Linux Port for BI Titles

[Snafu]

@snafu:
It's too bad you cannot appreciate that kind of freedom I spoke of.
But that's your personal preferences. No problem.

You don't understand.

To the average user this "freedom" you talk about means absolutely nothing. People just want something that's simple and works. They don't want to know the code of the OS. They don't want to modify it. They don't want to have to stop using software they like because Linux can't run it. Remember the golden rule: KISS (keep it simple stupid).

I have nothing against Linux/Ubuntu or whatever. I would gladly welcome another OS to the market. BUT considering the fact that you have to jump through hoops to get a lot of stuff to work and that some things may not work at all is a major put off. No amount "freedom" garbage talk will change that.

For BIS to deliver their own OS would just put a lot of people off from buying it. It would be a disaster.

And as I already said: The real committed BIS-gamer doesn't have the time to do other games. But if not: He can do like he always did: Buy and boot Microsoft ...

I think the herb has influenced you a little too much.

I have been playing BIS games since 2001. I still play OFP and ArmA, still make missions for them. I play BIS games more than others.

I also play other games so to say that a BIS committed gamer doesn't have time to play other games is completely ridiculous.

People tend not to play games because of the developer who made them, yes it will play a role but a very small one.

For example, I like military games that have a sense of realism. That is why I play Close Combat, OFP, ArmA, ArmA 2, Wars in America, Panzer General, Allied General, The Operational Art of War, Combat Mission Shock Force etc.

All good challenging games with a degree of realism and accuracy (not all are FPS). As much as I like ArmA 2 I would not play BIS games only. I am interested in military stuff which is why I play OFP, ArmA and ArmA 2. Carrier Command is being developed, at least partly, by BIS, however, I will not play it as I am not interested in science fiction.

I guarantee that even the most ardent BIS fanboy would not just play BIS games. I bet there are only a handful, if any, that do.

If BIS followed your advice and released an OS for ArmA it would mean that people could not play the other games that they like. Computers require a lot of maintenance and fiddling about with as it is. People don't want to bother with a dual boot for one game.

It would be a waste of BIS stretched resources.

[echo1]

I think you're fighting a lost cause. Even I've given up at this stage!

[Herbal Influence]

@Snafu:

"No amount "freedom" garbage talk will change that."

That's something you saying in a world that is ruled to 97 % by one software developer - commercial and proprietary.

You seem to be sure that you would not be urging for freedom when down in the streets there are 97 % of Ford-cars driving around though there used to be a lot more kind of different cars ...

@ch_123:
No revolution will ever take place with the attitude that Big Brother Microsoft is doing everything quite right for you, cosy and warm.

According to what you call sober realism and on the other hand use of too much herbs - OFP would never have happened.

You would have bashed that idea of OFP from BIS in 1999 down the thread faster than they could have posted ..... with the same arguments: Too complicated, too buggy by principle (for it's openess), other games much more serious and nicer etc. etc.

And now that BIS did undertake that step of a revolutionary game, you sit back in your velvets seats again and bash the next revolutionary step that is kinda logic ...

Come on guys - stop bashing ideas. Have them!

[echo1]

EDIT: Nevermind

[Snafu]

@Snafu:

"No amount "freedom" garbage talk will change that."

That's something you saying in a world that is ruled to 97 % by one software developer - commercial and proprietary.

You seem to be sure that you would not be urging for freedom when down in the streets there are 97 % of Ford-cars driving around though there used to be a lot more kind of different cars ...

I know English isn't your first language but did you even read my posts?

I said I would welcome another OS to the market but you can't ignore the problems with Linux and your suggestion for BIS by dressing it in nonsense ideological language. You can go back to my post and see them, no point in me spelling it all out again.

Bad example with Ford. I see lots of types of cars on the road.

[Herbal Influence]

Yeah - you still see the cars because the EU Commission dropped a fine on Microsoft a few times ... other browsers, other mediaplayers would have died otherwise.

Microsoft attacked the freedom of the market, the freedom of the customers - and had to be stopped and fined by the EU Government.

If you see other cars than Fords on the street, than you are not a software developer with a good idea:

He sees only one sort of cars - Fords.

If he would start to develop for other cars, he would be ruined fastly - for "defacto", there are no other cars than just Fords around.

That's what you call freedom? Freedom of choice for software developers?

What are the problems with Linux other than OpenGL ?
(That part I cannot evaluate - it might be a big hindrance. Though I posted OpenGL is making big steps .. .. recently.)

[th3flyboy]

Yeah - you still see the cars because the EU Commission dropped a fine on Microsoft a few times ... other browsers, other mediaplayers would have died otherwise.

Microsoft attacked the freedom of the market, the freedom of the customers - and had to be stopped and fined by the EU Government.

If you see other cars than Fords on the street, than you are not a software developer with a good idea:

He sees only one sort of cars - Fords.

If he would start to develop for other cars, he would be ruined fastly - for "defacto", there are no other cars than just Fords around.

That's what you call freedom? Freedom of choice for software developers?

What are the problems with Linux other than OpenGL ?
(That part I cannot evaluate - it might be a big hindrance. Though I posted OpenGL is making big steps .. .. recently.)

Speaking as someone with experience developing for both DX and OGL, I can say that the effort put in to learning OGL is well worth it.

[echo1]

If you see other cars than Fords on the street, than you are not a software developer with a good idea:

He sees only one sort of cars - Fords.

If he would start to develop for other cars, he would be ruined fastly - for "defacto", there are no other cars than just Fords around.

That's what you call freedom? Freedom of choice for software developers?

Software developers develop software, surprisingly enough. They want to concentrate on the thing that they are developing, and not saving the world from itself. They are not Operating System developers. They pick the platform that serves their product best, and this includes a) the one is going to be the easiest to write for and support and b) the one that will get them the greatest number of customers.

For a game, Windows is the best choice by far. OpenGL is just not at the same standard as DirectX. People have lots of experience developing for DirectX, the latter alone is probably a more important consideration - huge chunks of the world's software is written in C++ or Java. There are far better languages than these, but everyone knows how to use them, and everything else is written in them. Ironically, the expansion of Linux in the corporate market has been greatly sped up by this very thing you despise - there have been superior operating systems that have been abandoned because their market share was too small to justify companies making software for them, and they just wrote them for Linux instead.

If you want to increase the market adoption of Linux, what you are proposing is like building a house by starting with the roof. You need to get people to adopt Linux on it's own merits and then people will make software for it. I think a lot of effort has to be expended into making it more suitable for the general market.

I'm not going to say any more... countering circular arguments tends to lead to more circular arguments...

[nomdeplume]

DirectX and OpenGL aren't directly comparable, as DirectX includes audio and input handling as well as graphics.

"You need to get people to adopt Linux on it's own merits and then people will make software for it." reveals the circular nature of the beast: until your average user can run their games and whatnot on Linux, almost nobody's going to release games that can run on Linux.

Look at how few games run on Mac, which has a much higher market share than Linux, is designed for and suits commercial proprietary software, and is used by people other than geeks. So if nobody cares about the Mac, why is anybody going to care about Linux?

The "freedom" issue matters to you even if it doesn't matter to you. Think of it like the freedom of the press: if you're not a reporter, you couldn't care less if they have restrictions on what they can report on or not. But if being held accountable by reporters prevents the government from becoming an oppressive totalitarian regime that will make your life miserable, then it actually does matter rather a lot.

[Placebo]

This thread seems to have moved well past the original question, the answer to which being, there are no current plans for Linux ports.