HOLD that THOUGHT
IdeaStorm is in Read Only Mode until 10/27

Click here for details.
The Dell Community has contributed: 10385 ideas | promoted 697808 times | 80735 comments

How IdeaStorm Works:

Post Promote Discuss See
Gaming Comments | Gaming Ideas | Linux Comments | Linux Ideas
230

Encourage Games Developers To Develop For Linux

230 points posted to Gaming, Linux by aikiwolfie 09/29/07

Linux as an OS makes far better use of hardware resources than Windows does. It's also a far more stable OS. Which means it's an excellent platform for games deployment.

Dell should help the open source community make Linux more attractive to games developers. The XPS 700 works really well with Ubuntu so there's no hardware limitation to making the latest and greatest games available on Linux.

NOTE: I don't have a PhysX card so I don't know how that would work.

howlingmadhowie
09/29/07		 linux runs appreciably faster than windows. that should be perfect for games companies. there is a reason why linux is installed on 75% of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers and windows is not installed on a single one of them.

one could also mention companies like lgp which make a lot of money off porting games to linux. the demand is obviously there. if microsoft didn't so aggressively push directX and try to hinder and break openGL, many more games would be cross-platform. but that's exactly why microsoft pushes directX and sabotages openGL--it's about removing consumer choice and making us their slaves.
cosh
09/30/07		 I don't see how Dell could help achieve this. (What's in it for them?) I'm not going to promote just because it's a Linux-ish idea. So demoted. Sowwe.
aikiwolfie
09/30/07		 Linux isn't specifically meant for anything. It's an open source modular computer operating system that is incredibly versatile and configurable. Linux is as happy as a sever OS as it is as a desktop OS or even a media centre. I don't see why it can't become a games console as well.

The PC based games that have been converted to Linux so far run just fine. Some developers like ID Software make the source code for their games open source while others do the conversion themselves. There is however no need for every single product in the Linux domain to be open source. There are commercial Linux applications that are closed source. Games developers can still protect their IP within a Linux environment just as easily as they do in a Windows or games console environment.

With professional full time developers on the case producing the same games for Linux as they do for Windows or any other platform, they would be as good and possibly better on Linux as they are in Windows.

I don't have a PhysX card but very few games at the moment actually need one. Developers aren't currently using the PhysX technology the way the developers envisioned. However if games developers are willing to develop for Linux then I don't see why the PhysX developers wouldn't be willing to produce a Linux driver. The more people using their PhysX product the more money they make. More compatibility with other OSs means a bigger market for them to play in.

Dell could help by sponsoring games developers. Basically contributing to the cost of developing a game that works across multiple platforms. It makes sense for Dell because PCs without content are useless. If Dell have a truly viable OS that can do everything Windows does then Microsoft can't bully Dell around. It makes sense for games developers because they need new customers. All the talk at the games shows and exhibitions has been about reaching out to new customers. Linux is an OS that is on the brink of being able to meet the demands of the mass-market. The games industry would do well to get in on the ground floor.
benjesuit
09/30/07		 Dell as a gaming house? Nah.

Simply go to the source. Game developers or distributors. See if you can convince them that even though they don't put all that much effort into designing games for MAC, they should design games for Linux which has somewhat less of a market share. LOL.

Games developed for Windows PCs account for $1 billion of the total $6billion dollar gaming industry which is dominated by consoles.

In the gaming community, Linux is fringe. Not sure how that perception will change. But it's exists for a reason.
howlingmadhowie
09/30/07		 benjesuit: as we have seen, if the game is developed for OpenGL and not for DirectX, the effort of porting it to any other operating system is minimal. that is why microsoft is bribing people to use DirectX, threatening to cut them off, if they use OpenGL and trying their best to subtly break OpenGL in their own products.
wing044
10/01/07		 You should send this to Nvidia or AMD(ATI) or Aegia rather than Dell.
benjesuit
10/01/07		 @ Howlingmadhowie:

Conspiracy theory aside, why do game developers like DirectX?

"With Direct3D, the developer must manage hardware resources independently - however, the implementation is simpler, and developers have the flexibility to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible for their application."

Also, because of its standardization: "Direct3D is specified by one vendor (Microsoft) only, leading to a more consistent API."

Standards reduce costs in the long run.

And you have to consider, ~99% of gaming PC's run windows. What's the point in programming in OpenGL if the installed base of gaming PC's run windows? None. It makes zero economic sense in the long run. Everyone is in busines to make a profit. Not a political statement.

In any event, Playstation and Nintendo run OpenGL. You don't see anyone complaining against that. That's the standard for those systems. You want to play Mario brothers? You don't complain and whine to Sony or MSFT to support it. You go out and buy a Nintendo system. Well, you want to play the best PC games? You buy a computer with Windows on it. You can always dual boot win/Linux. In fact, if you want the peak performance in Windows games, you'd want to strip the OS down to only the essential services that gaming requires. A neat little program called Nlite for XP or Vlite for Vista helps you do just that.
jorge
10/01/07		 No OpenSource does not mean install on any system, its a whole different thing, go to gnu.org (I'd put the whole link but it will chop off my text) and read the sheet there or just use Google to figure it out.

There is still one issue with certain type of games on Unix, on Windows the games take full control or almost full control of the OS/Hardware and on Unix the game are only timesharing the system resources so on a lets say FPS game your mouse click will not take precedence over a system process and there could be delays in the game, but there are Unix OS's attempting to do this as well in development as its important for other systems other than games like here

http://www.ddj.com/linux-open-source/200900770
kalstolyn
10/01/07		 hey jorge: just put either p or br in a set of html tags before and after your link and it will separate it from your text.

IE: [p]www. dell.com[p] with angle brackets instead of square ones... and of course without that extra space in there.
howlingmadhowie
10/01/07		 benjesuit: how can you honestly say there is a trace of standardisation in directX when there are so many arbitrarily different versions of it? microsoft changes and breaks whatever it will when it will. in stark contrast to that, openGL is a published standard. have a look here: openGL specifications. anyone who claims, openGL is a moving target and directX is static is a shim for microsoft.

in case you didn't know, there are openGL libraries for windows. as far as i know, they are installed by default. that's why games like doom3 or neverwinter nights run on a windows pc.

a lot of companies still do use openGL in their products. they do this for 3 reasons:
1/ their user base is predominantly non-windows. most of the large rendering softwares for films are rendered on linux farms, so the software uses openGL for the graphics engine.
2/ they have an old engine from before the time microsoft started making life hell for companies who write games based on openGL.
3/ they are concentrating on every architecture, not just windows pcs (for example games consoles, mobile phones, super computers... all of which run openGL based programs quite happily. Don't you think it's cool that you can take the same 3d-accelerated application and run it on a mobile phone as well as on a super computer? that's the strength of open standards).

DirectX is a bad product tied to a bad architecture (x86) and a bad operating system (Windows). it's only been held upright by illegal business practices and government sanctioned monopolies. and we all suffer because of it.
jorge
10/01/07		 Thanks kalstolyn, I also put two returns before a link (like I did at the bottom) but hate all the extra space.
benjesuit
10/01/07		 Howie...

We're talking about games. Games my friend. Just curious... are you a gamer? I am. Have been since the days of Pong.

And to say that there are arbitrarily different versions of DirectX omits the fact that current versions are backward compatible with previous versions. DX10 is the first version to somewhat break away from the previous. Besides, Doom3 runs on Directx as well as OpenGL and so do a few other titles like MOHAA and COD.

Big deal.

And no, OpenGl games do not port to every platform. You can't play CallOfDuty on your cell phone and expect the same rich experience that you get on the console or PC. Specs of these machines/devices differ radically. So OpenGL served nothing here.

For instance, I have EA's Madden NFL for the PC, PS3, and for my Dell Axim X50v.

Guess which one is the best version?

All of us gamers are happy. Sure we gripe about the costs of the latest and greatest hardware and the fact the developers keep creating games which require the lastest and greatest hardware to run max sliders. Or Nvidia's fumble with dx10 drivers. But for certain, we don't care about OS politics or arbitrary and relativistic moral grassrooting against monopolies. I mean, Nvidia is a veritable monopoly. So what? All we care about is graphics and gameplay. And there has never been a meaningful difference between the OpenGL or DirectX version of a game such that you hear gamers clamouring for either. We clamour for the specs of the Machine a particular version of the game is running on.

When you go to a Lan party, you don't see MAC users. Linux? LOL. Never.

Game developers don't really care about open standards and Linux because there is no real and meaningful market for Linux games. End of story until Linux shifts the paradigm in its favor by truly offering something radical that neigther MSFT or AAPL doesn't offer to some degree or another such that it begins to take a considerable share of the desktop market.

You want to play games on a PC? Suck it up and buy a copy of windows. You ain't playin' Halo on a PS3, nor a Mario brothers game on an XBOX. PC Gamers have to suck up the fact that your wallet lightens up every two years to buy top notch hardware upgrades.

Bring back combat flight sims!
howlingmadhowie
10/01/07		 benjesuit. you are a gamer. i am a programmer. with openGL libraries i can compile exactly the same code to run on my mobile phone and also on a super computer. you can't do that with directX, as virtually no super computers run windows (thankfully, and in spite of microsoft's recent "generosity" that isn't ever going to change). if the game will port depends of course of the ability of the HARDWARE to support the instructions involved. but seeing as it is an open standard, everybody is free to implement it. that is why openGL is used on super computers and mobile phones--using directX would be a) impossible and b) illegal.

gnu/linux offers something radically different from microsoft or apple. it offers you everything for free. you never need to worry about licenses, about being tied to a platform, about being locked up for pirating software, about losing your information in an update, about not knowing what your computer is doing. it is a radically different approach to how we as a culture treat knowledge. the proprietary world has the motto "never actually give anybody anything". the free software world has the motto "always give everybody everything". if you cannot see the value of that then i ask you at least not to make the world difficult for those who can.

linux will not take a considerable share of the desktop market until microsoft is reined in. saying that gnu/linux has to "offer something radical" to do this is nothing short of delusional. the battle between linux and microsoft on the desktop will be fought first and foremost in the courts. fortunately, the eu is gradually coming to its senses here, as is russia, and as with most human rights decisions of the last 50 years, europe will lead and america will drag its heels but at some stage follow.

so no, this whole thing isn't just about which games are available this year on the desktop. this is about how we as a culture deal with information. are people in the third world allowed to know how to build a bridge or dig a well or make a road? are we going to allow them to develop their own IT infrastructure or are we going to hit them jail time for stealing intellectual property when they stumble across the same mathematical laws we have already stumbled across? are we going to require them to buy software from one (1) foreign company so they can "interoperate" with the rest of the world?
benjesuit
10/01/07		 Paragraph 1: yep.

Paragraph 2. Yes, that is something. I see it. But at the same time I recognize the fundamental aspects of life on Earth as it relates to economics. Scarcity and the profit motive. Believe you me, I like free. Free as in price and free as in freedom. Love it. But the reality is, someone has to get paid. Otherwise, what really is the incentive to be a programmer? How will he/she eat if they give all their work away for free? Someone will have to support them. Someone who actually works/worked for a living.

Paragraph 3: Courts won't do it. Sorry to say. The problem is one of consumer preference. All that has to be done is to advertize Linux. Its strengths and weakness. Oh, and the fact that it's free. That's it. And then it'll be demanded. So long as consumers don't see an advantage to having it, it'll stay fringe. Dell, HP, Acer, IBM, Asus, Nvidia, Broadcom, etc. would all jump ship so long as there's an incentive to do so. In other words, MSFT can't do anything about demand if Linux is what consumers want. Hey, MSFT can't stop AAPL when it comes to MACs and Ipods. Why? Because people demand these things. AAPL knows exactly how to create demand and more importantly, brand recognition. And the funny thing is, AAPL is a veritiable monopoly. When you think digital music player, you think IPOD. Not Zune.

Paragraoh 4: Well, that's stretching the point. I mean, c'mon now. Linux/open source ain't gonna bring world peace or anything. Understand that the profit motive is natural. As natural as evolution. It is neither moral or immoral. It's a fact of life due to scarcity of resources. Though how you go about implementing a plan based on the profit motive might fall iall into question. So yes, altruistically speaking as well as philosophically speaking, knowledge should be free. But what you manifest with knowledge requires materials that are ultimately scarce. Somehow, somewhere, someone has got to pay.

Welcome to life on planet Earth. Ain't it grand?
davmcn
10/01/07		 Don't Make Dell tell them Email them yourself..i am sure they would be open to your ideas.
howlingmadhowie
10/02/07		 benjesuit: when it comes to zero marginal cost goods, there is no scarcity of resources. is their a scarcity of 2+2=4 in your neighbourhood?

before people start advertising linux, they have to be allowed to do so. this involves modifying the current contracts between windows and the oems. as it is, it is not in the interest of oems to advertise linux because microsoft will make their lives difficult if they do. that is where the courts step in. no oem can take microsoft to court, and consumers don't stand a chance in america (where courts can be bought) or europe (where there's no such thing as a class-action lawsuit), so europe is going to have to do it internally. well, at least microsoft has finally managed to piss off russia, which has up till now just enjoyed taking microsoft software for free and laughing about it and now won't touch the stuff.

when it comes to generating demand, apple does three things: 1) make their products look clean. 2) make sure they are not microsoft 3) charge more for them. that is the whole secret to apple's success. not much is it? no. apple just got lucky. many companies have done the same thing, apple just got favoured by chance. gnu/linux can only do one of these, except at a professional level (care to pay 20k for a copy of gcc from montevista? they're selling like hot cakes).

personally i don't think ipod, but that's just because i'm not in the market for a portable music player. provided it is possible to implement the music formats apple supports on other devices, i don't see a problem with a monopoly here. provided that is possible, is it possible to "play" microsoft word wherever you want? no it isn't. it barely runs under linux x86, thanks to wine, and doesn't run at all on *bsd. how about opening the documents microsoft word creates? there are some libraries which do a reasonable job of it, but i wouldn't want to spend my life working on one of them, knowing that it is so fleeting.

i would say that mp3 is a much worse monopolist than apple. mp3s cannot be freely created without breaking american patent law. everybody who does so can theoretically be taken to prison for it. microsoft and apple are rich enough to be able to negotiate deals with the patent holders--something software released under the gpl can never do. instead the foss programmers created something technically better in every way and totally free (ogg vorbis). the result? microsoft won't support it.

two things about the programmer not making money off free software. free software ensures that the programmer gets paid according to their ability. you want to make money? then write good software. someone will pay you (see samba, apache, linux, gcc, blender, openoffice.org, eclipse, netbeans...). there are thousands of jobs here for people writing free software and they all pay well. how many companies are there which really make money off closed-source software? microsoft and adobe spring to mind. the anti-virus software makers have made us think we need to pay money for something we can get for free. specialist areas also (think TRADOS, AutoCAD, Maya...). let me change the question? how many companies are there which make money off closed-source software while not making it artificially difficult for the customer to leave? (you just try changing your TRADOS database to a dejavu database).

secondly, you are assuming that just because you can make money doing something, you have the right to do it. i could make money mugging people, it doesn't mean i should do it. i could make money by taking people to court who share something they own with their friends. i could make money by making the cost to my customers of changing to another product artificially high and forcing paid updates on my customers.

free software is a chance of making the world a better place. knowledge is now a zero marginal cost good. it can be replicated an infinite amount of times for no cost. must you pay to learn about history or science? look it up in wikipedia. must you pay to learn about computer science? no, just download the source and start reading. every country has natural resources. if people in zambia had had the knowledge to build their own dams without outside help, how much money could they have saved? how much money could have been invested back into the local economy? well, we're giving them everything they need to build up their IT infrastructure so they have access to all the knowledge in the world, provided we let them.

you see, this is about colonialism. we are making zero marginal cost goods artificially scarce so we can force the third world into more debt. that is the modus operandi of microsoft atm. if they bribe enough governments, they'll extend their monopoly to other countries (as they have already done in china, for example). this will force these countries into artificial ignorance and tithing. that is what free software is trying to stop.
benjesuit
10/02/07		 A couple of things that are amiss.

You can't dive into marginal cost as if known fixed costs can be ignored. Paying a programmer? Fixed cost. Procuring the computer for him to program on? Fixed cost. Electricty? Fixed. Food? And so on and so forth. Everything that is required for the programmer to accomplish his task is a cost of production. And that cost never reaches zero - on a fixed basis or marginal one.

You can't ascribe zero marginal cost to information. Information has never been free. There's always someone who will charge for it in some form or the other. Always has been. No one is obligated to give information away for free.

Do you think learning is free? Nope. Not anywhere in the world. Someone, somewhere has to pay.

You gave an example of learning history and computer science. You must pay someone to teach you or pay someone for the tools to teach yourself. You even mentioned using wikipedia as if that's free. It's not. You have to pay someone to buy a computer. Then you have to pay someone for internet connectivity. You also have to pay someone for electricity. And so on and so forth.

Nothing is free on Planet Earth. Nothing. You might think that air to breath is free. It's not. You pay for the quality of air you breath depending on the location you choose to settle yourself. There's a cost to everything. There's no escape my friend. None.

And why is all this so? One word: scarcity. There is no unlimited anything in the universe. All is finite and must be calculated on that basis.

On AAPL and how they created demand. #2 is so far off base it only exposes your rabid hatred of MSFT. #3 is also nonsensical. They are able to charge a premium because they give the allusion that their product is worth a premium. That's called marketing. Just ask Daimler Benz. A Mercedes is not worth it's weight in gold, yet because of the image it historically protrayed, they can charge a premium for something that is less reliable than a Honda.

Lastly, the examples of theft you gave are not an example of making money. To make money means to earn it. To provide a good or a service for a cost to a consumer.

Now onto the other stuff.

There is no material barrier to advertising Linux. A non-profit organization can get the word out in print and video media. Think of campaigns like MADD (mother against drunk driving). Or truth.org. They're passionate about the social costs involved. It doesn't have to be Dell or some other OEM who advertises. If you believe that MSFT should be dethroned - put your money where your mouth is and get the word out about LINUX. MSFT can do nothing to stop you. They can only counter you be extolling the virtues of their OS by comparison.

Imagine a primetime TV spot paid for by a non-profit Linux advocate group that shows all that Linux can do... for free? Imagine the buzz that'll generate?

If enough people demand Linux, all that BS MSFT OEM punishing nonsense goes right out the window. Now, in order for MSFT to retain customers, they'll have to seriously compete and instead of disincetives, they'll have to engage with incentives. MSFT only has the power it has because there's no meaningful demand for desktop Linux. If 50 million people want Linux, there's nothing MSFT can do to stop it. Nothing.

Curious. Why not bugger AAPL to run Linux on their hardware? It tends to be better hardware than PC hardware. You do realize that AAPL is more a monopoly that MSFT. They've tied proprietary hardware with a proprietary OS.

You've got a lot to say and some good points. You only have to marry your idealism with reality and then you'd be on to something. Otherwise, it just looks like you're spinning "hippie-love" in the digital age.
aikiwolfie
10/02/07		 Can I just step in here. I'm not trying to save the world here. I want two things. I want to run Linux as my only OS and I want to play some decent games with it. Linux is more than capable of running games. It's not unusual for large companies to sponsor other smaller companies to produce a consumer product. Microsoft even went as far as actually buying some games developers when it produced the Xbox.
benjesuit
10/02/07		 "Microsoft even went as far as actually buying some games developers when it produced the Xbox."

Naturally. They had something monumental to gain. And that's the common theme.

What's in it for Dell? If Dell hasn't done it in the proven and lucrative market of PC games for windows, why on earth would they bother doing for the paltry desktop Linux market which hasn't proved any demand for commerical games?

Hey no harm in asking Dell to do it.
howlingmadhowie
10/02/07		 benjewuit: the difference between information and a chair is that the information is nowadays reproducible. i don't know why you can't see this. instead you say "well first you have to buy the computer". the important thing is, once you have access to a computer (and with projects like olpc, almost everybody will have access to a computer in the near future), you have no more costs to learn everything about everything, compared with the internet, books are large and unwieldy. a source of almost infinite information, countless times larger than the largest library that has ever existed is there at your fingertips. what are we going to tell those hungry for knowledge in poor countries? "no, you can't have access to this information, because you first have to pay us 300$ for the software to access it, because we're keeping the information locked up in a form where only this software can access it. and you're not allowed to know how this software works because that's our intellectual property"

and as to paying the programmers. i love programmers to get paid. i'm one myself, and i like it when i get paid. however i always release my code under the gpl. if someone wants me to write software for them, that is a condition i set. no one has yet complained. have a listen to what perens has to say about differentiating and non-differentiating software if you want to learn more.

btw, many people buy apple precisely because it isn't microsoft. apple has made a living out of being the underdog going against the norm. as long as apple supports open standards i don't mind them being a monopoly on their own hardware. if they start using proprietary, undocumented standards, well, who's going to take them seriously? the point being, you can't leverage a monopoly to put thousands of people out of work if you only have 5% of the market. you can do it if you have 95% of the market (which is how microsoft kills competitors).

btw, apple is perceived as a quality product precisely because they charge more, btw. this is a well known observation in economics, see veblen good.

i do not apologise for my idealism. i do not regard idealism as a bad thing. in this case i regard it as the only sensible choice. we have come so far. we have produced software better than anything proprietary projects have ever made and given it away for free to everybody who wants it. this is not the moment to preach moderation. we are only a short distance away from allowing free access to the sum of human knowledge to everybody on the planet. let's not falter here.

i find the idea of the tv add good. do you know the ibm linux add they did a while back? see it here.
aikiwolfie
10/02/07		 benjesuit Dell does have something monumental to gain. The freedom to develop their business according to their desires and their customers needs.
benjesuit
10/02/07		 Aikiwolfie,

Their desire is based on the profit motive. Pure and simple. Your needs do not indicate their customers' needs. Yours is strictly a minority need. Or niche need. One in which does not demonstrate any demand which in turn would have a meaningful impact on their bottom line.

I'm just giving it the straight dope treatment.

Hey, prove me wrong. Show that there is meaningful demand for your idea. And by meaningful, I mean in light of the sheer volume of business Dell does.
howlingmadhowie
10/03/07		 benjesuit: if dell required itself to sell every product it offered to a majority of customers they would have to cut their product range back...
benjesuit
10/03/07		 Really?

Nah. Maybe. But when Dell does a niche play, they, like any other business, does so when the margin justifies it.

XPS, high margin, relatively low volume.
Servers, high margin, moderate volume.

Games for Linux - low margin, low volume. Waste of time for now. But that could change if Linux takes a considerable share of the desktop OS market.
benjesuit
10/03/07		 @Howie,

On Veblen goods: Apple's products do not fall under that terminology. That term is reserved for things like yachts, fine jewlery, mansions, or other products whose prices are way out of line with similiar goods and appear to be exclusive whose desireablity increases with an increase in price. Plus, if the price of veblen goods were to drop, the preception would change and so would its desirability. Apple's products only carry a premium price over other similiar products. But there is no evidence that when their price increases so does the demand. Quite the opposite since Apple is known to have sales from time to time.

Ever hear of Ferrari having a sale? Or Rolls Royce? Or certain Architects who design mansions discounting their service? Etc. Etc.

On the reason why people buy MACs: Never in any business press have I read that people deliberately buy macs because it's not Microsoft. None of the people I know own one for that reason. I'd love to own a Mac, myself. But because of the business I'm in and the software I run, I can't. Sure, I could virtualize MS OS on it. Buy I need maximum performance. And why would I buy a MAC if I could? Because of their product design and the hip factor. Which, BTW, happens to be a primary reason why people buy Apple products. Look at any marketing magazine or anaysis of AAPL's business model.
aikiwolfie
10/03/07		 benjesuit ,

Linux and freedom of choice are amongst the most highly promoted ideas on Idea Storm. People clearly want Linux or at the very least the freedom to choose. Linux is a niche market because it's been artificially kept away from the desktop PC due to Microsoft's business tactics. However it is still a growing market. There is demand for Linux, which Dell has recognised. Which is why they now sell PCs preloaded with Ubuntu.

The games market is kept alive with innovation. The PC games market could seriously benefit from an OS that makes better use of the available resources. Linux is just such an OS. If a company like Dell were to inject a bit of cash that would allow games developers to at least give it a fair chance and start pushing out games software people are interested in buying, then demand for Linux would grow.
benjesuit
10/03/07		 Yep. There's demand for Linux no doubt. But it's miniscule in the grand scope of things. Dell sells million of PC per quarter yet only earmarked 20K units for Linux. And they stated that they were pleased with Linux PC sales. That's a euphemism that things are going as forecast.

That whole conspiracy theory of Linux has been kept away from the desktop by Microsoft's business tactics is bunk. It's Linux community propaganda that's routinely parroted by Linux advocates. I thought that way for a month a few years ago until I actually did my hoemwork and realized what is truly keeping Linux back - The Linux community. Especially the early days of Linux and all the problems it had. Today's Linux is far more polished and is nearly ready for the masses. But it has almost little commercial support where it counts. But commercial support for Desktop Linux is a catch 22. It'll happen when meaningful demand materializes. But how can material demand materialize if people are not aware of it intrinsic advantages and if it lacks commercial support? Best if people see "LINUX OS compatible" on peripherals they buy.

Anyway, Dell's not a corporate welfare organization. They're a for profit business. And currently, there's little if any profit to be made making games for Linux. PC gamers are more than happy with Windows and game developers have invested heavily in making games for the lucrative windows gaming market.

Baby steps. You want games for Linux? Help get Linux out the door and into the hands of the masses. Until then, everyone, especially gamers, are just going to smirk and chuckle over the idea of games for Linux.
aikiwolfie
10/03/07		 It's bunk? So companies like IBM are liars then? Microsoft aren't now going round the houses threatening law suits against Linux developers and distributors claiming Linux has infringed upon their software patents? Dell and other companies haven't tried to offer Linux in the past only to mysteriously shy away after Microsoft kicked up a fuss?

Put all that down to hear say and crack pots if you wish. The undeniable fact is there is a rapidly growing market for Linux. Even major main stream PC mags which used to cover Windows exclusively (and are for the most part games mags) are now more and more covering Linux and carrying distributions on their cover discs. Something that virtually never used to happen.
pkarlos_76
10/05/07		 I would support Del encouraging and sponsoring Linux Versions of games, some great games have been released for linux, such as Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, and much much more.......All these games come with linux versions even the latest incarnations of them.
pkarlos_76
10/05/07		 Just calrification, I don't Dell int he games business, but to include Linux versions of some great games with their Ubuntu Products as a bonus. Or encouraging people such as Blizzard to polish and release their in house linux versions of their games, including World of Warcraft.
pkarlos_76
10/05/07		 Just clarification, I don't wane Dell in the games business, but I want them to include Linux versions of some of the great games that come with linux versions with their Ubuntu Products as a bonus. Or encouraging people such as Blizzard to polish and release their in house linux versions of their games, including World of Warcraft.
aikiwolfie
10/05/07		 Exactly. I don't think Dell themselves should produce the games. But there's nothing wrong with them helping other companies meet the cost of providing games for Linux. Dell gains by making Linux look like a more attractive option, making Linux a less risky venture and the games publishers gain by reducing the financial risks to them selves by having another source of financing and also by opening up a new gaming market.

Software installed from on-line downloads is already common place in the Linux world. That means it would be relatively easy to push on-line distribution system that are already in place to the Linux community because it's a concept they are already familiar with.

Unless Linux suffered a catastrophic blow of some kind it's hard to see how this could fail.
benjesuit
10/05/07		 Aikiwolfie,

Yeah, as an excuse for Linux's paltry desktop marketshare, it's bunk. Look at Linux's marketshare in the server and supercomputer market? Everyone in the business except Linux's political advocates who are often far left socialists knows why demand for desktop Linux is paltry. Sure, demand for Linux is growing. But it's still paltry and not as "rapid" as you might wish to think. Fact.

Desktop Linux, given the many advantages of Linux, would explode if someone from the linux camp did two things:

1. Create an OEM company that uses an ODM to design and sell computers that have not only Linux preinstalled but have features you won't find on PCs or MACs.

2. Advertise.

As long as Linux continues to attempt to break into the desktop space that MSFT controls, the demand and marketshare for Linux will remain relatively low.

The major key to AAPL's success is the fact that they did #1&2 above unlike all the other OSs that have come and gone. Imagine if AAPL simply sold MAC OSX in a form that ran on the same PC's dominated by MSFT? MSFT and PC are synonymous. Just like MAC and OSX are.

AAPL even has their own proprietary music and video format. Linux could do the same while offering licenses for mp3 and m4a formats.

Bottom line: If Linux is all that, and I personally think it is, then stop trying to break into someone else's house and create your own house.
benjesuit
10/05/07		 @ Aikiwolfie, Dell is not in the business of subsidies. They're not going to defer costs for someone else without it being profitable for themselves. Including Linux versions of top tier games with Linux systems is fine. So long as it cost Dell nothing or offers an opportunity to increase their margin on LInux based systems.
howlingmadhowie
10/05/07		 benjesuit: you've gone way off base with your comment "stop trying to break into someone else's house and create your own house".

firstly, you compare and contrast the success of linux in areas, where microsoft had or has little or no presence with areas where microsoft has a monopoly. and then your conclusion is, linux (which is a free operating system kernel, btw) should buy an oem and offer something nobody has ever asked for or wants.

what would help linux would be an end to bundling of operating system with computers. this is plainly illegal and stifles competition. if oems were required by law to offer an option of no operating system on every computer they sell and clearly state the cost of a windows license, this situation would change almost overnight. until that happens, gnu/linux will not have the chance of going anywhere on the desktop. massive reeducation of the public is also necessary (you don't need internet explorer, you need a web browser...).
rgb66rgb
10/05/07		 howlingmadhowie:

> btw, many people buy apple precisely because it isn't microsoft

I bought an Apple precisely because I could run Windows on it. OS-X is pretty, fast and provides a great graphics and browsing experience, but when its time to make money I fire up my Vista session under Parallels to actually do some work. Until my Blackbird arrives. <g>
benjesuit
10/05/07		 @howie,

When you apply the same fervor against AAPL as far as bundling an OS with a machine, we'll talk. And they're not the only one who bundles a machine with an OS. :)
rgb66rgb
10/05/07		 howie:

>what would help linux would be an end to bundling of operating
>system with computers. this is plainly illegal and stifles competition.

Do you have a cite for this that applies to north america where Dell operates?
howlingmadhowie
10/05/07		 rgb66rgb: no you didn't buy an apple precisely because you could run windows on it. and you say so yourself in the same post.

benjesuit: apple is not in a position to hurt me. microsoft is, has already done so and will continue to do so. apple is pretty much irrelevant.

rgb66rgb: i do not have cites for every country in which dell sells computers. i know it is (probably) illegal in germany, and i imagine it's the case for europe in general, but i don't have facts about this. europe is also probably the biggest market for dell.
aikiwolfie
10/06/07		 If you're using iTunes Apple most certainly is in a position to hurt you. They largely control the music download market in the same manner as MS controls the PC market.

benjesuit Dell might not be in the business of subsidising other companies at the moment. Although I would say they are. But this thread isn't meant to be about what Dell is doing now. This thread is meant to be about what Dell could do to improve it's products and services. One way of improving the Linux product line is to make a contribution that helps to improve the content available for that product line.

If Dell are to offer Linux at all then it does make sense that they help to make sure the type of content users want is available.

Now given that Dell practically guarantees a percentage of Microsoft OS and office software sales, aren't they in effect subsidising Microsoft? Why is one of the worlds largest corporations being subsidised by the consumers of another company?

And just on the point about breaking into someone else's house. That is exactly what Microsoft did to Apple.
benjesuit
10/06/07		 Let the community or some other astute business person create a company that caters to Linux gaming. Dell is in the business of selling things. That's it.

Does Dell subsidize Microsoft? There's no possible way to make that case. Dell sells X amount of units per quarter. Microsoft gives Dell a volume discount based on that fact. Can Dell decide one day that they no longer wish to buy MS OSs and instead offer only Linux? Yep. And there ain't a damn thing MS can do about it. Nothing. But since the market demands an OS and specifically a MS OS, that is what Dell primarily sells with their systems. Without an OS, Dell reduces their marketshare dramatically as consumers demand an OS. Because of this simple fact, there's no way to make a viable case that Dell subsidizes MSFT. Dell directly profits by selling MSFT OS preinstalled. What is more, they pass the cost on to consumers.

If there is a way to pass the cost of financing Linux games to Linux consumers, then by all means. But I don't think that's possible at this time because there's no known demand for Linux games. It's a shot in the dark. If Linux commanded a significant share of the desktop OS market, certain assumptions could be made.

Did MSFT break into AAPL's house? I don't know, did they? I don't recall seeing a MAC sold with windows preinstalled. I thought that if you virtualized, you did so with a copy of windows you had to buy. Or had an activation crack for.
howlingmadhowie
10/07/07		 benjesuit:

dell is forced to subsidize microsoft by microsoft. dell is not allowed by microsoft to sell large numbers of computers without windows. either dell pays microsoft for every computer they sell, if it has windows on it or not, or they do not sell windows. there are no half measures here. dell is therefore forced to decide between being an exclusively windows shop for the desktop (which it is now), and being an exclusively everything-other-than-windows shop.

and as for this breaking into someone else's house thing--as a metaphor it is not helpful. apple had a large share of a computer market when every 20th person had a computer. there was no internet and very limited exchange of information in digital form. nowadays we have a situation where 98%+ of information is exchanged in digital form. these data formats are immensely important. are we allowed to understand them? are we allowed to learn and implement them? as long as a company does not actively hinder me in producing and consuming information in odf or ogg format, i don't care about this company. microsoft however does try to actively hinder me in producing and consuming open data formats, which i find morally unconscionable.

aikiwolfie: about iTunes--i have never used the service and also do not have any mp3s or a portable music player. i only own about 5 cds (I'm also a concert pianist, so i'm quite happy to make my own music when i want to hear music). if iTunes does make it impossible to understand and implement the format of the songs you download, i would obviously not approve of this.

the world has changed. information is now transferred digitally from a to b. the old distribution channels with ships, trains and hgvs full of physical media is dying. there's no way these distribution channels can keep up with bittorrent. the people who produce media must recognize this and go with the times. an attempt not to do so can only be successful if they take control of our own computers from us, and that price is ethically too high.
benjesuit
10/07/07		 Howie:

"dell is forced to subsidize microsoft by microsoft. dell is not allowed by microsoft to sell large numbers of computers without windows."

Are you sure you want to go with this?
howlingmadhowie
10/07/07		 benjesuit: yep. it's a standard part of any contract between an oem and microsoft. if the oem starts selling large numbers of computers without windows on them, it loses its cheap contract.
benjesuit
10/07/07		 And volume discount is... wrong?

So what about that subsidy argument?
winoffice
10/07/07		 I demoted because this has nothing to do with Dell. Why should Dell tell the game developers what to do? Besides, this idea is intended to encourage game developers to develop for Linux, and not to improve Dell.
winoffice
10/07/07		 I think it extremely stupid to develop games for Linux, considering the fact that most gamers use Windows anyway.
winoffice
10/07/07		 Another reason for my demote is in my comment above. After all, why develop games for Linux, considering the fact that most gamers use Windows anyway?
benjesuit
10/07/07		 It really is that simple. There's no known market for Linux games. There's barely a market for Mac games which continues to shrink. And MAC commands somewhat more of a market share than desktop Linux does.
howlingmadhowie
10/07/07		 and yet there are a number of companies which make a good living out of porting games to linux.
howlingmadhowie
10/07/07		 besides, the argument about there being no existing market is specious. i'm sure the first company to make microwaves didn't think "no one is buying microwaves at the moment, so there's no point in making them".

winoffice: all the software in the world won't help you if you don't have the necessary hardware. for example, you can't export SHA1 and MD5 encoding to a missing cryptographic card, and you can't print using a printer you don't have. i do not see why this is an argument against developing games for gnu/linux.

i spend some of my time on the irc.freenode.org ubuntu channel. at any one moment, there are about a thousand people in that one chatroom who are installing or using ubuntu 7.04. there are similar channels for the various (k/x/ed)ubuntu versions. i get the impression that most people there have a geforce7 or higher graphics card and are "power windows users" (whatever that may mean) who have just had enough of windows. i try to make the transition easier :) these people have the hardware to run modern games, and many of them end up doing so in wine or (un)official ports of opengl games. a market most certainly does exist for *nix games.
benjesuit
10/08/07		 You mean porting to or coding for the PS3 which runs Linux? Otherwise, what companies are you refering to which are making a nice living porting games for Linux?

And the microwave analogy isn't compatible. Unlike Linux which is not advertized, sold, or provides anything that uniquely and fundamentally addresses a need or is revolutionary, microwave ovens caught on for all the reasons Linux hasn't. Read about the first microwave oven, the Amana Radarange. Here you will find the keys to Linux's future sucess if heeded.

Sure, Linux market share on the desktop doubled from a year earlier. But is still less than 1% of total market share. As compared to AAPL's >6% market share. Source: net applications.

So, if gamers represent 20% - 30% of PC owners, what market is there for Linux games if the total desktop space for Linux is still less than 1%? If you were a business looking to make money sell games, would you waste time with Linux? OR would you go where the money is?
howlingmadhowie
10/08/07		 benesuit: i was thinking of companies like lgp.

gnu/linux does offer something revolutionary, something very different from everything you can buy in stores. gnu/linux cannot do anything more than it is doing. your entire argument seems to be "linux should become revolutionary, then it will catch on", without saying what you would regard as revolutionary in computing. i'm sorry, but you just haven't thought this through at all. instead you use a few buzzwords and hope that they will conceal your lack of argumentation. the most revolutionary feature list in the world won't help if there isn't software for linux which is 100% compatible with doc or ooxml or any of the photoshop formats. how can gnu/linux on the desktop go anywhere if nobody markets it and the top-tier oems aren't allowed to sell it preinstalled?

it is a fact that there is a market for linux games as a number of small, almost unknown companies (like lgp) make a living out of games for linux. you can choose to deny this fact, just as you deny a number of others, or you can stop sounding like a one-shot amateur advertising consultant.
benjesuit
10/08/07		 Linux game publishing? Oh boy. Yeah, now we're talking. Just goes to prove my point.

Ok Howie, if you feel you know what you are talking about, then by all means, put your money where your mouth is.

As for myself, I'll stick to real world facts. We'll perhaps discuss this again in 5 years and you'll see that things WILL more or less be as they are today.

I know why as well as the other tech analysts that get PAID to understand, research and know these things.

Have a nice one old friend.
aikiwolfie
10/23/07		 EA have claimed they would be in favour of a single open gaming platform as opposed to the four or five propriety systems we have at the moment. There idea being that as set-top boxes evolve to handle HD and interactive content they could also handle games. People could then simply switch to a Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft channel.

Linux is already widely used in embedded systems I think it would be well suited to this application.
howlingmadhowie
10/25/07		 aikiwolfie: the important thing being that whatever standardised gaming platform ends up being used, it is unencumbered with patents or other "intellectual property" issues. of course, getting microsoft to support something like that would be nigh on impossible, so what we will probably end up with will be a product which can only be developed for an distributed by a handful of extremely rich corporations.

btw, benjesuit. the world may well be different in 5 years, but only if legal decisions force microsoft to give up their monopoly. we have to be legally forced to use open data formats. until that happens, microsoft will be able to dictate our actions and the actions of companies such as dell here. not being willing to work with proprietary software and proprietary formats costs me many hundred euros a month, but i always say why i am not willing to do so, and if the customer really wants me to help them, they send me the information in an open format.
aikiwolfie
10/25/07		 Actually MS surprisingly enough did try something similar back in the 80s I think. Obviously it never caught on. However as people grow ever more tired of having an endless rats nest of cables everywhere I think such a high level of integration is becoming more and more attractive.

As for the open data standards I absolutely think this should be a requirement of any type of software. The UK government is now in a position where it has archives it can't access stored in long since abandoned proprietary file formats. I think that really is an unforgivable situation. Open standards would help avoid this in the future.
howlingmadhowie
10/25/07		 aikiwolfie: a large german company, which i won't name here, was recently asked by another large german company, which i also won't name here, to try to migrate their data system to the 21st century. parts of the data system were stuck on large mainframes bought in the early to mid seventies. huge computers, as large as rooms, swallowing 10s of kilowatts with replacement parts which have to be specially made and with the computing power of a modern pocket calculator. unfortunately, the documents on these machines are in some strange format which nobody can read. they of course tried to reverse-engineer the format and unfortunately couldn't manage it. the total cost was in the millions of dollars. i laughed when i heard it. it is of course a tragedy for the customers, who have to foot the bill, but maybe it will teach them not to go with a proprietary solution the next time.
aikiwolfie
10/28/07		 It should be a lesson to everybody. No software company supports it's software or the associated data file formats indefinitely. Even worse are the ones that don't even maintain proper documentation or refuse to release that documentation to their clients. Lock-in is a cancer that needs to be cured.

Exactly the same thing happens to games console owners and even PC gamers. New operating systems break old software. Even Linux can't get around that. But with open standards backwards compatibility is much easier to address because developers are all working from the same page. A developer from company "A" can still support a data file generated by software from company "B" decades later.

As for games development on Linux, in some respects it puts all the developers on a level playing field. They all have access to the internal secretes of the OS.

But that's not why Dell should support games development for Linux. PCs are used for recreation today as much as business. Irrespective of Linux or indeed the PCs current position in the games arena, Linux will be a more attractive product if it can match the competition every step of the way. If Dell is to make a commercial success of it's Linux products they need to be as attractive as possible. As attractive as Windows or the Mac or a PS3.
dwood
10/28/07		 you guys are long winded-> Games come after Dell begins to offer up Ubuntu.
aikiwolfie
10/29/07		 Dell has offered Ubuntu.
jorge
10/29/07		 On what two lame computers!
dwood
10/31/07		 Just have Dell keep promoting Ubuntu and hopefully other Free OS's, and developers will see that more and more of the market is an open-source Operating system, therefore take advantage of that and port more games to them.

Its a Domino effect. Dell needs to offer more models with Ubuntu to show they are serious about this, though.
dwood
10/31/07		 Double post!
benjesuit
10/31/07		 Dwood, yes, you're right. It really is as simple as that. Supply and demand. But to certain socialist minded individuals, such a concept appears to be alien. Taboo even. So they introduce all sorts of excuses and conspiracy theories in an attempt to explain away what amounts to low demand due in part to low awareness and low perception of quality due to low price(free).

Dell can promote Ubuntu in so much as there is demand for it. They can't create demand for it. And there is virtually no incentive for consumers to demand it currently. A $0-$50 price difference, no mainstream codecs, low specs, and learning curve is not going to attract mainstream users to switch to Ubuntu over Windows. Dell knows this as that's why Ubuntu is pitched to advanced users.
howlingmadhowie
10/31/07		 benjesuit: dell pitched ubuntu to advanced users on the most basic computers it offers. this is another example of the confusion in your thoughts. we are not talking about supply and demand here. we are talking about abuse by a monopoly and this should have been rescinded by governmental intervention when microsoft reached a monopoly position.

there is no incentive for a consumer to demand microsoft. the operating system is available in pirated form for no money, or the consumer already has a license. the consumer would still be able to install windows without buying it. being forced to purchase a windows license with a new computer is being forced to buy the same thing twice.

dell is not promoting ubuntu. dell is doing its best to bury their embarrassment here. but although they've hidden ubuntu away and only installed it on old computers unable to run windows vista, the waiting list for ubuntu continues to grow.

you know, benjesuit, the world does not hate linux as much as you suppose. mass deployments of linux computers in schools, governments, universities and companies is the rule in some parts of the world. unfortunately, dell cannot fulfill this demand directly, because of licensing deals with microsoft. this costs dell a lot of money, but not as much as if microsoft, in a fit of jealousy, decided to revoke the bonuses dell has accumulated.

i know you choose to ignore comments like this. i know you like to live in your perfect world where capitalism still exists. the truth of the matter is, capitalism (in the sense of a free market) died a long time ago and was replaced with the modern monarchies of exxonmobil, wal-mart, microsoft, at&t...
benjesuit
10/31/07		 Monopolies/ogligopolies are a direct result of a free market system. Meaning, unregulated. And generally, even in a capitialist system, true choice is an illusion. I think we went over that.

Rather than intejecting your political views and conspiracy theories, simply put, Dwood understands what it will take to get games on Linux. A significant market share. End of story.

And when did I say or even intimate that the world hates Linux? Linux is great. All it needs is marketing. Nothing MSFT could do to stop it if it were marketed properly. Nothing. Everything else is BS excuses.
aikiwolfie
10/31/07		 Either way folks Ubuntu Linux and probably other Linux flavours works just fine on higher-end systems like the XPS 700. Ubuntu is free!!! People can download it and install it themselves. Personally I think it would benefit Dell to have a choice in which OS it offers. Dell does have a choice. All it has to do now is bite the bullet.
dwood
10/31/07		 Ive understood the market for a while now. Microsoft is less of a tyrant than Macintosh. Seriously. compare the two.
What we should have is an idea that Ubuntu be available online on any computer they sell. And i think it is.
benjesuit
10/31/07		 I agree Dwood. I think it's pure political hypocrisy to be all up in arms over Microsoft, while giving Apple, Nvidia, and Intel a pass.

Aikiwolfie, well said and agreed.
howlingmadhowie
11/01/07		 benjesuit: apple is not capable of dictating data formats that governments use, so i'm not all up in arms about them. that nvidia only supplies a binary blob as a driver is one of the main topics of discussion in most gnu/linux forums, so we are all up in arms about them. intel supplies full documentation of their operation sets, so there's no need to be all up in arms about them for this. however intel does have some strange business ideas, for example exclusive contracts with retailers--something which should be illegal.

what i am trying to say is that there are a number of things holding gnu/linux back, not just non-existent advertising. until free software is available which offers 100% compatibility with microsoft data formats, gnu/linux will not be an option for a number of companies. until free software is available which offers support for all common media codecs, gnu/linux will not be an option for a numbers of consumers. it does not matter how much advertising takes place. these two things have to be addressed, and all the programming skill in the world will not address the legal problems here.
dwood
11/01/07		 I like AMD and the whole ATi route they went. I just wish that they had graphics cards that could compete with nvidia's.
aikiwolfie
11/01/07		 My only problems with Microsoft are the bully tactics it tends to favour and the ridiculous prices for it's products. Microsoft as a software company is perfectly entitled to use which ever data formats it sees fit to use. Although as I said earlier I think open standards should be mandatory.

I have to admit I've never understood the resentment some people have to Intel and Nvidia. Both companies operate in intensely competitive markets. If they lose the lead they could easily go under. Nvidia keeps it's source code secrete for good reason. It would be nice if they could relax a bit. But we still get a good deal. We get drivers for high-end kit for Linux from the source vendor which is still a rare thing. Similarly Intel contributes stacks of code to open source projects. Without the support of companies like Intel a lot of open source projects would die a death.

I don't know much about Intels business practices. But exclusive deals are nothing new. That's how car dealer ships are run. They have a franchise to sell a particular range of products from a single manufacturer. So what makes Intel different from Microsoft? They haven't killed off or bought out the competition in every market they've entered. In fact I'd say companies like AMD have benefited from Intels strong position. They been forced to produce a comparable product. But importantly there is still room left in the market for Intel and AMD to compete.

Apple is a company I never cared much about and still don't. There monopolization of the download music market is just as bad as Microsofts monopolization of the desktop PC market. As such I haven't bought an iPod or an iPhone and I don't intend to.

And I'd also just like to say Dell IdeaStorm works better under Ubuntu 7.10 + Firefox than it ever has with Windows + Firefox. The cookies have held and I haven't had to log in once. Well other than my initial log in.
dwood
11/01/07		 I mean, I like AMD, because its trying to compete, and as far as I can tell, is doing the same thing as Intel is and has. AMD has deals with gaming companies I swear, look at the specs for the past 7 years of the old Gaming systems

I agree with you on Macintosh. I prefer the .ogg format.
aikiwolfie
11/01/07		 AMD doesn't just deal with the gaming companies. It specifically targeted the games market because Intel pretty much had the corporate market in the bag and still does. But not with the sort of grip Microsoft has.

Microsoft and Apple are examples of what happens when a company is allowed to abuse it's position. Intel, AMD, Nvidia and ATI are examples of a healthy competitive market.
dwood
11/01/07		 I'd say Target, Kmart, and Wal-mart are healthy examples of this competition as well.
howlingmadhowie
11/02/07		 aikiwolfie: intel does have some strange deals with retailers along the lines of "if you ever offer computers which use amd processors, every product intel makes will suddenly cost a lot more for you". i'm not sure if amd does the same thing.
aikiwolfie
11/02/07		 You mean they have exclusive deals in some stores but not others? At the moment consumers still have a choice. Should Intels business practices remove that choice then there's cause for concern.
 
Atom feed track comments for this idea
Please log in to post a comment
recently promoted by: