Linux? Bah, humbug!
Linux this, Linux that… who needs it?
I’ll simply use andLinux to run Linux applications in Windows XP. Ha!
Right now the only Linux application that is considered better than Windows equivalents is Amarok. I didn’t think much of it when I saw it on Ubuntu but I’d still like to try it out now that I’ve decided not to install Winamp. Why do they refuse to port it to Windows? (Now, don’t link me to some unofficial port. I don’t want it.)
The idea of a free and open OS is nice and fine, but game developers don’t release games for it and Linux supporters claim it’s because of people like me who continue to play Windows games and not ask developers to release Linux versions. The only way game developers would make games Linux compatible is if thousands of people asked them to. And that will happens only if millions of people start using Linux. This means that Linux must be able to run all games to attract gamers to move. It’s a vicious cycle. Gamers are not going to switch to Linux, ever. So stop blaming us poor gamers. The only way to break this cycle is if so many people start using Linux that game developers are forced to release Linux compatible games simply because of the large marketshare.
Also, Linux is pronounced ‘Lih-nucks’ and not ‘Line-ix’ or ‘Line-ux’.
Ubuntu is pronounced ‘Ooo. Boon. Too.’
Deal with it. Pronounce it correctly or don’t say it at all.
Picture from Hello Cthulu
November 12th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
CoLinux has been around for ages. It’s nice.
I suppose Linux isn’t for everyone. I’m happy though, Ubuntu is a good distribution.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I like “Line-ux” better than “lih-nucks”. and Marc don’t you use Linux ? I thought you hate MS
November 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Ubuntu is good for standard users, yes. It is marketed well and the free distribution system is awesome. However it’s just not for gamers.
Karthik, regardless of what you like the correct pronunciation is ‘Lih-nucks’. Only misinformed people say ‘Line-ux’. Prepare to be corrected pretty much everywhere if you persist in using the wrong pronunciation. I do have Ubuntu installed but I also play a lot of games so I ended up not using it.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Amarok is a great application. I don’t use it myself though. I tried for about 5 months but it was just too complex and multifaceted for me. I went back to StreamTuner. All I do is listen to Internet radio once and a while and that’s just about all StreamTuner does. As far as porting Linux applications over to the Monopolysoft platform, that would make sense when some magical percentage of users have switched to Linux and made it the OS of choice. But by then Windows XP or whatever MS is attempting to foist on the unwary, will be yesterday’s technology. Come to think of it, it kind of is right now.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Hi Richard. How did you find my blog?
That’s what I thought too, about Amarok. It seemed too complicated. There were buttons everywhere.
Why isn’t there some kind of runtime environment for Windows that lets Linux applications run similar to what has been done for Java? I’m just guessing it could be done.
I agree that XP is yesterday’s technology but look at what upgrade options I have. Vista, which will effectively slow down my computer - the last thing I want. Linux, which means I won’t be able to play games without fiddling around with emulators. Mac OS X which supports even lesser games than Linux. I’m screwed.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Well, KDE will be cross-platform. That’ll be some applications you can have on Windows then. Also, I’m told you can start an X server under Cygwin, that should mean you can run a couple of programs in that.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:41 am
It popped up on my Google Blog search for “Linux’. I don’t know what determines whose page gets listed. It really seems random because I get a steady stream of Blogs that I only see once.
As for your dilemma, KDE is supposed to be coming out with an “environment” for XP. That may or may not allow you to run Amarok. You are kind of between a rock and a hard place though. The games are the problem. Many games can run on Linux either with Wine, Cedega, or Crossover. Some have been ported and run natively. I have no idea which ones because I don’t do games except for a few that come with Linux. I think your best options are either a virtual set up like with Xen or VMware, or a dual boot system. If you go with dual boot, Linux needs to be installed second so it can commandeer the MBR. If XP gets a hold of it, it won’t let anything else use it. If you haven’t already, you should research what games run on Linux without the need for an emulator. I just saw a list the other day (I can’t remember where) and it looked rather impressive, at least to this non gamer.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I’m already running Ubuntu on dual boot. I like the OS a lot and the fact that any error can be fixed is appealing. (Under Windows you often have no idea what went wrong or how to fix it and end up reinstalling the OS most of the time.)
If KDE does come out with such an environment, it would just complicate things. Perhaps a KDE shell that replaces the Explorer shell would be better. I’d try that out.
This games business is complicated. There are a lot of things involved like patches, cracks, fixes and emulation that would take so much time to figure out. It’s simple to just run everything where they are natively supported. The list of games with Linux support is negligible. And Wine and similar emulators don’t always support games perfectly. There are bugs and perhaps only a particular patch version is supported. I did look at supported games lists and it wasn’t all that impressive. I would like to spend the most time playing the game rather than getting it to work.
I’ve also noticed that Google blog search sometimes features my blog on the first page of search results in the first few hours after I post something. Probably to highlight new content.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:26 am
One of the ways people get “burned” by Linux, is when they try to make it do things it’s not natively designed to do. Most notably run software designed for another platform. It turns into a nightmare (http://www.appscout.com/2007/10/from_windows_to_ubuntu_and_bac_1.php).
Installing Linux and using just the software provided by the Package Manager will result in a pretty much trouble free operation. If you read some of (nearly all) the comments in the link I provided it lays it out pretty clearly: Don’t blame Linux if you’re trying to bend it and twist it into something it’s not. It’s a common tendency to try to make a new environment as comfortable as the old, but it can cause problems, and if taken to an extreme, it will.
It doesn’t sound like you will wreck your Linux installation but the problems listed in the link should serve as a warning.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I agree that Linux meets a set of requirements and it cannot do more than it was designed to do. Which is why people should stop prescribing it as the ultimate solution.
It’s great that people are moving away from Microsoft and their market monopoly but Linux shouldn’t be touted as something it’s not. Ubuntu’s slogan should read ‘Linux For Human Beings (Except Serious Gamers)’.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Agreed Linux is not for gamers, its for developers and it shall remain so for a long time. The fact is that game programming is very hard and anyone having the balls to do that would, and should, be doing something worthwhile than making games. Of course game cos won’t move to Linux platform until there are enough incentives to do so, and most linux users use it either due to it being an excellent development platform or because of its adherence to Open Source philosopy, either of which does not provide a large gamer base. But things take time to develop. How many games were there for Win95, native not DOS?
And for the pronunciation of Linux, thats the way Linus says it, and since he’s _the_ authority it is assumed to be the right one. There are others that have been accepted too.
And lastly, Linux is not an OS its the kernel. Ubuntu is an OS, Linux is not. Just a clarification.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
There were a lot of Windows 95/98 games that weren’t DOS. Diablo 1, for instance. Quake 2, Motoracer, Need for Speed 2… the problem in those times was the unavailability of these games. But those versions of the OS were itself running on DOS. So does the word native apply to it?
Linux based operating systems are well designed and are fine for power users. I for one loved the idea of having all configuration files as human readable plain text and not some proprietary format. It’s going to be a long time until game developers start releasing Linux compatible games.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Ankit, game programming may be hard, but I don’t get why they should do something ‘more worthwhile’. All is worthwhile in this world. Everything is of use.
And damn! Need for speed 2 is that old? I thought it was cutting edge.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
You only have that impression because the PC you run it on is ancient.
Why doesn’t Linux have something like DirectX? Or does it?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:24 am
I don’t know, I don’t have it. I just thought it was.
SDL + OpenGL is cross platform. I think Quake IV uses that.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:17 am
@Marc: Native in this context means games using the system calls provided by the OS which most of the games of that era did not, until the advent of DirectX. Which btw is a huge monstrosity in itself because it breaks more standards than all the other MS stuff combined. OpenGL is a standard, how you implement it is up to the vendor and MS in its subversive ways chose to move away from it and provided DirectX. And there comes the vendor lockin trap. Once a game is fully developed on DX, moving to some other platform(like Linux) is really difficult because of differing standards and implementations. Linux does not have(or need) DirectX because it is too tied up to Windows. All that is needed is an OpenGL implementation. There are generic ones like SDL, Xgl, AIGLX, SVGA, XAA et al. Then there are card specific implementations like NvGL for nvidia cards, fglrx for ATI and so on.
@George: I meant if anyone has the skills why not get things running on Linux instead of cribbing that this device and that software does not work. There is a lot to be done and a lot to be invented. Look at things like Zero-Copy DMA or Tickless Kernel , two things that are very much relevant to gaming. Porting games to Linux/Wine is good but “worthwhile” is to develop a platform that can perform.
Oh and Win95/98 did not run on DOS, they used the DOS shell interpretor(command.com). Its a really in depth topic, do read about it.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Considering that the latest NFS (ProStreet) is the 11th, why would you think that?
November 15th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I don’t know, I don’t keep up with my gaming news. Nethack and my VT100 are enough for me.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
You deserve to live in the ’80s, George. Go back there and make some smart investments for me so that I can afford proper hardware to play real games.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Ankit was recently released from the Akismet Detention Centre. Sorry, checked only now.
Thanks for the explanation about DirectX and OpenGL. I never read about these things, preferring to be satisfied as long as the game worked on my system. I only remember installing version after version of DirectX on my old computer and worrying that I couldn’t use the OpenGL setting in games.
Ankit, how was I able to restart Windows 98 alone (by holding down the Shift key and clicking restart) and not reboot the system completely?A CLI displayed ‘Shutting down Windows…’ or something and then Windows was launched again. No POST.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
@Ankit: My mistake, I misinterpreted what you said. However, as far as I know, SDL isn’t an OpenGL implementation itself.
I have no clue about Windows 98 either, I switched before I got into it much but I remember you could go to a DOS prompt and run the win.exe or win.com or something in the %WINDOWS% directory and get the GUI. Maybe it’s some funky stuff, I don’t know.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
No, George. That’s Windows 3.x. Windows 95 and 98 automatically boot into Windows, unless you explicitly instructed them not to.