aydos <wineforum-user@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >If you are right then what a shame. I jumped and rejoiced when I read this on phoronix.com yesterday. I love Linux and >want to run it so badly, but I am a huge gamer. I would say that 95% of the time I am using my pc it is to game. I might >browse the web at the same time and what not, but I am gaming. It really makes dual boot not an option for me since I >might once a month on a blue moon boot into linux, because I am not playing a game that day. First and formost: Linux (and UNIX before it) was NEVER designed as a 'gaming platform'. It was designed for use in the server environment, where it excels, much more than its Windows Server counterparts. Second: If we want to see Linux as a 'gaming platform' a major paradigm shift is going to have to happen within the Linux community and I don't really see this happening. The biggest hurdle is the 'opening of the wallet' habit that Linux users will have to adopt. Companies like Electronic Arts do not exist to produce free software, they have people called stockholders that they have to answer to. Third: Games like QuakeII were ported to Linux, MacOSX and other operating systems long after their commercial viability was gone. However, this does not preclude the Linux Community from creating a game based on the still viable engines that power games like HalfLife2, Doom3 and the like. Once it is shown there is a lively gaming community, then maybe the commercial folks will build a 'pay as you go' game or maybe a full blown commercial version. Of course, their investment has to be protected as it takes time and money to do so and they want a return (many times over if possible) for their investment. > >Maybe the day will come that I can have the reliability, speed, and safety of Linux combined with my love for gaming. > When that day comes, Linux will not be as safe as it is today. MacOSX is now coming under attack due to its growing popularity and use in offices and government. Please keep in mind that there has been the old Chicken and Egg thing going on: Customer: Why don't you make <insert non Windows OS here> programs? Developer: We would if more copies of <insert non Windows OS here> were in use. Customer: We would use <insert non Windows OS here> if you made programs for it. Developer: We would not return our investment of time, money, people becasuse there is not enough demand for programs written for <insert non Windows OS here>. This goes round-and-round. At the present time Wine is seen as a 'bridge' to get people to run the Windows version of programs on Linux. That shortcuts the argument but then we get to: Developer: Our program runs on Wine, adequate for normal use, thus we don't have to build a <insert non Windows OS here> version and have to deal with two or three code bases. Thus we have a third problem. If Wine gets that good, there will be LESS Linux/UNIX programming and not more. This will also increase the stranglehold that Microsoft has on the computing world. There is a report that one company actually abandoned their efforts to bring a Linux version of their program to the world because their Windows version worked under Wine better than their Windows version. Ending this saga is that Wine will improve in quality as long as the API does not do a major move with any further release of Windows. Thus the incentive to build Linux versions may actually decrease. This is my opinion and I have lived through this with several different Operating Systems. And this is the rant of some small person, living somewhere in the deserts of the United States but is based on thirty years plus of working with computers, programs and watching the rise and fall of various computing platforms. I do hope that Wine, with age, continues to improve. This keeps the thorn in the side of the folks in Redmond and keeps Windows and Linux from becoming stagant. James McKenzie
