIX standards in order to run. That's what I've always done with my programming projects, game or otherwise, and it's worked out very well.

    All of that said, I still think it's an uphill battle trying to sell the idea to any company. There's too much FUD floating around from the detractors of Linux. It was like I saw at a company that I worked for once. The IT department wanted to put Linux on some of the servers, and management didn't like the idea, but gave them the concession to allow ONE server to go to Linux. Then there was a big crash, and upper management went into a big uproar, demanding that Linux be removed right away. That is, until they discovered that the Linux server was the only one that DIDN'T crash. Today, that company runs all of their servers on Linux. Good idea? Dunno, but they're happy with it. The point is that big companies are afraid of Linux because there are people who have a monetary interest in competing ideas, and they don't WANT Linux to succeed, and they spend money to keep it from succeeding.

    I think a lot of those parties are starting to be forced to take Linux seriously, though. It's become ubiquitous enough that even my mother is using it instead of Windows. When someone as tech-tarded as my mother (bless her heart!) can use it day in and day out, then that means that just about anyone can. Really ready for the big time? I don't think I'm in a place to make that call. Do I want it to be? You bet. Do I want to see a Unity player for Linux? Is the pope Catholic?

    I hope my anti-Microsoft sentiments aren't showing through too much; I'm trying to be as level-headed as I can, so my apologies if they are. Writing games and working with Unity is something of a hobby for me, but I'm thinking seriously of releasing a game or two. Regardless of how I feel about Microsoft, if I release anything, I'll have to release it for Windows (in addition to Mac) if I want it to go anywhere. I'd just like to be able to release it for Linux, too.
     
  42. laptopuser1

    laptopuser1

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Posts:
    13
    Unity3D is not "free". I think they might be getting revenue from Microsoft Corp. just for allowing it. We pay for Microsoft, and in turn Microsoft pays some money to Unity3D. I really like Unity3D because of the game DeadFrontier that I have felt was the best mmorpg I've ever played in my life, though I haven't even played much mmos at all. I don't play games that aren't my type and CounterStrike was never my type. XBox games, never. PS3 mmos, never. Any other PC mmorpgs? Never.

    Ok, here are the ideas that I have for Unity3D getting on Linux.

    It should be a paid for software, per use/install, per major upgrade. You download it from a special public Linux software distributor(not package manager), like Ubuntu Software Center, and you pay for it there when you try to download, the pay option window pops up. Why do we need to do it in that special software distributor? We need centralization in this, so one highly honest and trustworthy, not-for-profit, group of people have control over this, are official, efficient(e.g.: the server workers responsible for keeping up the centralized server for this software center, would be advanced in experience and it dwindles the cost as they already know what they are doing and do not require having to learn more stuff to make the server more efficient. That costs indirect costs like food money. Less money is spent with dispersed(less widely known) software distributors. We only need one major software distributor, for the Linux community since Linux only has 1% of the market in OS. Servers do cost electricity and why have 50 servers for software distribution, when they're not being used to the max of what they can do for the same electricity, wasting resources?

    HiggsB is talking about cost-benefit. If UT started creating a system similar to many of the paid software that windows uses like AVG antivirus PRO that gives you a license or you make an account with them, then that actually would cost money doing all that with bandwidth and server memory space and etc, renewing licenses and keeping that license in storage so that it can never be used again. I believe the money is going towards the development and personally also supporting the developers as a thank you gift.

    Unity3D is also claimed as an ongoing project that will "never" be finished, which means it is getting better and better, a special trait you won't find much with many software nowadays, which appeals to me with the evolution aspect, improving stuff, the world, and the way the world works, making it more fun to live in(a lot of what the Linux and Ubuntu philosophy is about, like getting this great OS to people that don't have a lot of money in the poorest places of the world like Africa). I think you should have to renew for each time you use it.

    However many Linux users desire flexibility. What if their specific linux OS that has Unity 3D breaks down and they have to freshly reinstall their Linux on their computer, reformatting their hard disk? Then that is just a problem they will have to realize and deal with, that they have to pay for Unity3D again. This also kind of makes people more focused into their linux distro as the better one, the one they actually have a Unity3D installed on. Would people install Unity3D on every single free Linux distro they have multi-bootable on their laptop/pc, or wouldn't they just install on their best preference distro? This could drammatically effect distro competition. Better distros can spawn. People would go for more optimally processor using distros like amd64 64 bit downloads of Ubuntu for example.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2010
  43. laptopuser1

    laptopuser1

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Posts:
    13
    The cost to the user to use Unity3D can be "optimally" engineered. If you lower down the price required to specially temporarily "license" then more people can afford to play it, though the number of people that actually wish to use it, out of the people able to afford it, would actually be different from the maximum amount of people able to afford it. It would be less people wanting to use Unity3D than the amount of people able to afford it. Not every user of Linux would actually want to use Unity3D, right? There are some people that just want practicality, like old 50+ people who just use linux for business.

    First, good reliably accurate unbiased scientific statistics need to performed on what amount, proportion, and percentage of the relatively small Linux community actually want to use the Unity3D for real. If they are not enough, then they should have to pay more towards that "optimal" price that they will all agree on paying, and truthfully.

    That "optimal" price needs to be high as it can go, but agreed by a satisfactory % of everybody that wants to use it, which could be 65%, since a good deal of Linux users are likely "cheap" and penny pinching.
     
  44. laptopuser1

    laptopuser1

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Posts:
    13
    The more of the community that wants Unity3D, the lower the price can become. It is required to take multiple official mainstream and extremely widely Linux community known polls based on taking specially unique IP addresses(that's the true IP address of your internet connection which is unique, you most likely can't change it even if you try "masking it", like with firefox modifications/addon) AND unique computer identification(computer identification is possibly found by the hardware, as there are so much variety of hardware out there, that it can create a form of uniqueness like fingerprint(like CPU+GPU+sound system+RAM+hard disk storage capacity+brand model+perhaps a hidden value implanted into the computer by the manufacturer that ids your computer(I know Ubuntu 10.10 can recognize the model of your computer), so if you modify your computer with an upgrade or whatever, the absolute uniqueness value of the computer changes) + the OS combined values, just concatenating strings). We can get even more futuristic and people can start selling fingerprint readers that hook up via usb, though this would go much into bioethics and human ethics and morals. Would everybody agree with this? This could be taken into the linux poll. If a good percentage agrees, then this could be integrated exclusive for linux users. Though there would have to be incredible trust. People can use fingerprints and frame people for crimes. If the people who collected your fingerprints were highly respected and trustworthy and proved that, then I would not see any wrongdoing in this. Maybe the government can work into this? Why would the government want to frame you? You don't even need fingerprint collection from an "official" source to get framed anyway. You can always use this evidence as counter in the court of law that you were possibly framed. Just because somebody has your fingerprint on a murder weapon or whatever, it does not mean that you did it. A lot of people has access to this knowledge this day and age over the internet and with information spread.

    Good example of Operating system, unique computer identification is: (hidden unique identification # given by the downloaded OS integrated into the .iso from the website like ubuntu.com or xubuntu.com + Time spent using the OS from the install date(easily calculated) + current time of date, + initial random number that are extremely hidden in the OS and can not be changed by the user that is given at the start of the OS install. After that unique complete id number is expired, rather than the software server keeping that number in the database forever, the # would stay for like 1-12 months after it was used?, then the # would get flushed and deleted to make more memory capacity available, which is a system resource.
     
  45. laptopuser1

    laptopuser1

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Posts:
    13
    This is to deter cheaters that want to hack it to get it for free, like with key generators, which actually do work a great deal of the time, I would know. This form of identification is required because people can hack neighbor's wifis or go to another IP location, biasedly trying to mess up the true statistics, or even attempt at using different computers at the same house, hacking neighbor's wifis. We can't assume we know the true truth always. It helps scientifically, by making multiple official polls then taking an average of that. Who is crazy enough to vote like 20,000 times uniquely on all 30 official polls, going through all that complication? There are probably going to be people like that that would try for that, "hacking" the polls to skew the truth. In this case, we would also require a driver's license/permit and/or a credit card to vote, to further filter out those kinds of people. That would filter out people that are lesser aged, however. Younger people can not pay anyway, due to not having a credit card. On top of that, nowadays getting a credit card involves added trust from the financial card company, and often hackers can't get a credit card.

    Of course, Unity3D may be taken advantage of by the Linux community due to dishonesty. People may try to reverse engineer it and do modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering to create a free version. This is also another reason that UT probably considers as a reason for not putting it on Linux. This is commonly rampant in the torrent, hacking(with black hats, red hats, white hats), IT's, computer experts, free software community, and much of them use linux. I know a lot of people in lower economic zones like Russia commonly accept hacked software as accepted mainstream amongst themselves. Like how Russia sent spies to America(for ex: Anna Chapman) and their Soviet republic. They think they can be sly and with clever intelligence, they can do stuff cheaper and etc., and they're superior in that aspect.

    Much work must be done to make sure that it is not able to be viewed and hacked, the inner workings, so that somebody might wish to create a free version, distracting away from the true creators and discrediting them. I believe the absolute top Linux developers and/or cryptographers should work closely with the Unity3D people so that Linux users can not view the Unity3D's codes and programming. It should be stressed so that the encryption makes no difference or significant difference to the computer's speed/performance level. This is going to take advanced encryption/physics/engineering/computer science.

    Multiple encryptions methods can be implemented to confuse people because they have to try out so many encryptions over and over again to break the code like brute forcing/exhaustive testing trial and error. If they try using one encryption method, it won't work because another special encryption method is required instead. Some encryption methods for Linux: 1) "Arguably the best-known application of quantum cryptography is quantum key distribution (QKD)", 2) "gpg (GnuPG)",
    crypt The original UNIX encryption application. 3) des An implementation of the Data Encryption Standard. 4) pgp Phil Zimmermann's Pretty Good Privacy.

    File encryption, though I don't know much, can basically lock you from using Unity3D after a certain period of time, "smartly" to discourage people from trying to look at the code and you must "reload" the Unity3D into functional usability, which won't take long.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2010
  46. laptopuser1

    laptopuser1

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Posts:
    13
    I have a guess that data can be stored on multiple locations, the data of the Unity3D program, so that somebody would have to look around a lot more to get the hidden encrypted data(analogous to Harry Potter and the Horcruxes). It can be stored on RAM(often making it harder to get that data extracted, possibly with the random data packets being sent to RAM, but being restorable to the hard drive as soon as the computer turns off, since RAM is temporary data storage that gets erased as soon as there is no power source), and multiple areas of the hard disk, many of which are hard to access, and if possible on system boot up, you can control whether you want unity3D working or not to speed up load up speed, and the locations are changed "randomly" so a user can't find the code and even if they do, they have to encrypt it, and the longer they run the computer, the slower the computer gets(due to computer hard disk physics of overheating and static electricity). Also another safeguard against hackers could be that, the mere attempt at opening, copying, manipulating, or altering the encrypted files would autoshutdown the computer or even make all the files of the program autodelete, making you have wasted your money for paying for it, and a clear overt warning was given. If you don't know what you are doing and you try extracting data off of your RAM, you could break your RAM, costing you lots of money.

    Plus, some code can be required to be manually downloaded quickly each time at no extra charge, when you get on the internet, thereby requiring a mandatory internet connection to use UT so nobody gets the full code, stored on their computer, while offline(this is completely optional, but would take up bandwidth resource). Some of the code in the program would be responsible for allowing Unity3D to expire in linux and schedule for Unity3D to be silently deleted at a random time during the day of expiration or time of OS startup or shutdown.
     
  47. laptopuser1

    laptopuser1

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Posts:
    13
    Unity3D can get developed an external cheap encryption bluetooth device/or even complex SD card encryption methodology, that deters hackers more. I don't know.

    I am sure there are much more creative ways to deter hackers. If they spend too much time trying to hack, I guess they lose out on time playing the game.

    It should never be hackable. The level of hacking required would be something that a single man*(especially evil power hungry ones) can never handle and he would realize his futility in attempting it and even if he did, what is he going to do with it, realizing the vastness of trying to understand the code, which would have probably taken over 100,000 hours to develop since that's how much ShiVa took to develop. Even if somebody of that crazy advanced level did do it, it's not likely they're that level morally to wish to actually try to make it free. Richard Stallman, American hacker and GNU/open source founder, only singlehandedly created the emacs, possibly one of the greatest pinnacles of his software career. He is not necessarily getting better enough to create by himself all over again the Unity3D and turn it free. He's old and how is he going to get higher level and more respected people to cooperate with him just to hack this? MIT hacker culture has declined. UT doesn't wish to get error in getting Unity3D leaked as free.
    UT does not need unnecessary lawsuits also taking up resource.

    Each major Unity3D version can alter the structure of the files of the Unity3D software so that it is possibly different from the last one, so that hackers have to start all over again in identifying and analyzing it in order to try slyly hacking it.

    This can take a lot of heavy work on the part of Linux community and developers. The most trusted linux developers, like ext4 and major mainstream filesystem developers, physicists/computer/electrical engineers, upper level University STEM majors/graduates, and IT and computer industry like Toshiba, ATI, AMD, Intel, HP, Dell, and etc. can meet with UT and they can find trust in each other. For ex, they review the code so that the find that UT aren't bad guys trying to snoop on people, steal personal information stealthily, or something with unethical code. This would just be making it more perfected, but everything I have mentioned is not all necessary to implement, they are just suggestions on many of what is possible.

    Links for further study on cryptography:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography
    http://www.cs.arizona.edu/computing/utilities/linux-encryption.html
    http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking/puis/ch06_06.htm
     
  48. glass22

    glass22

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Posts:
    119

    Actually the huge Humble Indie Bundle event where people could pay whatever they choose for the games, proved that Linux users pay MORE than both Mac or Windows users.

    http://www.wolfire.com/humble


    Total contributed $1,273,613

    Windows Avg: $8.05
    Apple Avg: $10.17
    Linux Avg: $14.4

    Linux is a very fast growing operating system especially with more mobile markets.
     
  49. raybarrera

    raybarrera

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Posts:
    207
    I have to say: Ubuntu has made a believer out of me. I only wish I could game on it. It's a catch-22, developers won't develop for it because the market is small, and the market is small because there are no games for it.
     
  50. Sofox

    Sofox

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Posts:
    14
    raybarrera, if you want to game on Linux, check out Linux Gaming News: http://linuxgamingnews.org . They keep track of a lot of great games for the Linux platform.
    Currently they've a list of 55 upcoming commercial Linux games. Found out about one or two good games from them.