Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sir_Cmpwn | Hacker News Reader

>Most games I play do not have Linux port

This is exactly the stupid mindset I'm talking about. You can play different games! It's okay, really, to play different games! Other games are fun too!

Here's an incomplete list of multiplayer games that run natively on Linux, sourced from my own steam library and the popular linux games on steam:

- Rocket League

- CS:GO (and CS:Source)

- Rust

- Garry's Mod

- Terraria

- Insurgency

- Borderlands 2 (+ pre-sequel)

- Civ V

- Left 4 Dead (1 & 2)

- Dota 2

- Torchlight II

- Team Fortress 2

- Battleblock Theater

- Natural Selection 2

- PAYDAY 2

You like multiplayer games? Great! There's loads of them on Linux, and they're all super fun. You don't need to play the same games as Windows to have fun.

View on HN

But most (I think all) of those are on Windows. It's not just different, it's strictly inferior.

You're missing my point. Does Linux have fewer games? Yes. But Linux is absolutely a viable gaming platform and the other benefits to using Linux over Windows are extremely compelling.

What are the other benefits from your perspective?

To me, they are:

- license cost (a small hurdle if you're buying $60 games)

- open source (mainly a moral/ideological advantage rather than a practical one)

- developer tooling (minimized if you use tools like Docker or Vagrant)

Refer to my list of Windows shortcomings here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14819706

I'll also add:

- WAY more customizable and flexible

- Can enjoy a smug sense of satisfaction as Windows users are hit by ransomware

- Does not spy on you

- Runs great on everything, including >10 year old hardware

It's also not driven by corporate interests. The #1 goal of Microsoft is to make money, and they'll put that before the needs of the user. Things like Windows 10 forced upgrades, spyware, ads in Windows explorer, etc - none of this would fly on Linux because Linux is made by people who just want the best possible operating system, not the one that monetizes uses the most effectively.

You're missing his: that he feels (or wishes to explore the possibility) that it's a strictly inferior platform because it's not "extremely compelling" unless you've already bought in. You do not get to tell him that those benefits are "extremely compelling". That is a relative thing and you don't get to tell him what he finds compelling.

This arrogant prescriptivism is what you did last time, too. You did this last time this came up by trying to slag me because I didn't want to waste hours of my life debugging weird edge-case issues with Linux as a desktop operating system (and, funny story, Ubuntu 16.04 hard-locks on my desktop when I plug in a bog-standard USB sound card, that's cool, and has DVI timing and desync problems between my monitor and the graphics card--this is fiiiine, everything is fiiiine). You have decided it's compelling for you. That does not mean stating "it's compelling" makes it so for a single, solitary other soul.

You are frothing and should chill.

I'm pretty sure I said this last time, too - don't buy hardware that doesn't work with your software. Do some due diligence on the shit you buy.

Or don't care and use something else. I now run a literally problem-free Hackintosh dual-boot and life is great. With hardware better supported on a literal hack system than on Linux. (Didn't buy hardware intending for a Hackintosh, either; I just happen to tend towards Gigabyte motherboards and Intel processors and everything shook out great.)

Linux isn't "my software", so why would I buy hardware for it--especially when nothing else has a problem with it? Your OS is not special no matter how much you yell at people on HN about it. Your OS doesn't matter to anyone else no matter how much you yell at people on HN about it. Attempting to put the onus of "due diligence" on the people you want to do something is just straight-up nuts--and, tbh, the same rhetorical evasion that's come out of the Linux zealot camp for decades now because it's easier than acknowledging problems and that the things you like aren't universally appropriate.

And the thing is, you actively are providing great rhetorical reasons to not listen to people who do have a sense of user empathy--which you lack, it seems, as you would rather browbeat people into using it than understand why they don't and maybe make it a better value proposition--and want people to use Linux. You're literally, precisely acting against the interests you purport to hold!

When you're in a hole, just...stop digging, dude.

I'm not in any kind of hole here. Maybe you're projecting your experiences with other Linux users on me. I'm clearly explaining my viewpoint and reasonably giving answers to critiques of it. If Linux is not for you, then so be it, but I disagree with your reasons and I am free to express that.

Re-reading this discussion only shows one of us being unreasonable and abrasive. I don't care to engage you any further unless you change your attitude.

Every time you post about desktop Linux here the starting point is "people should be using this because I like it." Criticisms are deflected with "well, don't do that"--guess what? People are gonna "do that" because they do it with literally everything else. "Do some due diligence on this thing I want you to use" is as unreasonable as it gets, champ.

But it's me being unreasonable. And abusive--I laughed aloud, dude.

Okay, but when did Linux become my software?

The implication here is that should you find the advantages of Linux compelling, you would factor that into your consumer choices. "I bought a hundred gallons of desiel but I couldn't get it working in my sedan so I'll just stick to the truck"

And if I don't buy a Fiat 500e because it only has a range of 84 miles, do you think "you can go different places!" would be a persuasive argument?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com