Wine works to ease the pain that Elite Dangerous is still not available on Linux. Vodka works quicker.
Wine works to ease the pain that Elite Dangerous is still not available on Linux. Vodka works quicker.
Yes, Wine is still a thing. They are just about to release Wine-1.8 and a lot of games like Star Craft II (which I play too) work very well with it.
Nevertheless, the number of native Linux games (without the need for Wine) grows constantly. E.g.:
- a lot of Valve stuff like Half-Life 2, CounterStrike, Dota 2
- Kerbal Space Program
- a lot of stuff from the Humble Bundle packs
...
Nevertheless, the number of native Linux games (without the need for Wine) grows constantly. E.g.:
- a lot of Valve stuff like Half-Life 2, CounterStrike, Dota 2
- Kerbal Space Program
- a lot of stuff from the Humble Bundle packs
...
I'd never say never but given the well documented difficulties FD are having getting it to work on the Mac which at least has a version of the base game, I doubt a Linux version is going to happen.
Perhaps, but probably just because of the relative scarcity of the Linux gaming user base. As I understand it, the Linux platform doesn't have the same inherent proprietary limitations as the Mac OS regarding OpenGL and the like. Vulkan will also likely be coming to Linux, especially through SteamOS. I'd like to see FD move in that direction. But like I was saying, I think the Mac OS limitations are kind of a moot issue here.
Last edited:
I too was partially hanging out for a Linux version, but eventually just got the game and resurrected my Windows partition.
Sad fact is that if you have 92% of customers on one platform, 7% on a second platform, and the remaining 1% on the third, you don't bother with the third. (Stats are made up, btw...)
Personally I see a lot of value in developing software (especially games, since they don't have to hook into an OS much) as multi-platform from the start as it makes for much better code; for example bugs pop up on one platform but are masked on the other etc, so fixing them anyway means the overall codebase becomes much more robust.
Sad fact is that if you have 92% of customers on one platform, 7% on a second platform, and the remaining 1% on the third, you don't bother with the third. (Stats are made up, btw...)
Personally I see a lot of value in developing software (especially games, since they don't have to hook into an OS much) as multi-platform from the start as it makes for much better code; for example bugs pop up on one platform but are masked on the other etc, so fixing them anyway means the overall codebase becomes much more robust.
OSX has even worse graphics drivers than Linux in many respects, so I would argue that a Linux version would be no more difficult than a Mac one, and probably easier. Linux also has compute shaders which are not supported by the OSX graphics drivers (even though the hardware does).
Exactly, the difficulties are not on Frontiers side but actually Apple. As mentioned earlier in the thread the limitations are based on Mac OS only supporting opengl 4.1. Ironically it would be easier for them to port Horizons over to Linux. I too would like to see Frontier moving away from DX altogether and moving to opengl/Vulkan, that way they/we would have the best of all worlds.
Soon as WINE 1.8 (or whatever it is called) hits, I will give it another go in getting it running so that we can finally ditch our dual boots once and for all.
The problem with Linux is actually the opposite - too much dispersed user base. There are some 100 different Linux distributions out there, each coming in different versions.Even if you stick to the most popular ones only, you still have to deal with at least 10 completely different software configurations. Even Steam had to make its own SteamOS Linux to have a known and coherent platform to work on.
Last edited:
This isn't as big an issue as you make out
. Honestly, most games aim for SteamOS/Ubuntu and the rest will work around it, heck I am even using Slackware and have never had an issue with many games, and those that have proven to be an issue were some sort of Wine wrapped port. If there is an issue with a distro, someone will figure out a way to make it work, or the user can switch to a known working and supported platform.
Simple.
Last edited:
SteamOS is basically a slightly tweaked Debian 8.x. But I know Steam is packaged (read installed with a single command) in many distributions, Arch, Ubuntu and Debian to name a few.
So it's not like it requires anything special. Basically just enabling 32bit libraries (on a 64bit system) and installing it. And since E
is now on Steam, all they'd need to do is distribute it through that, instead of their own custom launcher. I really want to spend more time playing it, but I'm almost always in Linux, very seldom do I reboot into Windows to play games. I even bought Fallout 4, but haven't played it in a few days due to not wanting to go into that hideous mess that is Windows 10, (It randomly decided to not work with all three of my monitors anymore, so it turns on my middle one with no display and turns off the left and right, if I unplug the middle one the left and right start work again... how's that for odd?)slaapliedje
And under the hood they're all the same, with small differences. The largest difference is that they're either .rpm based, or .deb based, which doesn't matter in the least if do to 'make', etc.
Steam OS is a tuned Debian install.
I run Debian, and can make my machine the exact same as SteamOS if I wanted to.
With all the work done already for Mac, FD could very easily make a 'nix version if they wished, but they don't wish to.
before you put the Mac release forward as a reason that a *nix release will be easy its worth considering all the evidence, less than a year in Mac is already effectively a dead platform as its not getting season 2. why add another OS that has limited appeal if FD can't keep up with the ones they are already committed too?
In the case of Horizons, it seems like many of the Mac users wouldn't mind running a Linux port as much as the Windows version.
All this trouble over the big guys trying to lock down their users and we're left with (some) developers afraid to develop for Linux and (some) users afraid to use it, so the vicious cycle continues. It's so sad and pathetic, really, but we can't let it get us down.
All this trouble over the big guys trying to lock down their users and we're left with (some) developers afraid to develop for Linux and (some) users afraid to use it, so the vicious cycle continues. It's so sad and pathetic, really, but we can't let it get us down.
Last edited:
Er no, they aren't at all. Debian and Ubuntu are mostly the same, but CentOS/RedHat are completely different, with different configuration and every software component several major versions behind. And each of those exists in several different releases again with different library versions. And on top of that, each of these could have been modified by the user adding/substituting custom components. Believe me, it's a real nightmare to work on.
Last edited:
Completely different? Please.
Why are you bring CentOS into this? it's like saying windows server 2003 doesn't work for gaming, so windows is not useful.
It's a free, rebranded RedHat Enterprise distro, not a desktop OS.
Fedora is a desktop distro, with the source.gzip, 'make' and 'install' we can all install the software onto our boxes, irrespective of .rpm, or .deb, as I've already said.
Why are you bring CentOS into this? it's like saying windows server 2003 doesn't work for gaming, so windows is not useful.
It's a free, rebranded RedHat Enterprise distro, not a desktop OS.
Fedora is a desktop distro, with the source.gzip, 'make' and 'install' we can all install the software onto our boxes, irrespective of .rpm, or .deb, as I've already said.
Last edited:
If you look past the package managers, there is less difference than you might think. The kernels and libraries and xdg are largely from a common base. The biggest problem I run into is with graphics drivers for proprietary cards. And that's not a simple problem. It's one reason why one of the major software packages we have to run no longer runs on Linux (windows and solaris only now). Which is a pity.
I don't know why you assert that CentOS isn't a desktop OS though - it works perfectly well as one. Indeed my desktop is. But that's a topic for a different board.
No, a lot of people runs CentOS rather than Fedora, because unlike Fedora CentoOS is stable. Or just because they like it, why not. And did you ever try to compile on CentOS, not to say my Slackware, a software that was designed by someone who only knows Debian? You would not want to be near me unless you have a high tolerance to theological swearing. And I have been in this business for some thirty years and know how to fix dependencies and patch code if necessary - most users would just give up.
Of course CentOS works fine as a desktop suite, but it's built on Redhat enterprise, which is built for stability, which means kernel builds are behind other releases that are desktop oriented.
I ran Windows server 2000 as my desktop for a few years, until XP64 came out, because I disliked '98. It worked fine as a desktop, but there were caveats in using it, especially when I wanted to game. Drivers were an issue, as I recall.
I ran Windows server 2000 as my desktop for a few years, until XP64 came out, because I disliked '98. It worked fine as a desktop, but there were caveats in using it, especially when I wanted to game. Drivers were an issue, as I recall.